Difference between ऋतं and सत्यं

[RaviKishore Annadanam]

नमस्ते विद्वान |

Until recent times I did not observe much about the difference between ऋतं and सत्यं in different contexts.

1) Could you please let me know the difference between these two? (I have see two threads already in this group, however I could not understand the conclusion, whether ऋतं is the absolute truth or it is सत्यं).

2) We do सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामि for day time before taking food and in the night ऋतंत्वा सत्येन परिषिंचामि. What is the difference between these two? Why do we do सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामि during day and ऋतंत्वा सत्येन परिषिंचामि during night?

3) What is the meaning of ऋतं and सत्यं "  in the context of ऋतं सत्यं परं ब्रह्म पुरुषं कृष्ण पिङ्गलम"

धन्यवादाः

अन्नदानम् रवि किशोर

[Krishna Kashyap]

I dont know if this answers the question appropriately.

A while back, I had written a paper on satyanveshana.

Here is the relevant portion:

What is truth?

The term rta means “that which is not subject to destruction at any time” (“trikAla abAdhita satya”).  rta is same as Brahman, realized by the Rshis. This book is an attempt to find to the extent possible, the true message of the Rshis to whom we owe our tradition. This tradition is known as the Arsha sampradAya or the tradition of the Rshis.

We come to know about our tradition, through our current teachers, who may be the followers of some system of thought, such as advaita, visistAdvaita, dvaita and so on, founded by the pioneering AchAryas of the past, Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya and so on. Why is there a difference of opinion among these founding AchAryas? What really is the system of thought propounded by the Rshis? How is that system founded by the Rshis, related to the views of these main AchAryas ? Such a study becomes easier if we try to trace the roots and the development of traditional thought in India.

It is appropriate at the very beginning to clarify some fundamental terms such as satya, rta, anrta, mithya, vyAvahArika satya, “paramArtha satya”, used in this document as well as in the scriptures and commentaries.

The term rta is meant to address the highest truth, it means that which has eternal unconditional existence or that which does not get negated in the past, present or future (“trikala abAdhita satya”). According to the tradition of the Rshis and AchAryas, only Brahman is rta. The term “satya” has a range of meanings. The term satya is used to refer to Brahman in statements such as “satyam jnanam anantam brahma”. In such cases it is synonymous with rta. This highest level of truth is known as “pAramArthika satya”, which is same as rta. In fact, in Vedic literature, the term rta is invariably attributed to the cause and the term satya to the effect. In statements such as “rtam na atyEti kinchana”, which means “no one transgresses rta”, the term rta means the original cause of everything. In statements such as rtam pibantau in katopanisad, rtam is used to refer to the unavoidable effects of karma, which are due to the will of that eternal truth, Brahman.

The term anrta does not necessarily mean “lies”, but it is that which is other than the causal truth ie.  The term “satya” generally refers to that which is not negated during its time (or svakAlika abhAdita). The term anrta includes satya.  For example, a tree exists. However that tree may get destroyed at a certain point of time due to some event such as fire and may no longer exist. Such a temporal truth, namely that tree, can be stated as “true” or satya or even anrta!  (not rta). Such temporally true entities are not absolutely true, since they do not last forever. However, they are true, while they exist, and they can be denoted by the term “satya”.  anrta is not “untruth”. anrta only means that it is not the causal truth or that which is other than rta. However, many authors have used the term anrta to denote mainly untruth or lies or illusion! This is an extrapolated use of that term to suit those times.

The term satya can also mean “not lies” as commonly used in colloquial speech in sentences such as “rAma only speaks the truth”.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Shashi Joshi]

>>> The term anrta includes satya.

If this is so then what about सत्यमेव जयते नानृतम्

Thanks,
Shashi

[Krishna Kashyap]

here the term satya is truth as in speech

for example in Ramayana - anrtam nOkta purvam me na cha vakshyE kadachana

means I never spoke lies and will never do so.

