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

Vikram Jagannathan vikkyjagan at gmail.com
Wed Oct 1 09:52:44 EDT 2025


Namaskaram Michael ji,

Apologies from my end too.

<< why are you distinguishing the jnani from an ajnani gaining jnana?? How
will you reconcile teachings such as these... >>

The difference posited between a "jnani" and "ajnani gaining jnana" herein
is only an illustration to drive home the difference between Brahman
("jnani" herein) and a vyavaharika jnani ("ajnani gaining jnana" herein).
The difference is that from Brahman the universe is asat whereas from jnani
the universe is mithya. Within the illustration, from "jnani" perspective
rope is sat and snake is asat, whereas from "ajnani gaining jnana"
perspective rope is sat and snake is mithya. Outside the scope of this
illustration, you are correct that both "jnani" and "ajnani gaining jnana"
are the same in vyavaharika and is Chaitanya in paramarthika.

<< Good question that is handled in bhasya to Gita 2.16, which notes that
existence and non-existence belong to ignorance/vyavaharika only. So, the
notion of an object 'taken to be real' is itself an error/superimposition.
The snake is taken to be real; the rope is what remains unchanged. Excluded
middle maintained >>

Yes, excluded middle is maintained in this perspective but the definition
of real is no longer applicable. Real is that which remains unsublated by
any other knowledge at any point in time. This is not the case with the
snake as it is sublated by the subsequent knowledge of the rope. Within
your statement "The snake is taken to be real; the rope is what remains
unchanged" the snake is only mistaken to be real whereas the rope is
actually real. Hence there is a distinction between the two. Moreover
neither are unreal; hence forming a triad of actually real, mistaken to be
real, unreal.

My point is that the law of excluded middle is applicable for scenarios
with 2 options that form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set. The
Advaitic definition of satya and asatya do not form such a pair in
vyavahara, hence it is not illogical to accomodate a 3rd intermediate
indeterminate mithya that completes the set. In paramarthika it is sat
alone and the excluded middle is maintained.

