[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: 'Satyasya Satyam..' of the Upanishad explained in the Bhagavatam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 5:49 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
> Sir, somehow, somewhere, I thought you implied through the Tait reference
> support for introducing pratibhasika satta as distinct from vyavaharika.
> Otherwise, I agree with what you are saying - there is a necessity to
> accept the existential status of vyavahara - how else to explain our
> conversation. That is clear. The issue between us and perhaps off topic, is
> defining what is meant by existential status. Is it other than or different
> from the illusory nature of pratibhasika satta. You say, yes because of the
> difference Sankara is drawing between waking water and dream water,  I am
> saying, weak defense, anything better? Just to be clear.
>

Namaste Michael ji,

Yes, Shankara does, on the basis of the Tai.Up. passage, accepts three
states of Reality.  The distinction between vyavaharika and pratibhasika is
also specifically stated by him with that analogy. It is certainly a case
of 'existential status'. This is because the three 'existences' differ from
each other on the basis of their 'status'. I had clarified earlier that the
prātibhasika satya is called so because the imagined snake is 'existing'
for that person under the sway of that error. Till the correction happens,
for him, the snake exists.  Hence it is called so: apparent existence.
That is its status.  The vyavaharika is also held to be existent to the one
under the sway of the avidya pertaining to his true svarupa, Brahman. Hence
it is named so.  Till Brahma jnana dispels that avidya, the existence of
this is having that status.  And Paramarthika Satya is for Brahman which is
signified by the term Satyam in the Tai.Up. 'satyam jnanam anantam' and the
Brihadaranyaka 'Satyam' as opposed to the other 'satyasya' which is
actually vyavaharika.


>
> Regardless, I found your citations interesting:
> //(In BS) 3.2.4, Shankara says:  Nor should it be concluded that the
> world of waking made of ether, etc. elements is* not absolutely real.* We
> have eminently established in BSB 2.1.14 that the entire world (including
> the dream and sleep) is illusory: māyāmātra. Prior to the realization of
> Brahman, the waking world remains in an orderly fashion. The world of
> dream, though, is negated everyday upon waking. //
> --This IS a fair defense of pratibhasika satta but I read it as two
> different drsti-s rather than states.
>

You may choose to do so, but Shankara calls it Paramartha satyam and
vyavaharika satyam.


> --What does Shankara mean where he says the waking world should be taken
> as '*absolutely real'? *This might make sense if avidya is simply
> non-recognition.
>

It's actually 'waking world should NOT be taken as '*absolutely real'. *He
says this because this reality ascribed to the waking world is subject to
annulment when Brahma jnana arises. In other words, Shankara means to say
that it is only relatively real, āpekṣika satyam, as he calls that in the
Tai.Up.

>
> Then in BSB 2.1.14, //: The distinction between the Enjoyer and the
> experienced inert world was stated as a matter of vyāvahārika//
> --mustn't that be taken as refuting any kind of avidya-lesa? Even
> sAkshi/sAkshya distinction is avidya and subject to change and all the
> other limits of duality.
>

No, it's not a refutation of 'avidya leśa', called by the name 'samskāra'
by Shankara. The distinction between enjoyer and the experienced world
persists in the state of avidya. But in truth there is no such distinction
as established in 2.1.14 where the effect is established to be non-diff
from the cause.


> --off topic and needn't require a reply
>
> Lastly, your comment on Gita bhasya 13.2 saying, //There are two
> requirements mandatory for liberation: 1. the knowledge that one is
> distinct from the inert prakriti and 2. that this* prakriti is
> non-existent. //*
> *--'prakriti is non-existent'  as a requirement? please discuss though
> also off topic *
>

Yes, that the knowledge required for liberation is two-fold: 1. that the
kshetrajna consciousness is distinct from the kshetram, inert. This, the
non-Advaitins, even Sankhya, Nyaya, Yoga, endorse. But the 2. the
non-existence of prakriti - is a must in advaita, otherwise it won't be
Advaita. That is the difference.