Hence this satyam eva jayate nanrtam may be taken as related to truth as in speech.

even if you take satya as absolute truth,  

the sentence 

satyam eva jayate na anrtam

means : truth wins and not  ( not  (not causal truth))

that means - truth wins and not (temporal truth)

this means absolute truth wins and not (temporal truth).

Even this is understandable this way.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:33 PM, RaviKishore Annadanam <kisho...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमस्ते विद्वान |

Until recent times I did not observe much about the difference between ऋतं and सत्यं in different contexts.

3) What is the meaning of ऋतं and सत्यं "  in the context of ऋतं सत्यं परं ब्रह्म पुरुषं कृष्ण पिङ्गलम"

Sayanacharya says  in the context of ॠतं च सत्यं चाभीद्धात् तपसो...of the अघमर्षणसूक्तम् -   ॠतं मानसं यथार्थसंकल्पम् | सत्यम् वाचिकं यथार्थभाषणम् | 

In the mantra you have stated Sayana does not give the above meaning but delves on 'satyam' going on to explain vyavaharika and paramarthika satyam.

Shankaracharya says in the context of the Shanti mantra in the Taittiriyopanishad:

ॐ शं नो मित्रः शं वरुणः । शं नो भवत्वर्यमा । शं न इन्द्रो बृहस्पतिः । शं नो विष्णुरुरुक्रमः । नमो ब्रह्मणे । नमस्ते वायो । त्वमेव प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मासि । त्वामेव प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्म वदिष्यामि । ऋतं वदिष्यामि । सत्यं वदिष्यामि  .......

ऋतं यथाशास्त्रं यथाकर्तव्यं बुद्धौ सुपरिनिश्चितमर्थं त्वदधीनत्वात् त्वामेव वदिष्यामि ; सत्यमिति स एव वाक्कायाभ्यां सम्पाद्यमानः  

In the Taittiriya itself, in the Shikshavalli:

ऋतं च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च । सत्यं च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च ।

Shankara says:   ऋतमिति व्याख्यातम् ।   सत्यं सत्यवचनं यथाव्याख्यातार्थं वा । 

regards

subrahmanian.v

धन्यवादाः

अन्नदानम् रवि किशोर

--

[Kalyan K]

There must be some difference between R^itam and satyam for we have-

R^itam satyaM paraM brahma puruSha.n kR^iShNapi~Ngalam...

The explanations of the difference between these two, tend to superimpose later vedAntic concepts on the verse and are not very satisfactory.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste.

rta = an implicit (basis) principle of atleast some domain of universe.
satya = an explicit (testable) principle of atleast some domain of universe.

KT

[V Subrahmanian]

For the above mantra  Sayana does not give the meaning for 'Ritam' but delves on 'satyam' going on to explain vyavaharika and paramarthika satyam.  There is no 'superimposition' of any 'later' Vedantic concepts. We have in the Taittiriya Upanishad:   सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6)  The bhashya of Shankaracharya for this is:  

सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।

Here is an article that gives a detailed explanation of the above mantra https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Kalyan K]

//”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat//


Not only are the concepts of absolute and conventional truths, later vedAntic concepts, they have also been borrowed from nAgArjuna's (2nd century CE) two truths - samvriti satya and paramArtha satya. It can thus be seen that mAdhyamika buddhist concepts have been superimposed on the upanishads which pre-date mAdhyamika by a long period. Hence, these explanations tend to be unsatisfactory.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat//


Not only are the concepts of absolute and conventional truths, later vedAntic concepts, they have also been borrowed from nAgArjuna's (2nd century CE) two truths - samvriti satya and paramArtha satya. It can thus be seen that mAdhyamika buddhist concepts have been superimposed on the upanishads which pre-date mAdhyamika by a long period. Hence, these explanations tend to be unsatisfactory.

How can you prove that? Can you show any bhashya to the Taittiriya Upanishad that predates Nagarjuna that does not 'superimpose' anything on the Upanishad? 

