bAdhA

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair,

 

Please let me know where you have seen the expressions 'mAyA-bAdhita brahma'

and 'upAdhi-bAdhita satya'? As far as I know the expressions used are 'mAyA

upahita brahman' and upahita caitanyam'. 'bAdhita' is not used. So the

doubts raised by you do not arise.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

 

 

To illustrate what I said before, let us consider two statements:

 

1. Brahman afflicted by mAyA (mAyA-bAdhita brahma) appears as this

phenomenal universe (vyavahAra-prapanca).

 

2. Truth limited by upAdhis (upadhi-bAdhita satya) manifests as asat.

 

In both cases, the Real will be revealed by the removal or negation

of mAyA and upadhis. That removal or negation is necessarily an

apavAda (rescission). So, if sublation is meant, the correct term

should be bAdhA-apavAdah. Apte's seems to suggest this.

 

In this sense, the meaning of abAdhita as that which cannot be

negated is an extension of the primary meaning of bAdhita (afflicted,

constrained, limited etc.). There is nothing to negate in Brahman

because It is abAdhita (not limited and so on..) seems to me to be

the correct understanding.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastri-ji,

 

I composed those sentences to drive home my point. Is there anything

wrong with them grammatically? Is it necessary that we should pick

only existing statements to illustrate a meaning. Won't the

expression 'pralaya-bAdhita dEsha' cease to be 'deluged land' if I

coin it? I don't understand your pont, Shri Sastri-ji.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Nair,

>

> Please let me know where you have seen the expressions 'mAyA-

bAdhita brahma'

> and 'upAdhi-bAdhita satya'? As far as I know the expressions used

are 'mAyA

> upahita brahman' and upahita caitanyam'. 'bAdhita' is not used. So

the

> doubts raised by you do not arise.

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

>

>

> To illustrate what I said before, let us consider two statements:

>

> 1. Brahman afflicted by mAyA (mAyA-bAdhita brahma) appears as this

> phenomenal universe (vyavahAra-prapanca).

>

> 2. Truth limited by upAdhis (upadhi-bAdhita satya) manifests as

asat.

>

> In both cases, the Real will be revealed by the removal or negation

> of mAyA and upadhis. That removal or negation is necessarily an

> apavAda (rescission). So, if sublation is meant, the correct term

> should be bAdhA-apavAdah. Apte's seems to suggest this.

>

> In this sense, the meaning of abAdhita as that which cannot be

> negated is an extension of the primary meaning of bAdhita

(afflicted,

> constrained, limited etc.). There is nothing to negate in Brahman

> because It is abAdhita (not limited and so on..) seems to me to be

> the correct understanding.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>