Weekly Definition - bAdha

[Guest guest]

I will collate and publish a definition for paramArtha - vyavahAra

next week. Meanwhile, as promised a definition for bAdha appears

below. I have also uploaded this to the group Files and it is

available at http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/bAdha.htm.

 

Part 29 of Dr. Sadananda's 'Introduction to Vedanta' on 'Living in the

Present' is at

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/present_sadananda.htm.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

******

Weekly Definition - bAdha

 

(The following is extracted from Back to the Truth, Dennis Waite, O

Books, 2007, ISBN 1905047614.)

 

The process of bAdha is defined in Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English

dictionary as " a contradiction, objection, absurdity, the being

excluded by superior proof (in logic one of the 5 forms of fallacious

middle term) " The word used in English is " sublation " (or occasionally

" subration " ), which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as

" assimilate (a smaller entity) into a larger one. " But these

descriptions confuse and over-complicate what is actually a simple

process. All that it means is that we held one explanation for a

situation in our experience; then some new knowledge came along and we

realized that an entirely different explanation made far more sense.

 

For example, people used to think that the earth was flat†. If a ship

sailed as far as the horizon, it would fall off the edge. Then some

new knowledge came along – the earth is spherical. Now we can

understand that the ship is moving further around the sphere and thus

out of our sight. This new explanation has the added benefit of being

able to explain how it is that a ship can return after having fallen

off the edge! And it even explains why the horizon seems to be curved.

So the old explanation – that the earth is flat – is said to have been

" sublated " by the new one. It is said to be bAdhita – negated or shown

to be contradictory, absurd or false.

 

The example always used in Advaita is that of the rope and snake. We

see the rope in poor light and erroneously conclude that it is a

snake. Once a light (i.e. knowledge) has been shone onto the

situation, we realize our mistake. If we encounter the situation

again, we may still imagine we see a snake but the likelihood of being

deceived is now much reduced because we no longer accord the same

level of authenticity to our perception. It is this process of

rejecting the appearance in the light of our experience or new

knowledge that is called sublation or bAdha. This also provides a

useful definition of " truth " in that the less able we are to sublate

an experience, the truer it must be.‡

 

† I've since discovered that this is a commonly-held myth and actually

untrue - but it still serves as a useful example.

 

‡ Thus, one definition for reality is that which cannot be sublated.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

> For example, people used to think that the earth was flat†. If a ship

> sailed as far as the horizon, it would fall off the edge. Then some

> new knowledge came along – the earth is spherical. Now we can

> understand that the ship is moving further around the sphere and thus

> out of our sight. This new explanation has the added benefit of being

> able to explain how it is that a ship can return after having fallen

> off the edge! And it even explains why the horizon seems to be curved.

> So the old explanation – that the earth is flat – is said to have been

> " sublated " by the new one. It is said to be bAdhita – negated or shown

> to be contradictory, absurd or false.

 

Sri Dennisji,

 

How does Advaita counter the argument: The snake is perceived only because it

was

already known. Similarly the fact that duality is perceived implies its real

existence; i.e. if

Brahman is the only reality, then the world cannot appear to jiva. Therefore

that

appearance indicates a real transformation, etc. of Brahman. (I am not sure of

the exact

argument; perhaps can say something myself to it. But something along these

lines was

given to me by a VA some years back. What is standard reply?) [sorry quoted

wrong para

above]

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Sri Dennisji,

>

> How does Advaita counter the argument: The snake is perceived only because it

was

> already known.

 

 

I think the center of the argument is in the above; my translation of what was

being

attacked in Advaita may not be correct. (At the time, I was confusing different

theories

with Advaita.) Perhaps the VA was attacking the idea that Brahman which we see

as saguna

becomes completely nirguna during pralaya. Can somebody restate what exactly the

vyavahaarika perspective of pralaya is? Is it admitted that jiva and jagat or

some type of

memory remains in Ishvara through all types of pralaya, and at no point can the

duality

said to be totally non-existent in some state?