I am copying here from a post that appeared on this forum some time back:

// Here is a pdf on the above topic. Sri Satchidanandendra Sarswati Swaminah (5 January 1880 – 5 August 1975) (SSS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satchidanandendra_Saraswati has studied the Mādhyamika Kārikā-s of Nagarjuna along with the commentary of Chandrakirti and also the Kārikā-s of Gaudapada and given an account of how Advaita and Buddhism differ.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ka88cp1dt2eddk3/Advaita_and_Buddhism_SSS.pdf

I thank my friend Sri Pramod Bharadwaj for his effort in making this document in a convenient pdf format from a larger book of the author. 

Says Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, noted scholar of Dvaita Vedanta and Director, pUrNaprajna samshodhana mandiram, Bangalore, in his very popular Kannada book 'mata traya sameekShA':

On page 51 it carries a heading: Is AdvaitavAda Bauddhadarshana?
On page 54 there is a heading : Bauddhas are pracchanna vaidikas.  It says:

The charge that Advaita has been influenced by Buddhist thinking has been stiffly refuted by Shankara, Vachaspatimishra, SarvajnAtmamuni, ShrIharsha, Anandabodha etc.  They have brought out the doctrinal differences between the two schools.  This section goes on to substantiate this statement by several quotes from these Advaita Acharyas' works.  It concludes: 
//Therefore since Buddhists accepted the Vedic formulation of NirviShesha Chaitanya they are 'pracchanna vaidika-s.'  //

// ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವೇದದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿರ್ವಿಶೇಷ ಚೈತನ್ಯದ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿದ ಬೌದ್ಧರು ’ಪ್ರಚ್ಛನ್ನವೈದಿಕರು.’//

Vidwan K.P. Babudas of Kalady, Kerala, while delivering his talk at the annual vdiwat sadas at Sringeri last year, 2011, said:

// यदुक्तं शून्यवादिनः सकाशात् मायावादिनः वैलक्षण्यं नास्तीति तत्रोच्यते । वस्तुतः एते बौद्धाः उपनिषदः अवलम्ब्यैव स्वसिद्धान्तं चक्रुः । किन्तु तेषां कापट्यात् औपनिषदोऽयं सिद्धान्त इति तैर्नोक्तम् । वयं तु श्रौतोऽयम् इत्युक्त्वैव  अस्मद्दर्शनं प्रदर्शयाम इति वैलक्षण्यं तेषां सकाशात् । उभयोः दर्शनयोः अधिष्ठानं उपनिषद एव इत्यतः क्वचित् क्वचित् साम्यमिव भवति । // 

The word 'shUnya' is listed as one of the names of Brahman by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati (the preceptor of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati of Nerur) in his work:

वेदान्तनामरत्नसहस्त्रम्’ [a book of a thousand names of Brahman culled out from the Vedanta']:
शून्यम् - पारतत्त्र्यादिदोषरहितं निर्विशेषं वा ।  तदुक्तं वासिष्ठे -

शून्यं तत् प्रकृतिर्माया ब्रह्म विज्ञानमित्यपि ।
शिवः पुरुष ईशानो नित्यमात्मेति कथ्यते ॥ इति ।

स्वप्रकाशमानन्दघनं शून्यमभवत् इति श्रुतिः ।  उक्तं च पाद्मे पुराणे - 
यं दृष्ट्वा योगिनो नित्यं सन्तृप्ताः स्वात्मसंस्थितम् ।
अक्षरं सदसच्छून्यं परमात्मानमीश्वरम्॥ इति ।  

There is also the verse from the मत्तविलासप्रहसनम् -

वेदान्तेभ्यो गृहीत्वार्थान् यो महाभारतादपि ।
विप्राणां मिषतामेव कृतवान् कोशसञ्चयम् ॥ 

Mahendravarman in his work 'mattavilAsaprahasanam' says this about the coming into being of the Buddhistic system:

//Taking material from the UpaniShads and also from the MahAbhArata (which includes the BhagavadgItA), Buddha, even as the brAhmaNa-s (vaidika-s) were wide awake, accomplished a great fortune - literally filled up his coffers - (of establishing a vibrant system).// 

Thus, in order to sustain a system, there has to be a kriyA/karma/anuShThAna aspect which too has been derived by the Buddhists from the sanAtana dharma that is the vedic religion. 

