[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: 'Satyasya Satyam..' of the Upanishad explained in the Bhagavatam
Vikram Jagannathan
vikkyjagan at gmail.com
Thu Oct 2 21:51:44 EDT 2025
Namaskaram Michael ji,
Inline responses first, followed by a discussion recap for clarity.
--
<< Do you find a difference between jnani and brahman? What is that
difference? Can you show where that kind of distinction appears in
Prasthanatraya bhasya? >>
Yes, jnani here refers to the antahkarana-avacchinna-chaitanya which
antahkarana has gained the akhandakara-vritti jnana. Brahman is Chaitanya
or pure Jnana. All references to a tattva-darshi or stithaprajna or a guru
or an acharya in PTB refers to the jnani. Therefore, pretty much every
single Upanishad teacher is the jnani. Brahman as Chaitanya is distinct
from a jnani, but a jnani is non-distinct from Brahman.
<< You might find a couple of places where Sankara speaks of videha mukti
or the continuation of prarabdha but that is a kind of gauna mukti as it
contradicts so many other descriptions of mukta as bodiless, non-dual, free
of pramata, pramana, prameya etc. >>
No, I am not bringing videha mukti into picture here. Jnani is a perceived
to be embodied. Based on the PSA sampradhaya there is no contradiction with
the other descriptions of a mukta. They are all easily explained even from
within the context of videha mukti / jivan mukti / krama mukti / sadyo
mukti.
<< OR, are you claiming paroksha jnana leads to aparoksa jnana? In which
case, either that's prasamkhyana vada or misguided to think the relative
has access to the infinite. >>
No, I am not claiming paroksha jnana leads to aparoksha jnana.
<< Sorry, I don't follow. Of course, there's satya and asatya in vyavahara.
Why not? >>
Agreed; looks like we are aligning here. There is vyavaharika-satya and
vyavaharika-asatya. And there is the underlying paramarthika-satya. Hence 3
categorization from our perspective.
<< The law of excluded middle is a vyavaharika term. Do you wish to
conflate Absolute and relative and thereby produce a third category of
existence? >>
True; but this doesn't mean that the law of excluded middle should be
force-fit into every scenario.
--
This has been a long discussion; just to recap my understanding of this
thread (lest I am not completely off-track!)
Contention: Between satya and asatya, mithya doesn't need to be a third
ontological category. Mithya (relative reality) as a third ontological
category is misleading and oxymoronic as it contradicts the "law of
excluded middle".
Response: Mithya is a valid third ontological category as its definition is
distinct from the definition of satya and asatya. The "law of excluded
middle" is inapplicable here, to begin with, as the definitions of satya
and asatya do not form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set. Therefore
the contradiction with the "law of excluded middle" is not a ground for
rejecting mithya as a third ontological category.
dhanyosmi
prostrations,
Vikram
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 7:59 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Vikram,
> //The difference is that from Brahman the universe is asat whereas from
> jnani the universe is mithya.//
> Do you find a difference between jnani and brahman? What is that
> difference? Can you show where that kind of distinction appears in
> Prasthanatraya bhasya? You might find a couple of places where Sankara
> speaks of videha mukti or the continuation of prarabdha but that is a kind
> of gauna mukti as it contradicts so many other descriptions of mukta as
> bodiless, non-dual, free of pramata, pramana, prameya etc.
>
>
>
> OR, are you claiming paroksha jnana leads to aparoksa jnana? In which
> case, either that's prasamkhyana vada or misguided to think the relative
> has access to the infinite.
>
> //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.//
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Of course, there's satya and asatya in vyavahara.
> Why not? The law of excluded middle is a vyavaharika term. Do you wish to
> conflate Absolute and relative and thereby produce a third category of
> existence? 🙏🙏🙏
>
>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list