warm regards


> *🙏🙏🙏 *
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes sir, I recognize that on occasion Bhasyakara will acknowledge
> vyavarharika as provisionally real FOR THE IGNORANT MIND. And indeed, who
> could deny the fears, hopes and desires that motivate us. But this is the
> common empirical view whereas sastra employs its own view intended to rid
> us of this misconception and instill the teaching that portrays the
> paramarthika view. The issue between us, between post-Sankara Advaita and
> the strict reliance on Bhasya alone is
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 6:52 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 4:57 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Subbuji,
>>> Please help me understand, the Tait bhasya is referring to how Brahman
>>> created the world, as it were, 'entered into' it as well, and now answers,
>>> what Brahman does after it enters ."It became the formed and the formless"
>>> which nonetheless "still continue to be inseparable from the Self in time
>>> and space." Then, from this premise follows the notions
>>> of vyavarhara vishaya and paramartha satta,  Then peripheral to the main
>>> discussion comes this notion of water as the vishaya of vyavarhara and
>>> mirage water as anrta. And you are saying It is by virtue of this last
>>> sentence ALONE in the whole bhasya, that you wish to establish pratibhasika
>>> satta as a distinct state from vyavaharika. Please, do I have that right?
>>> Are there other references you can easily share? Regards, 🙏🙏🙏,
>>>
>>
>> Namaste Michael ji,
>>
>> Please do not conclude that the statement of different levels of reality
>> is a peripheral matter.  In truth, this idea is crucial to the Shankara
>> Advaita.  It is the seminal point of Advaita.  Its pervasion throughout the
>> prasthana traya bhashya is something to be seen, realized, to be
>> appreciated. I shall mention a few out of the countless instances where
>> this concept is repeatedly highlighted by Shankara.
>>
>> In the Brahma sutras is a section to determine the state of dream.  There
>> in 3.2.4, Shankara says:  Nor should it be concluded that the world of
>> waking made of ether, etc. elements is* not absolutely real.* We have
>> eminently established in BSB 2.1.14 that the entire world (including the
>> dream and sleep) is illusory: māyāmātra. Prior to the realization of
>> Brahman, the waking world remains in an orderly fashion. The world of
>> dream, though, is negated everyday upon waking.
>>
>> At the beginning of the very long bhashya for BSB 2.1.14, Shankara
>> recalls what was said in the earlier portion: The distinction between the
>> Enjoyer and the experienced inert world was stated as a matter of
>> vyāvahārika. But this distinction does not exist in the pāramārthika since
>> the cause and effect are non-different from each other.  Thus Shankara
>> holds the world of experience to be unreal from the absolute standpoint.
>>
>> In the commentary to the last verse of the 13th chapter of the Bh.Gita,
>> Shankara says, following the Gita teaching there: There are two
>> requirements mandatory for liberation: 1. the knowledge that one is
>> distinct from the inert prakriti and 2. that this* prakriti is
>> non-existent. *
>>
>> In fact this verse is a mirror-verse of the 2.16 where too this teaching
>> is contained, though in different words: That which is existent, Brahman,
>> the Paramartha Satyam, will never go out of existence.  And that which is
>> not there, will never gain existence. This corresponds to the Self and the
>> not-self of the 13th ch.last verse.
>>
>> In the Mundaka Bhashya Shankara says: the entire creation is a figment of
>> imagination of the mind.
>>
>> One can give examples endlessly from the Bhashya, the Vartika and
>> Gaudapada for the idea of two types/levels of reality.
>>
>> There are innumerable such instances where Shankara has pointed to the
>> two types of reality.  It's this feature of Shankaran Advaita that sets it
>> apart from the other schools of Dvaita, etc.
>>
>> warm regards
>> subbu
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0gjZfBsyo1t2_mnUSb5SXspppAYgmqT-mXLrpLKy45-A%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0gjZfBsyo1t2_mnUSb5SXspppAYgmqT-mXLrpLKy45-A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvH230aFgx0MCmLyh83ymYLz6C%3DR0WZX2xm58FBs3AbzHg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvH230aFgx0MCmLyh83ymYLz6C%3DR0WZX2xm58FBs3AbzHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>