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

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Michael ji,

The Chatgpt material you share is completely off the topic.

Regards

On Fri, 26 Sept, 2025, 6:18 am Michael Chandra Cohen, <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> namaste Subbuji
> Chatgpt 5 translation - accurate? I don't see the problem
>
> *Satya and Anṛta*
> Satya is one, anṛta is another. Satya is the truth. Anṛta is untruth.
> Satya is permanent, unchanging, that which does not perish. Anṛta is that
> which is perishable, transient. Satya is Brahman, the supreme Self,
> imperishable, eternal, immortal, fearless. Anṛta is everything other than
> Brahman, all the names and forms. Therefore, Brahman alone is *satya*,
> the rest is *anṛta*. In this manner, *satya* and *anṛta* are opposed.
> *(Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 2-1-20)*
> ------------------------------
> Footnote
>
> The difference between *satya* and *anṛta*; the meaning of *satya* in
> different places; how the meaning of *satya* has been used in this
> context — (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya p. 59).
>
> (Here) the word *satya* means the Vedic sentences (*śruti-vākyas*).
> (There) the word *satya* means Brahman, Paramātman.
>
> How can there be two different meanings for the same word *satya*? The
> difference is as follows: where the subject matter (viṣaya) is Brahman,
> there *satya* means Brahman; but where the subject matter is Vedic
> sentences (*śruti-vākya*), there *satya* means Vedic sentences.
>
> Therefore here *satya* means *śruti-vākya*. Accordingly, in the first
> place (ṛg-veda) the word *satya* is taken as referring to the Vedic
> words. Later on, the word *satya* is to be understood as Brahman.
>
> So the *satya* of one context (i.e., śruti) is different from the *satya*
> of another context (i.e., Brahman).
> ------------------------------
> Questions
>
>    1.
>
>    What is meant by *satya* and *anṛta* in this passage? Explain
>    separately.
>    2.
>
>    Why is *satya* used in two different senses? Clarify with reasoning.
>    3.
>
>    How is the connection between *satya* and Brahman explained here?
>    4.
>
>    Explain with examples the way the same word (*satya*) conveys
>    different meanings in different contexts.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 4:32 PM Vikram Jagannathan <vikkyjagan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaskaram Michael ji,
>>
>> Will keep it shorter this time :)
>>
>> << There is no doubt we view the appearance of body and karma. The issue
>> however concerns the view from Jnana itself - if pramatr, pramana, prameya
>> are dependent on avidya, where is there 'a' jnani, 'the' jnani or the
>> instruments to recognize duality or duality itself?  Are there many jnani-s
>> or just one Jnanatvam?  >>
>>
>> Actually, this triputi is from our perspective too, and not from Jnana's
>> perspective. From Jnana's perspective, it is the homogenous Chaitanya alone
>> and nothing else whatsoever; no triputi. We view the continued appearance
>> of the jnani's body and karma (BMI-V) due to our ignorance. This continued
>> appearance of the jnani's BMI-V recognizes duality and interacts with it;
>> again from our perspective alone and for our own benefit. There are as many
>> jnani-s as we perceive as many jnani's functioning BMI-V. Jnana,
>> all-through, is one and non-dual.
>> As a recap:
>> 1. Chaitanya's perspective = paramarthika perspective - universe is asat
>> 2. Ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika ajnana perspective - universe is sat
>> 3. Jnani's perspective = there are 2 sub-perspectives - 3a. and 3b.
>> 3a. Jnani's perspective from the jnani's perspective = paramarthika
>> perspective - universe is asat
>> 3b. Jnani's perspective from the ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika jnana
>> perspective - universe is mithya
>>
>> We at times blur the difference between 3a and 3b; this causes confusion.
>>
>> << Agreed but only if the teaching of avidya-lesa etc. is confirmed by
>> bhasya, reason and universal experience. Brahman, moksa, avidya are all the
>> adhyaropita teachings of sastra. I don't see the upaya of adhyaropa/apavada
>> fundamentally presented by post-Sankara authors. >>
>>
