6-

rgurubhyo nama

The Three states/types of Reality (sattA-traividhyam)
In His Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya, Shankaracharya has made a trendsetting
statement:
: -7 7
//sarva-vAdinAmapi aparihArya paramArtha-saMvyavahArakRRito
vyavahAra// (Brihadaranyaka bhashya: 3.v.i).
//in fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the
phenomenal world according as it is viewed from the relative or the absolute
standpoint.// (translation by Swami Madhavananda, the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad with the commentary of Sri Shankaracharya, published by Advaita
Ashram, Kolkota.)

While commenting on the mantra ~ ~

''satyaM cha anRRitaM
cha satyamabhavat' (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam =
vyavahAraviShayam since this is being mentioned in the context of 'sRRiShTi' of
the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality) since
Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This vyavahAraviShayam satyam
is only ApekShikam, relative, empirical.
He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we
actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by 'vyavahArika
satyam'.
That which is not thus real is anRRitam, unreal.
~ 7

,

, ~

; ~ G
7 90 ~~
~ ~

//satyaM cha vyavahAraviShayam, adhikArAt, na
paramArthasatyam; ekameva hi paramArthasatyam brahma. iha punaH
vyavahAraviShayamApekShikam mRRigatRRiShNikAdyanRRitApekShayA
udakAdi satyamucyate. anRRitam cha tadviparItam. kiM punaretat sarvam
satyamabhavat paramArthasatyam...//

The above bhashyam brings to the fore that three types of 'reality' are admitted
in the Shruti. Commonly these are known as: 1. pAramArthika satyam which is
Brahman alone, 2. vyAvahArika satyam which constitutes the common world
experience of samsara and 3. prAtibhAsika satyam which is a seeming reality,
actually within the samsaric experience. This seeming reality of say, the
mirage-water or rope-snake, is corrected in the vyavahAra itself and does not
require brahma-j~nAnam for this. The vyAvahArika satyam, of course, gets
corrected upon the rise of brahma-j~nAnam. The Shruti vakyams for this are:
ekameva advitIyam, neha nAnA asti ki~nchana, sarvaM khalu idaM brahma, etc.
What is worthy of note in the above bhashyam is the Shruti pramANam for the
existence of the three types of reality or sattA-traividhyam. The Taittiriya
shruti we took up above is the pramanam for the three types of reality. It is
not the concoction of the advaitins/Bhagavatpada/later Acharyas. Nor is this an
adaptation from Buddhism. The Bhashyam uses the two specific names and the
third is only implied.
What is the context of this mantra?
The Upanishad is teaching the five sheaths, kosha-s, and how the Atman is pervading
all the kosha-s and the entire created universe. In this process, the 6
th
section of the
Anandavalli Chapter of the Upanishad says:
7 , G

...[He who knows Brahman to be non-existent himself
becomes so. ..] Shankaracharya points out that since Brahman is extremely difficult to
know, the Upanishad is talking about creation. Since the original pratij~nA, promise, of
the Upanishad is GH

(The knower of Brahman attains the Supreme), the
Upanishad is proceeding to talk about creation with a view to enabling the aspirant to
know Brahman. When the universe is taught to have originated from Brahman and
pervaded by It, one can appreciate Its existence, ~~

, first and then realize it
directly,

. In order to enable this, the Upanishad explains how Brahman
has verily become everything in the universe. By knowing that everything is Brahman
indeed, one can obtain a direct realization of the Cause, Brahman. However, since
Brahman is extremely subtle, being without any attributes, It can be known only when
shown to be associated with something that one can relate to. The most intimate
relation one has with is his own mind. The Upanishad says 7

,
+

(He who realizes the one (Brahman) manifesting in ones
innermost mind, he experiences the fulfillment of all desires .)
Since the Upanishad had already spoken about the creation of the five elements, ~
- .....in the beginning of the Anandavalli itself, what is now being
spoken of in connection with creation is only how the entire created universe is
pervaded and occupied by Brahman.
~ ~ 6* 6
* , ,
~ ~

...
[That Brahman having created that entered into that very thing. And having entered
there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the
sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the
untrue.]
It is interesting to note that the mantra has the word sat in saccha tyaccha abhavat.
This sat is commented by the Acharya as the formed, gross. And tyat is the
formless, subtle. As this exhausts the gross and subtle, the Acharya, when it comes
to commenting upon the word satyam occurring first in the sentence ~
~

, quite naturally, gives the meaning as vyavahAra viShayam, the empirical
reality.
Even in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there is an instance of two satyam words
occuring in one sentence: ~U ~ ~

~

(It is the Truth of truth.
The Upanishad itself explains what this truth occurring for the second time is: The
vital force is truth, and It, Brahman, is the Truth of that.) 2.1.20.
One can easily see that whenever two satyam words occur in the same sentence, the
meanings differ. And invariably the one is relative, vyavahArika, and the other is
Absolute, pAramArthika. Bhagavatpada is following this rule and in the Taittiriya
Upanishadic passage too His commentary is according to the above Upanishadic
method alone.
Sri Sureshwaracharya concurs with the Acharyas Bhashya!!
In his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, while commenting, in verse form, the
Bhashya of Bhagavatpada, for the mantra: ~ ~