Also, the charge that Shankara's knowledge of the Madhyamika doctrine was superficial extends to even Kumarila Bhatta and further to Veda Vyasa himself who aphorized on the Bauddha doctrine in the Brahmasutras and also in the alleged verses of the Padma purana.  //

regards

 

[Kalyan K]

//How can you prove that? Can you show any bhashya to the Taittiriya Upanishad that predates Nagarjuna that does not 'superimpose' anything on the Upanishad? //



This might be a digression from the main topic of this thread. In a different thread, I have referenced an article that discusses the origin of the theory of 2 truths in India. You may go through the article if you wish so. Advaitins might of course disagree with some of the claims in the article, but that is understandable. No one wants to accept that their school is influenced by other schools.

Coming back to the topic of this thread, for me, all explanations of Ritam that superimpose later ideas or ideas from other schools are unsatisfactory.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In Mahabharata, Udyogaparva , Sri Krishna explains a similar difference and connection between Ritam and Satyam. 

Mahabharata is prebuddhist.

I am travelling. I will try to share exact reference asap.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//How can you prove that? Can you show any bhashya to the Taittiriya Upanishad that predates Nagarjuna that does not 'superimpose' anything on the Upanishad? //



This might be a digression from the main topic of this thread.

The digression already happened when the first charge of 'superimposition' was made. 

 

Coming back to the topic of this thread, for me, all explanations of Ritam that superimpose later ideas or ideas from other schools are unsatisfactory.

This is quite understandable since you have already superimposed your opinion on those explanations.  

[Kalyan K]

//Mahabharata is prebuddhist//

This is debatable.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE.[4] The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (c. 4th century CE).[5]

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There were older threads on Mahabharata, Critical Edition etc. Any claim of interolation should be as per this scientific rigorous method.

[Rishi Goswami]

।। श्रीहरिः ।।
नमस्ते to all schollars.

I am re-posting here, in an old thread. Even to my curiosity, I tried and arrived to a conclusion. Both ऋतं and सत्यम् basically mean the same, but I feel as they have different roots, the process of derivation would be different।

I wouldn't like to differentiate on the basis of degrees of reality, as certain Aacharyas like Vallabhacharya do not view reality as Shankaracharya views, so let's leave that aside and say "Sarvam Sat" and take in consideration, Avikrita-pariNAma-vAda of Vallabha, then how do we define these two terms? There would be no difference in the interpretation of Vedas in this context. Ritam and Satyam would be the same here.

ऋतं यथाशास्त्रं यथाकर्तव्यं बुद्धौ सुपरिनिश्चितमर्थं त्वदधीनत्वात् त्वामेव वदिष्यामि ; सत्यमिति स एव वाक्कायाभ्यां सम्पाद्यमानः

Here and in Sayana as I read above, both have the same meaning, Rita is mAnasika/bauddhika, and satya is through speech or kaayika. That is the only difference that can be concluded, (as in the niSHkriSHTa artha).

But, through the roots, how do we derive or come towards this meaning?
Satya derives from the root As bhuvi,and means SattA, vidyamAnatvam.

सत्यं ज्ञानम् अनन्तं ब्रह्म would probably mean that God exists, therefore he is true, Ghatam sat, pushpam sat, hence true. God is exisiting, all-knowledgeable and endless.
__________

ऋतं च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च। सत्यञ्च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च।
Rita is derived from Ri gatau root, and through lakshaNA, probably it means enlightened (deepta), buddha or something which is yathArtha/Aapta (through lakshaNA).
In vyavahAra as well, we use the root"gam/go" when we understand something. We say, "I got it" or Avagatam in Samskrita. Similarly, Ri gatau can be derived through lakshaNA to mean correct, enlightened or apt. And as Aacharyas define it to be aantarika, which also makes sense. As avadhAraNam is always Aantarika, we always understand something from inside. One which is Buddha, Deepta and already apt is Ritam, concluding to the ultimate reality = ParamBrahm.