>> Avidya-lesa indeed aligns with adhyaropa-apavada principle. The
>> attribution of avidya-lesa to the jnani is indeed adhyaropa. We perceive a
>> tattva-darshi jnani guru imparting jnana upadesha. We can either
>> a) explain that this is due to avidya-lesa, due to our own avidya or
>> b) the tattva-darshi jnani guru is actually not a tattva-darshi jnani
>> guru or
>> c) Advaita is no longer advaita but becomes dvaita, with plurality
>> becoming eternally unsublatable.
>>
>> With a) the Advaita siddhanta remains completely self-consistent as the
>> perception of this avidya-lesa is only due to our own avidya. When we
>> overcome our avidya, then all avidya and avidya-lesa is completely removed
>> and it is Chaitanya alone.
>> With b) the teachings of the so-called tattva-darshi jnani guru
>> (including Bhagavan Krishna) becomes falsified
>> With c) Advaita siddhanta is utterly destroyed
>>
>> Both b) and c) are not conducive to Advaita siddhanta and are stances
>> taken up by several purvapakshas.
>>
>> << --tattva-darshi jnani - is this person knowable to the ignorant? Do
>> you just assume this of our guru? I've had the blessing of sitting at the
>> feet of several teachers who I believe were tattva-darshi jnani-s. However,
>> not one claimed such status yet they taught in a manner that convinced me
>> they were full blown jnani-'s. So how are we to determine whether this
>> charismatic guy is a jnani engaging in the world or still, despite a pure
>> personality and pristine teachings may still be afflicted with empirical
>> attachments? It is not an uncommon phenomena to learn of the scandalous
>> demise of one of the spiritual heroes. Let us not assume by personality but
>> determine by challenging the teaching to resolve doubt what is authentic
>> Vedanta. >>
>>
>> True. One has to first become a jnani to recognize another jnani.
>> Important to note that Jnana is one non-dual, but from our current
>> perspective (ajnani perspective) the BMI-Vs of the jnanis are several and
>> distinct. Therefore, from our current perspective it is appropriate to say
>> that one BMI-V which has gained the Brahmakara-vritti-jnana (aka jnani) is
>> capable of recognizing another BMI-V which has also gained this
>> Brahmakara-vritti-jnana. All the while the absolute Jnana (Chaitanya) is
>> one and non-dual. However, there are some clues in the scriptures including
>> the stithaprajna-lakshna and shraddha / maha-viswasam (absolute trust and
>> faith) is quite essential. Beyond this, it is actually not the student
>> approaching a teacher's feet, but in actuality it is the teacher coming to
>> a prepared student.
>>
>> << "the entity' you are giving entity status to snake where indeed the
>> only entity is rope. >>
>>
>> Correct, but I do not know this until the dawn of rope knowledge. Until
>> then, the entity is the snake as it is my current experience taken to be
>> real. And any back-reference to this prior experience will also have to
>> term the entity as a snake only.
>>
>> << Addendum citations and notes: >>
>>
>> I don't see any contradictions from any of your quoted references (except
>> the last one - HOSS p42). Do you feel any of them contradicts what we have
>> discussed so far?
>>
>> For the last reference (HOSS p42), I personally consider it a futile
>> exercise to talk definitively about the state of a jnani when I am yet an
>> ajnani. Let me first gain the jnana to then realize for myself what is
>> annihilated and what remains. One person says Brahman alone exists, another
>> says the universe will continue to be perceived; I do not wish to
>> definitively judge one or the other as I am yet to understand the
>> distinction and nature of my Self versus my antahkarana. Maybe they are
>> both right but from these two distinct perspectives - Self versus
>> functioning antahkarana.
>>
>> prostrations,
>> Vikram
>>
>>
>>> --
>> 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/CAM7AOLfFQDP2BwzhpQoQ0CZe4Tz4UXEAawKTrfxb6Aqhpe4VjQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLfFQDP2BwzhpQoQ0CZe4Tz4UXEAawKTrfxb6Aqhpe4VjQ%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/CAAz9PvGjBRvHgKx%2BBB4bs9%3DMyF%2B6buVNxHvWxFyyXjv96FfRvA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGjBRvHgKx%2BBB4bs9%3DMyF%2B6buVNxHvWxFyyXjv96FfRvA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>