 

This is connected to the recently discussed deep-sleep topic (I did not follow

closely), but I

am interested in the parallel global perspective. When Ishvara sleeps, where is

any

reference point to point to recognize that sleeper, or say that he sleeps: all

gone... ? Yet

that Ishvara reawakens to a *past* (otherwise the VA argument arises). So do we

admit

that even the sleep of Ishvara is incomplete?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The definition provided seems to be overstretched.

 

bhAdhA suggests meanings like affliction, vexation, being affected,

troubled, harassed etc. When we say trikAla-AbhAdita in vedanta, it

only means " not afflicted by past, present and future " or " beyond

the sway of time " or rather " timelessness " .

 

If what is meant is " sublation " , as explained here, then we have to

necessarily give an example where the word " bhAdhA " is used in that

particular sense in vedanta.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

>> Weekly Definition - bAdha

>

> (The following is extracted from Back to the Truth, Dennis Waite, O

> Books, 2007, ISBN 1905047614.)

>

> The process of bAdha is defined in Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English

> dictionary as " a contradiction, objection, absurdity, the being

> excluded by superior proof (in logic one of the 5 forms of

fallacious

> middle term) " The word used in English is " sublation " (or

occasionally

> " subration " ), which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as

> " assimilate (a smaller entity) into a larger one. " But these

> descriptions confuse and over-complicate what is actually a simple

> process. All that it means is that we held one explanation for a

> situation in our experience; then some new knowledge came along and

we

> realized that an entirely different explanation made far more sense.

>

> For example, people used to think that the earth was flat†. If a

ship

> sailed as far as the horizon, it would fall off the edge. Then some

> new knowledge came along – the earth is spherical. Now we can

> understand that the ship is moving further around the sphere and

thus

> out of our sight. This new explanation has the added benefit of

being

> able to explain how it is that a ship can return after having fallen

> off the edge! And it even explains why the horizon seems to be

curved.

> So the old explanation – that the earth is flat – is said to have

been

> " sublated " by the new one. It is said to be bAdhita – negated or

shown

> to be contradictory, absurd or false.

>

> The example always used in Advaita is that of the rope and snake. We

> see the rope in poor light and erroneously conclude that it is a

> snake. Once a light (i.e. knowledge) has been shone onto the

> situation, we realize our mistake. If we encounter the situation

> again, we may still imagine we see a snake but the likelihood of

being

> deceived is now much reduced because we no longer accord the same

> level of authenticity to our perception. It is this process of

> rejecting the appearance in the light of our experience or new

> knowledge that is called sublation or bAdha. This also provides a

> useful definition of " truth " in that the less able we are to sublate

> an experience, the truer it must be.‡

>

> † I've since discovered that this is a commonly-held myth and

actually

> untrue - but it still serves as a useful example.

>

> ‡ Thus, one definition for reality is that which cannot be sublated.

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Nairji,

 

 

 

You may be right! I believe I encountered the term in Deutsch's 'Advaita

Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction', where he says:

 

 

 

" ...is embodied in the Sanskrit term bAdha - which means 'contradiction'

and, in the context of Advaita ontology, is often translated as

'cancellation' or 'sublation'. " And " Subration is the mental process

whereby one disvalues some previously appraised object or content of

consciousness because of its being contradicted by a new experience. "

 

 

 

Jacob's 'Concordance' gives no scriptural reference for 'bAdha'. It gives

one for 'bAdhaka' if this is the adjective derived from it - Parama. v.3 'na

bAdhaka iti chettaddhAdhako.astyeva' but, apart from not having any idea

what this means (assuming I have interpreted the Devanagari correctly), I

cannot find anything that seems to be relevant in verse 3 of either the

Paramahamsa or Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Upanishads. Perhaps Sunderji can

throw some light on the matter since I seem to have exhausted my

capabilities!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

05 October 2007 16:54

advaitin

Re: Weekly Definition - bAdha

 

 

 

Namaste.

 

The definition provided seems to be overstretched.