___________________

Hence, I guess ritam would mean aptness or correctness, and satyam would mean existence. Hence, through different ways, both conclude to the same meaning, truth. This is what I have concluded, that what exists is truth and what is correct is truth and hence both words conclude to the same meaning through different methods.

Which also fits in place when we say Anritam. Anritam would mean incorrect, ayathArtha or apramA. I don't know the meaning of "SatyanchAnritancha satyam abhavat.Yadidam......shloko bhavati." but what I have understood by reading commentary is that in the commentary Shankaracharya writes,
"मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमुच्यते। अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम्।"
MrigatrishNa is incorrect hence is Anrita and water exists, hence is Satya, therefore Anrita is opposite of Satya.

Further,there is much debate abd questioning about how BrahmavAdis say everything is PAramArthika sat, but if this interpretation is taken into consideration, both meanings can stay fit for Brahmavadis and Mayavadis as well.

Mayavadis can take categories in Satya or existence and can interpret Rita as something Yathartha or Ayarthartha. Similarly, Brahmavadis can say Satya means existence only and can say Rita ajd Anrita are Prama and Aprama respectively.


This is how I have concluded.

Regards
Rishi.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Mayavadi and Brahmavadi as a binary as'sastreeya.

 I am a maayasbaadi and a bramhavaadi.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am travelling. Details soon. 

[Shashi Joshi]

Does it help to see the roots of the words?

satyam comes from 

as - to be

sat - that which is being (in existence)

satyam - that which is worthy of being , what should be (sati hitam satyam)

Ritam has Ri dhatu which signifies movement. RiNa ( the money that has come to go), RiShi ( one who travels, or can metaphorically transport to any situation and bring satyam out), RikSha ( one that moves about in the forest), etc.

Is Ritam the movement of Creation, the show that is manifest?

And satyam as what should be?

And the manifest is what should be (pUrNamadaH ) ?

Various commentators are giving contextual meaning for the words in their domain of discussion?

With advance apologies for being totally off the mark! 

Thanks,
Shashi

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 9:35 AM Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com wrote:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The word सत् is used in different meanings:

सद्भावे साधुभावे च सदित्येतत्प्रयुज्यते |
प्रशस्ते कर्मणि तथा सच्छब्द: पार्थ युज्यते || 26||

यज्ञे तपसि दाने च स्थिति: सदिति चोच्यते |
कर्म चैव तदर्थीयं सदित्येवाभिधीयते || 27||

सतो भानः सत्यम्!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

If Rita is correct understanding of Truth and Satyam is Truth there is a still a small difference between them. Why? Because Paramartha Satyam cannot be grasped in the mind also. Yato Vaacho Nivartante Apraapya Manasaa Saha is the saying of Sruti. Then what is ultimate Jnaana for the mind? It is Mano Naasha itself. It is the same as realization of Falsity of the world. Conclusion can be- Rita is grasped in Mind but Satyam is not.  Satya is always existing and not dependent on someone understanding it or not. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Rishi Goswami]

Strictly limited in the boundaries of Vedanta and not vyavahAra, if both are to be defined, I feel Satya is basically existence and Rita is aptness.
Hence if we say Sarvam Brahm and hence Sarvam Sat, we mean everything does exist in Paramarthika way, hence everything is Paramarthika Sat.

Or if we have degrees in Sat, we can call it Sat because it exists, and Ritam cant directly be differentiated in that sense I feel.
Sat which is grasped by mind is Rita, is not what I intend to say or interpret.

