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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji,
First,  Is Gita 13.2 the only best reference in PTB for anadi jiva?

//So, the Upanishad says: Brahman became the entire universe and gave the
break up from several angles. This includes the three types of Reality.  //"
I asked Chatgpt 5, " post sankara advaita make a distinction between
vyavahara satta and pratibhasika satta that isn't found in bhasya sankara.
Both of course accept paramartika satta. Find citations from bhasya"

I found it interesting that Chat's answer referred specifically to our Tait
terms with a distinctly different understanding than you have offered. I
have not confirmed other citations.

You’re right that the later “three-tier”
labels—*prātibhāsika–vyāvahārika–pāramārthika
sattā*—are not Śaṅkara’s own terminology. In the bhāṣyas, Śaṅkara
explicitly contrasts *paramārtha-satya* with a *vyavahāra/āpekṣika*
(contextual, comparative) “satya,” while illusory items are called *anṛta /
mithyā / bhrānti-jñāna / adhyāsa*, not “prātibhāsika-sattā.” Here are clean
places to cite *from Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya*:

   1.

   *Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6 (on “satyam ca anṛtam ca satyam abhavat”)* —
   Śaṅkara spells out the two levels in so many words:

   *सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि
   परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं
   मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युछ्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् ।*
   (Adbhutam's Blog
   <https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
   )
   (“‘Satyam’ here is of the realm of *vyavahāra*, by context, *not* the
   *paramārtha-satya*; the one paramārtha-satya is Brahman. And in this
   world the vyavahāra-domain ‘truth’ is *āpekṣika* (comparative): water
   etc. are called ‘true’ only *relative* to illusions like mirage-water;
   *anṛta* is the opposite.”)

   2.

   *Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4 (vācārambhaṇa)* — Śruti’s “*mṛttikety eva
   satyam*” underwrites Śaṅkara’s paramārtha/ vyavahāra reading: the
*substratum
   alone is satyam*; all “forms” are merely *names* in vyavahāra. (See
   text+commentary presentation.) (Shlokam
   <https://shlokam.org/texts/chandogya-6-1-4/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>)
   3.

   *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad bhāṣya (III.5.1 context)* — Śaṅkara contrasts
   *paramārtha* and *vyavahāra* explicitly; the tradition often cites his
   line (at III.5.1) that worldly *vyavahāra* proceeds as conditioned by
   *paramārtha*—showing the two-level vocabulary in the bhāṣya itself. (Wisdom
   Library
   <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118356.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
   )

What you *don’t* find in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣyas is the formal noun
*“prātibhāsika-sattā.”* Illusory cases (rope-snake, nacre-silver, mirage
water) are treated as *mithyā / anṛta / bhrānti / adhyāsa* within
vyavahāra, not as a separately named “level of sattā.” For the classic
rope-snake/nacre-silver usage in Śaṅkara’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya, see
standard editions and translations that quote these examples in the bhāṣya
exegesis. (Wisdom Library
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)

If you want, I can pull page-exact Sanskrit from a specific edition (e.g.,
Anandagiri-ṭīkā ed. for BṛU, or a particular TU-bhāṣya printing) to match
your citation style.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:26 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 5:33 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Subbuji,
>> //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.  //
>>
>> //Yes, Shankara does, on the basis of the Tai.Up. passage, accepts three
>> states of Reality.//
>> You will have to show me exactly how this passage can be interpreted as 3
>> states of reality. I repeat my earlier understanding:
>> "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.
>>
>
> I am surprised you still have doubts about this.  Those passages are about
> creation, how Brahman creates the world. So, the Upanishad says: Brahman
> became the entire universe and gave the break up from several angles. This
> includes the three types of Reality.
>
>>
>> //The distinction between vyavaharika and pratibhasika is also
>> specifically stated by him with that analogy. //
>> yes, I can see how that might follow Post-Sankara/PS bias but  it is that
>> sentence that I call weak evidence
>>
>
> I think it's an art to somehow deny the meaning of innocent passages of
> Shankara and attribute them to Post-Shankara.
>
>>
>> //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. //
>> personhood/seer and the snake/seen belong to the same order of reality.
>> Personhood is just as imagined as the illusory snake. But you are saying
>> the person holding the illusion is different enough from the illusion
>> to seek and gain moksa. I believe that concurs with Madhusudhana's jiva as
>> one of the 6 anadi-s.
>>
>
> Actually the idea that jiva is anādi is in the Bhagavad gita itself:
>
> प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि । विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि
> प्रकृतिसम्भवान् ॥ १९ ॥    13.19
>
> 13.20 Know both Nature and also the *individual soul* [Prakrti is
> sometimes translated as matter, and purusa as spirit.-Tr.] to be verily
> without beginning; know the modifications as also the qualities as born of
> Nature.
>
> Bhasya's teaching however, as pointed out by SSSSji, is that jiva/jagat,
>> bondage/liberation must be understood as sastra's superimposition.
>> Jivatvam is an error of understanding - there ever was a jiva who was
>> bound. All in line with Karika 2.32
>>
>
> For that matter the entire shāstra is a superimposition.
>
>>
>> //Nor should it be concluded that the world of waking made of ether,
>> etc. elements is* not absolutely real.//*
>> *double negatives confuse meaning*
>>
>
> I think there was some mix up in the above. It should be ////Nor should
> it be concluded that the world of waking made of ether, etc. elements is*
> absolutely real.//*
>
> *Best regards*
>
>
>>>> --
> 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/CAKk0Te1-AoLbaR_aB%2BWVM9UDjf3puYgVKKmp2VZAb6mY3%2B3OFQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1-AoLbaR_aB%2BWVM9UDjf3puYgVKKmp2VZAb6mY3%2B3OFQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>