 

bhAdhA suggests meanings like affliction, vexation, being affected,

troubled, harassed etc. When we say trikAla-AbhAdita in vedanta, it

only means " not afflicted by past, present and future " or " beyond

the sway of time " or rather " timelessness " .

 

If what is meant is " sublation " , as explained here, then we have to

necessarily give an example where the word " bhAdhA " is used in that

particular sense in vedanta.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste again,

 

 

 

There are a number of references to bAdha in Bina Gupta's analysis

(Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta) of DharmarAja's vedAnta paribhAshA and

paribhASha prakAshikA but she also refers to Deutsch so...

 

 

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

05 October 2007 16:54

advaitin

Re: Weekly Definition - bAdha

 

 

 

Namaste.

 

The definition provided seems to be overstretched.

 

bhAdhA suggests meanings like affliction, vexation, being affected,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> There are a number of references to bAdha in Bina Gupta's analysis

> (Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta) of DharmarAja's vedAnta paribhAshA

and

> paribhASha prakAshikA but she also refers to Deutsch so...

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

The following references may be helpful:

 

In Shankara's works, the word bAdha occurs several times -

e.g. ref 18:185, meaning 'contradicted'.

 

===================================================================

 

It also occurs in Paramahamsa and Narada-Parivrajaka upanaishads.

 

==================================================================

 

Vdanta Paribhasha can be accessed at:

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/paribhasha.itx

 

================================================================

 

http://www.maharshiramana.com/_library/advaita_bodha_de

epika.pdf p.91 ff

 

Ramana Maharshi explains to a devotee the word bAdha, while

discussing Advaita Bodha Dipika

 

==============================================================

 

Sw. Vidyaranya uses this word in Panchadashi 8:46

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/panchadashi.itx

 

saamaanaadhikaraNyasya baadhaarthatva.n niraakR^itam.h .

prayatnataH vivaraNe kuuTasthatva vivakshayaa .. 46..

 

 

46. It is true that the author of the Vivarana gloss has denied the

Badha-Samanadhikaranya interpretation (and has accepted the Mukhya-

Samanadhikaranya interpretation) of `I am Brahman'. It is because he

has taken the `I' in the sense of Kutastha-Chaitanya and not in the

sense of Chidabhasa.

==================================================================

 

Sri Sastriji explains the verse :

 

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/panchadasi-chapter-8.html

 

With regard to the manner in which the appearance of the jiva is

to be understood, there is a difference of opinion between the two

main post-Sankara Advaita schools---the Vivarana school and the

Bhamati school. According to Vivarana, the jiva is reflection

(pratibimba) of Brahman in nescience, and Brahman as the prototype

reflected is Isvara. This is known as the `reflection theory'. The

Bhamati view, which is known as the `limitation (avaccheda) theory',

is that the jiva is Brahman as delimited by nescience. The analogy

for the former view is the reflection of the face in a mirror; for

the latter view it is the delimitation of ether by a pot, etc. Swami

Vidyaranya rejects the limitation theory by pointing out that if

Brahman becomes a jiva by being merely delimited by the intellect,

even a pot which is also pervaded by Brahman would become a jiva. He

accepts a modified form of the reflection theory, known as aabhaasa-

vaada, or `semblance theory'. While according to the Vivarana theory

the reflection is real and is identical with the prototype, in the

semblance theory the reflection is a mere appearance, an illusory

manifestation. In the reflection theory the apposition between the

jiva and Brahman is through identification, like the identification

of the space within a pot with the total space. In the semblance

theory the apposition between the jiva and Brahman is by sublation,

as in the case of the illusory snake and the rope, where one

says: " What appeared as a snake is really a rope " .

==================================================================

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite@> wrote:

 

>

> In Shankara's works, the word bAdha occurs several times -

> e.g. ref 18:185, meaning 'contradicted'.

>

 

Sorry! forgot to type the reference: Upadesha-sahasri 18:185

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_shankara/doc_z_misc_shankara.html

 

(upadeshasAhasrI with verse marking )

 

 

Sunder