What I feel is, the concluded meaning of both is indifferent, just the method is different. Both mean truth but one is existence and the other is aptness.

Something is apt or not can be only determined through Manas, because it being antarindriya. Chakshurindriya can grasp RajatarUpa, but not determine weather it is Rajata or Shukti, but Manas can. Sorry for dwelling into a bit Nyaya, but I feel "Ritam vadiSHyAmi" would mean I say what is correct (or determine inside my mind what is correct, basically Brahm vadiSHyAmi as only brahm is correct and everything related to it, as in the Vedanukula Shastras), and Satyam vadiSHyAmi would mean I speak only what really exists,(so again, sarvam khalu idam brahm, therefore I speak what is the ultimate truth).

It's just what I feel that both mean the same, just the way of the concluded meaning is different. Watermelon falls on the knife or knife falls on the watermelon, the result is the same, just the method of action or the process towards the result differs, that also very minutely.

____

Repeating.
ऋतं यथाशास्त्रं यथाकर्तव्यं बुद्धौ सुपरिनिश्चितमर्थं त्वदधीनत्वात् त्वामेव वदिष्यामि ; सत्यमिति स एव वाक्कायाभ्यां सम्पाद्यमानः।

Ritam is what should be done as prescribed by the Shastras, and after DETERMINING IT INSIDE THE MIND, I will only speak that as I am beneath the Shastras, and Satyam IS THE SAME THING, but it is carried by body and speech.


Therefore, probably the Aacharyas also haven't detailed much on this, just explained in short the minute difference, as in Ritam is used when something can be determined through mind, and Satyam is used to describe what exists and can be expressed through body and speech.

I don't think Ritam Satyam are 2 different things, where Ritam can only be determined through Mind and Satyam cannot, and Satya has degrees hence it can be expressed through body and speech. No. That isn't what is written. What is been understood here is that Ultimate Reality is written as Rita and Satya is different. If that were the case, than Shankaracharya wouldn't write "SATYAM SA EVA". Also, this meaning would not be valid for SakaraBrahmavadis (Shuddhadvaitis), for they don't have degrees in reality so both would be referring to the same Ultimate Reality.

Paramarthika Satya can be expressed through Speech. Its not like Ultimate reality can't be expressed through speech, it can be.

But we use Ritam in context of determination because anything can and will be determined through mind only, without mind-soul connection, there will be no consciousness to determine anything.

Rest there is no difference between the words, just that while expression, the context is different. (SATYAM SA EVA). Satya is the same thing as Rita, but only used in the context of speech and body.

I'm not a schollar, but this is just what I grasped. Please do correct me for I'm genuinely curious.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Brahmavaadin is a word from s'ruti. Maayaavaadi is not . 

Vaidikas are brahmavaadins. 

All vaidikas are.

The word maayaavaadi is being used to refer to Advaitins. Since Advaitins are vaidikas, they are brahmavaadins. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Sri Rishi Goswami says:

//Further,there is much debate abd questioning about how BrahmavAdis say everything is PAramArthika sat, but if this interpretation is taken into consideration, both meanings can stay fit for Brahmavadis and Mayavadis as well.//

He appears to have a notion that Mayavadis are a different category from Brahmavadis. It should be known that Mayavadis also talk (vadanti) about Brahman and Brahmavadins (whoever they are) also talk about mAyA.  The Brahmasutra, Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita - all have the term mAyA and thus are to be categorized as 'mAyAvAda'.  

Here is an article that seems to discuss Rtm and Satyam in great detail:

https://tinyurl.com/y8gtkqdh

[Rishi Goswami]

This is pretty famous in daily usage. Believing in Brahm means Brahmavadi and believing in Maya means Mayavadi, that is not the context. Both believe in both Padarthas, but define both differently.

Shankaras believe in Maya as different than Shuddhatvaitis. Which means only Nirakar Brahm is True, as soon as he takes form, he becomes Mayavacchinna. Jagat is Vikari, Brahm is also Vikari if he takes form. That is what Paramarthika Sat means, Nirvikari Sat, Nirakara Brahm. Brahm inside form isn't Shuddha/Nirvikari. Jagat is Vikari form.

