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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

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
>