Difference between Truth (Sat) vs truth (Satya)
I’ve often been confused when reading religious or spiritual texts that talk about Truth (with a capital T). What do they mean by it, and why the strange capitalization? The confusion usually arises because what these texts are pointing to is often conflated (due to poor translations) with the general, everyday use of the word “truth.”
In daily life we use “truth” mainly in an ethical or moral sense: not telling lies, describing things as they are, being true to your nature by speaking your mind instead of holding back, and so on.
A good way to understand the difference is to look at how these words are used in Sanskrit (and derived languages). There is Satya (सत्य) or Sach (सच), used in day-to-day life for the general, “moral” sense of the word. And then there is Sat (सत्), found mostly in scriptures, pointing to the grander Truth (with a capital T), which is more metaphysical or ontological in nature.
To understand the distinction, we can first look at the usage of these terms in different scriptures. The Sikhi Mūl Mantar is a great example, as it uses both of these variations.
The first usage is often translated as:
ikk ōaṅkār sat-nām
→ There is one Om, and Its name is Sat (Truth / Existence / Reality).
Later in the same mantra we have:
ād sach, jugād sach, hai bhī sach
→ True (sach) since the beginning, true through the ages (yugās), and still true now.
Similarly, in Vedanta, the all-pervading ultimate reality known as Brahman is described as Sat-chit-ānanda.
In both these cases, Sat means existence or being, which is the base of reality. But what do we mean by the “base of reality”? For example, a wave depends on water for its existence. Without water, there is nothing to wave. So we say water is the base of the wave’s reality. Similarly, every single thing in the universe (right down to elementary particles and forces) depends on this field of reality/existence itself.
I am not saying that you must imagine a second entity, apart from the object that exists, called Sat, which allows (in its infinite kindness) for that object to exist. That would be foolish—just as it would be to say that water is a second thing separate from the wave, or that gold is something separate from a gold necklace.
Just as a wave is simply water waving—a verb form of water—any elementary particle is existence or Sat itself, “vibing” in a way that causes it to interact as an elementary particle with other parts of this same Sat, and so on. And according to both the Mūl Mantar and Advaita Vedanta, this reality is one, or non-dual. Nothing exists apart from existence itself. Nothing is, other than the underlying is-ness.
Finally, we can also look at the etymology of these ancient Proto-Indo-European sounds. From the root of Sat is derived Satya. In my limited understanding, Satya means “that which is based in Sat,” i.e., based in reality. Hence, if someone speaks something grounded in reality, we call it Satya, and lies are Asatya. But when we point to the underlying nature of reality itself, the word we use is Sat.