By Brahmavadi I mean, SAkArabrahmavAda of Vallabha. Which says Brahm is only everything. There cannot be any Vikara in it. Jagat is not a VikAra of Brahm. Jagat is Avikrita pariNAma. There are no degrees of reality. Everything is Shuddha/free of deformity. Hence Brahm is Shuddha, and if everything is Brahm, everything is free of VikAra and everything is the Avikrita form of Brahm. That's what I mean by Brahmavadi.

By saying Mayavadi, It doesn't simply mean believing in Maya or no. Shuddhatvaitis do believe in Maya, but don't believe that Brahm has to take it's shelter for getting a form.

And many places, Maya in Geeta of Ramanuja etc Vaishnava traditions, it is defined as Satyasankalpa of Vishnu, not the TriguNatmika-Maya. For eg, in shloka संभवामि आत्ममायया it is not the TriguNatmika Maya which Krishna is talking about, it is his own Satyasankalpa/will. Same shloka Shankara varies. He calls it Trigunatmika Maya.

I reckon, Abhinava Gupta hails this same concept of Brahmavada. Hence such people who believe in non-deformity in Brahm, are Brahmavadis. And those who believe in Brahm taking shelter of Maya, eg ShAnkaras are known as Mayavadis.

This maybe an unofficial term, but as it's commonly used, so I thought people may know about it and hence I thought of keeping it as it is. I will make sure to use official terminologies from now on.


You can check this screenshot, of a Hindi translation of Shankaracharya Tika on Taittiryopanishad. http://tinypic.com/r/28jh8at/9

[Kalyan K]

Another thing that I can think of is that satyam is ontological truth (being) while Rtam could be epistemological truth.

[Kalyan K]

Can we say, Rtam is cosmic order (laws of nature in modern parlance)?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:41 PM Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

Shankaras believe in Maya as different than Shuddhatvaitis. Which means only Nirakar Brahm is True, as soon as he takes form, he becomes Mayavacchinna. Jagat is Vikari, Brahm is also Vikari if he takes form. That is what Paramarthika Sat means, Nirvikari Sat, Nirakara Brahm. Brahm inside form isn't Shuddha/Nirvikari. Jagat is Vikari form. 

By Brahmavadi I mean, SAkArabrahmavAda of Vallabha. Which says Brahm is only everything. There cannot be any Vikara in it. Jagat is not a VikAra of Brahm. Jagat is Avikrita pariNAma. There are no degrees of reality. Everything is Shuddha/free of deformity. Hence Brahm is Shuddha, and if everything is Brahm, everything is free of VikAra and everything is the Avikrita form of Brahm. That's what I mean by Brahmavadi. 

By saying Mayavadi, It doesn't simply mean believing in Maya or no. Shuddhatvaitis do believe in Maya, but don't believe that Brahm has to take it's shelter for getting a form.

The following are from the Vishnupuranam which clearly say that Brahman (Vishnu/Janardana) has to 'take/assume/depend' (samaashritya) on the three Gunas of Maya/prakriti in order to be the jagat srishti, sthiti and laya kaaraNam:  

चतुर्विभागः संसृष्टौ चतुर्भेदो जनार्दनः ।। २२ ।।

एकेनांशेन ब्रह्मासौ भवत्यव्यक्तमूर्त्तिमान् ।
मरीचिमिश्वाः पतयः प्रजानामन्यभागतः ।। २३ ।।

कालस्तृतीयस्तस्यांशः सर्व्वभूतानि चापरः ।
इत्थ चतुर्धा संसृष्टौ वर्त्ततेऽसौ रजोगुणः ।। २४ ।।

एकांशेन स्थितो विष्णुः करोति प्रतिपालनम् ।
मन्वादिरूपश्चान्येन कालरूपोऽपरेण च ।। २५ ।।