prostrations,
Vikram


On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 9:37 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Vikram,
> Sorry for the delay in responding. I abbreviate the brevity but fear I've
> missed some of your points.
>
> //When a jnani perceives a rope, all they see is just the rope; and the
> rope is real. For them the snake is non-existent. Law of excluded middle
> holds good.
> In both these cases, per-se, the "law of excluded middle" is honored.
> However, the situation is different when an ajnani gains jnana drishti. The
> plane of reference changes, and the previously seen snake is now declared
> as mithya. The law of excluded middle is inapplicable in this case with
> respect to the earlier perception.//
>
> --why are you distinguishing the jnani from an ajnani gaining jnana?? How
> will you reconcile teachings such as these...
>
> ·        In the same way, one who was ignorant of the Self and who is
> awakened from this ignorance by the Vedic text (sruti) sees nothing other
> than his own Self. The Teacher (guru), the texts and he himself as deluded
> individual soul have all disappeared. (Nais Siddhi 4.37)
>
> ·        'There is no plurality here' (Brhad. 4.4.19)
>
> ·        'He goes from death to death who sees the appearance of
> plurality here' (Brhad 4.4.19)
>
> ·        'When, however, this soul makes in this one the smallest
> interval (difference), then, for him, there is fear' (Taitt. 2.7),
> //Do you agree to the definition of real being unsublated by any other
> knowledge at any point in time? If so, flipping your question back to you,
> "taken to be real" - does it mean real or not (law of excluded middle)? If
> real, it has to continue remaining real and unsublated by a different
> prama. Is that the case?//
> Good question that is handled in bhasya to Gita 2.16, which notes that
> existence and non-existence belong to ignorance/vyavaharika only. So, the
> notion of an object 'taken to be real' is itself an error/superimposition.
> The snake is taken to be real; the rope is what remains unchanged. Excluded
> middle maintained
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 10:15 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Subbuji,
>> I appreciate your patience. I have read through your link and the Tait
>> bhasya 2.6.1 but find it extremely weak evidence to accept three states of
>> existence. The text is saying nothing about three states but simply
>> distinguishing an object from a non-object. Repeatedly the text calls all
>> creation namarupa including true and not-true. Thus, water that quenches is
>> true whereas mirage water is not-true. These are relative values within
>> vyavaraharika but not distinct states along with Paramarthika.
>>
>> Alternatively, here is a quick but pointed selection of teachings
>> declaring the sameness of waking and dream, object and thought of object,
>> jiva and the world. I don't see how you can justify your peripheral example
>> against such categoric declarations as below. 🙏🙏🙏
>>
>>
>> The (supposed) distinction between the two kinds of experience
>> is itself imagined' (G.K. 2.14).
>>
>> Mental objects are verily extern~ and external objects are verily mental'
>> (Chand. Sh.
>> 8.5.4).
>>
>> 'Because of the well-known reason
>> that the characteristic distinctions (into subjective and objective
>> factors) are common to both
>> states, the wise have called the waking and dream states one' (G.K. 2.5)
>>
>> The idea and its object are in mutual dependence. The idea is dependent
>> on the soul or its other
>> objects for its existence. And the soul and other objects of the idea are
>> dependent on the latter
>> for their existence. (In the case of the soul at least,) soul and idea
>> are each objects for the other.
>> Therefore, when the question is raised, '\vhat is the idea and \vhat is
>> the object of the idea?"
>> people of insight say, "They are neither of them anything". In a dream,
>> there is neither a real
>> elephant nor the real idea of an elephant, and people of insight see that
>> the same is the case here
>> in the waking state. Why is this so? Because neither idea nor object is
>> capable of being either
>> defined or proved. Each is apprehended in dependence on the other. The
>> pot cannot be
>> apprehended without the idea of the pot, and the idea of the pot cannot
>> be apprehended \vithout
>> the pot The meaning is, "There is no distinction benveen idea and pot
>> \vhereby one could be
>> established as the proof of the other"' GK4.67
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 5:14 AM Hari R via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Tameva bhantamanubhati sarvam
>>> tasya bhaasa sarvidam vibhaati
>>>
>>> Explains the same idea beautifully.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6 is the famous mantra, a part of
>>> which
>>> > reads:
>>> >
>>> > अथात आदेशो नेति नेति न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्त्यथ नामधेयं
>>> सत्यस्य
>>> > सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ ६ ॥
>>> >
>>> >  Now therefore the description (of Brahman): 'Not this, not this.'
>>> Because
>>> > there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not
>>> this.'
>>> > Now Its name: "The Truth of truth.' The vital force is truth, and It
>>> is the
>>> > Truth of that.
>>> >
>>> > The gist of the mantra is: the term 'prāṇā:' signifies the entire
>>> creation,
>>> > both at the individual level and the cosmic level. At the individual
>>> level
>>> > we have the subtle body, the sense organs, that illumine the creation
>>> > outside the body. The world outside, being insentient, get illumined
>>> by the
>>> > subtle body/organs. This two-fold categorization can be compared to the
>>> > 'kṣetram' (field) of the 13th chapter of the Bh.Gita. There too in the
>>> 5th
>>> > and the 6th verses the entire kṣetram is presented as consisting of the
>>> > subtle body of the individual and the outside world. This is termed
>>> > 'satyam', in its primary sense, vācyārtha. And the 'satyam' of that
>>> > ('prāṇā:' - kṣetram) is Brahman, the absolute Satyam.
>>> >
>>> > From the above study of the mantra, we derive the meaning: the first
>>> > 'satyam' (satyasya) is the created world. This has only a
>>> > dependent/relative reality. It derives its reality from Brahman, the
>>> > Absolute Satyam.
>>> >
>>> > It is interesting to note that we have a verse in the Bhagavatam that
>>> > brings out the above two levels of reality:
>>> >
>>> > आत्मानमेव आत्मतया अविजानतां
>>> >
>>> > तेनैव जातं निखिलं प्रपञ्चितम् ।
>>> >
>>> > ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते
>>> >
>>> > रज्ज्वां अहेर्भोगभवाभवौ यथा ।। 10.14.25
>>> >
>>> > A person who mistakes a rope for a snake becomes fearful, but he then
>>> > gives up his fear upon realizing that the so-called snake does not
>>> exist.
>>> >
>>> > Similarly, for those who fail to recognize You, Brahman, as the Supreme
>>> > Soul of all
>>> > souls, the *expansive illusory material existence arises,* but
>>> knowledge
>>> > (realization) of You (Your True Nature) at once causes it  (the
>>> variegated
>>> > world of plurality) to subside.
>>> >
>>> > In the above verse we see the expression of relative reality, the
>>> world,
>>> > and the Absolute Reality, Brahman. This is exactly the teaching of the
>>> > Upanishad through the pithy statement: satyasya satyam.  The rope is
>>> the
>>> > Satyam and the snake is the satyam, in the analogy of the Bhagavatam.
>>> There
>>> > itself, the relatively real, the world, is contrasted with the
>>> Absolutely
>>> > Real, Brahman. The state of ignorance is signified by the world and the
>>> > state of realization is conveyed by the term Brahman. One can recall
>>> the
>>> > verse 2.69:
>>> >
>>> > या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी ।
>>> >
>>> > यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ॥ ६९ ॥
>>> >
>>> > 2.69 The self-restrained man keeps awake during that which is night
>>> for all
>>> > creatures. That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the
>>> > seeing sage.
>>> >
>>> > Here the waking and sleep are symbolic of real and unreal: For the
>>> Jnani,
>>> > the waking means the Absolute Truth. For the ajnanis waking is to the
>>> > relative world.
>>> >
>>> > The relatively real has no reality of its own and hence is only
>>> dependently
>>> > real, paratantra satyam. On the other hand, Brahman, the Absolute
>>> Reality,
>>> > does not need to acquire reality from any other source. The world needs
>>> > reality from Brahman. All this is implied by the Upanishadic statement:
>>> > satyasya satyam.
>>> >
>>> > Why does the Upanishad call the vyavaharika, the world, 'satyam'?  The
>>> > Upanishad is alluding to, doing anuvāda of, the uninformed person
>>> holding
>>> > the world to be real, untaught.  This has to be corrected. Hence the
>>> > Upanishad *as though* holds the world to be satyam and goes on to
>>> teach, in
>>> > the manner of 'from the known to the unknown', and the
>>> adhyāropa-apavāda
>>> > nyāya, the truth that Brahman is indeed the absolute Satyam.
>>> >
>>> > There are many such verses in the Bhagavatam that carry the Upanishadic
>>> > purport.
>>> >
>>> > Om Tat Sat
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> >
>>> > For assistance, contact:
>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>> --
> 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/CAAz9PvHVbxgGmD4Mh%2BKBnQ-%3DESUG83REfJWWu87cKceKC5L6Qw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHVbxgGmD4Mh%2BKBnQ-%3DESUG83REfJWWu87cKceKC5L6Qw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list