, the vArtikakAra says:
7 ~ U (~ 7

,

, Bhashya)
~U T~
407 (~

bhashya)
[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth
because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at
the end of the sentence.]
It can be seen beyond doubt that Sri Sureshwaracharya unambiguously uses the words
pAramArthika satyam and vyAvahArika satyam to comment upon Bhagavatpadas
words: paramArthasatyam and vyavahAra-viShayam.
It becomes certain that Sri Sureshwaracharya has initiated the use of the two terms:
pAramArthika satyam and vyAvahArika satyam that have been popularly used by
the Advaita Acharyas of the Sampradaya initiated by Shankara Bhagavatpada.
Sayanacharyas commentary
In his commentary to the kRRiShNayajurvedIya taittirIya AraNyakam wherein occurs
the passage that we are now considering, Sayanacharya says:
~

7 *= 7
~= G
[satyam that which does not undergo sublation in the common parlance namely shell,
rope, pillar, etc. anRRitam, however, refers to the cases of silver, snake, thief, etc. that
undergo sublation in the empirical state itself. The other word Satyam refers to
Brahman.]
Thus, we can readily see Sayanacharya too considers the passage is about
pAramArthika satyam and vyAvahArika satyam.
The vanamAlA on the Bhashyam:
Sri Achyutakrishnananda Tirtha, the author of the popular and lucid subcommentary
named vanamAlA on the Bhashyam of Bhagavatpada says:
~ ~ ~= 7~ ~~ ~
~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~
7 , ~

~ ~U ~

.... U ~U
~~ 9 ~ ~ 7 ~ ~= ,
~ = *
The purport of the above passage is:
In the mantra under consideration the reason to hold the word satyam as denoting the
vyAvahArika reality alone and not the pAramArthika is the context in which this
word occurs in the Shruti. Any created entity has to be less real than the Absolutely
Real Brahman. This word satyam occurs in the context of the entities that undergo
transformation . Further, if the word satyam is understood as the paramArtha
satyam (Brahman), then there will be the contingency of two Absolutely Real entities
existing since the other word Satyam has been taken to be the Absolutely Real.
Related to what is the water and the like taken to be vyAvahArika? It is relative to the
water perceived, in a mirage, due to ignorance. In the passage satyam cha anRRitam,
the vyAvAhrika satyam is what is specified by the word satyam. The word
hing that is just an appearance. This is the considered anRRitam denotes anyt
conclusion.
Asynopsis:
The Taittiriya Upanishad teaches that the Satyam Brahman/Atman became
satyam and anRRitam.
Bhagavatpada in the Bhashya comments upon the word satyam which is
created as relative satyam.
He reasons that since this satyam is a created one, it cannot be the Absolute
Satyam, Brahman.
Bhagavatpada uses the terms paramArtha satyam and vyavahAra viShayam
to denote these two: The Absolute Satyam and the relative satyam.
Sri Sureshwaracharya, while concurring with the Bhashyakara, unambiguously
uses the terms: pAramArthikasatyam and vyAvahArikasatyam.
This pair of names has come down in the tradition to denote the two levels of
reality.
Sayanacharya too gives out the commentary for this mantra in tune with what
Bhagavatpada is said.
The vanamAlA gloss of the Upanisahd Bhashya too reiterates the view of the
Acharya and that of Sureshwara. It uses the pair of words used by
Sureshwaracharya beyond any doubt and concludes by mentioning the two
names: pAramArthikasatyam and vyAvahArikasatyam.
Nor is the context in the Taittiriya passage of that of teaching the kArya-kAraNa
ananyatva; Shankara makes the context very clear: He shows that this
prakaraNa is about teaching the Existence of Brahman. Repeatedly Shankara
says: H~ G. The Upanishad is dealing with the question of what happens
to those who do not accept the existence of Brahman. It is in this context the
Upanishad talks about the Brahman becoming everything thereby proving the
existence of Brahman.
Not a single Acharya of the Advaita sampradaya who has commented on the
above passage/bhashyam has ever spoken about the kArya-kAraNa ananyatva.
On the other hand, all Acharyas are unanimous on the meaning the passage
conveys: Three levels of reality.
The rope-snake is spoken of as a reality in so far as the person under delusion
holds it to be real. However, this reality is contingent upon the knowledge of the
substratum, upon gaining which the delusion ceases.
Thus it can be seen that the two names: pAramArthikasatyam and
vyAvahArikasatyam are used uniformly by the Shruti (semantically not =),
Bhagavatpada, Sureshwaracharya, Sayanacharya and the author of Vanamala (
and =) giving us no room for any doubt in this regard that these terms denote
different levels of reality.
6 ~