सर्व्वबूतेषु चान्येन संस्थितः कुरुते रतिम् ।
सत्त्वं गुणं समाश्रित्य जगतः पुरुषोत्तमः ।। २६ ।।

आश्रित्य तमसो वृत्तिमन्तकाले तथा पुनः ।

रुद्रस्वरूपो भगवानेकांशेन भवत्यजः ।। २७ 

By such resorting to the three gunas, Brahman does not undergo any vikara. Also, the jagat is not any vikara of Brahman. ShAnkaras do not say that Brahman's vikara is the jagat; they hold that the world is a vivarta of Brahman. You can see how much of (triguNaatmikaa) mayavada is in the above Vishnu puranam verses and how it is also Brahmavada at the same time.  

And many places, Maya in Geeta of Ramanuja etc Vaishnava traditions, it is defined as Satyasankalpa of Vishnu, not the TriguNatmika-Maya. For eg, in shloka संभवामि आत्ममायया it is not the TriguNatmika Maya which Krishna is talking about, it is his own Satyasankalpa/will.  Same shloka Shankara varies. He calls it Trigunatmika Maya.   

I reckon, Abhinava Gupta hails this same concept of Brahmavada. Hence such people who believe in non-deformity in Brahm, are Brahmavadis. And those who believe in Brahm taking shelter of Maya, eg ShAnkaras are known as Mayavadis.

This is the part of the Shankara's commentary to the  shloka संभवामि आत्ममायया i -

प्रकृतिं स्वां मम वैष्णवीं मायां त्रिगुणात्मिकाम् यस्या वशे सर्वं जगत् वर्तते यया मोहितं सत् स्वमात्मानं वासुदेवं न जानाति तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य संभवामि देहवानिव भवामि 

Where do you see //Brahm taking shelter of Maya// ?  It is actually the opposite:  प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य..

Actually the Vishnu puranam (Veda Vyasa) will have to be called mayavada/i as per your definition.

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
In the context of the commentary to the shAnti pATha of the shIkshA valli (ie ऋतं
वदिष्यामि । सत्यं वदिष्यामि ।), shankarAchArya says:
1) ऋतं यथाशास्त्रं यथाकर्तव्यं बुद्धौ सुपरिनिश्चितमर्थं - Rtam is the meaning understood by the intellect after a thorough analysis of scripture of what one's conduct ought to be.
2) सत्यमिति स एव वाक्कायाभ्यां सम्पाद्यमानः - satyam is conduct by speech, body, etc conducive to what scripture teaches as Rtam.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

[Hari Parshad Das]

my pranams dear vidvaj-janas.

Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (11.19.36 - 37) says:

सत्यं च समदर्शनं 

ऋतं च सूनृता वाणी

Translation: 

Satyam is sama-darśanam (= brahma-darśanam).

Ṛtam is pleasing, beneficial speech.

श्रीधरस्वामी: समं ब्रह्म तस्य दर्शनमालोचनं सत्यविषयत्वात्सत्यं न यथार्थभाषणमात्रम् । ऋतं सूनृता सत्या प्रिया च वाक् । एवं च ऋतसत्ययोः स्फुट एव विवेकः । 

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 7:52:42 PM UTC+5:30, RaviKishore Annadanam wrote:

नमस्ते विद्वान |

Until recent times I did not observe much about the difference between ऋतं and सत्यं in different contexts.

1) Could you please let me know the difference between these two? (I have see two threads already in this group, however I could not understand the conclusion, whether ऋतं is the absolute truth or it is सत्यं).

2) We do सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामि for day time before taking food and in the night ऋतंत्वा सत्येन परिषिंचामि. What is the difference between these two? Why do we do सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामि during day and ऋतंत्वा सत्येन परिषिंचामि during night?

3) What is the meaning of ऋतं and सत्यं "  in the context of ऋतं सत्यं परं ब्रह्म पुरुषं कृष्ण पिङ्गलम"