bAdhA

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair,

 

You certainly can compose your own sentences. It is not necessary that you

should take only sentences from books. The object of my question was to know

what was the meaning of those sentences. For this I wanted to know whether

it appeared anywhere, so that I could find out the meaning in that context.

Now that you have said that it was composed by you, please let me know what

you intend to convey by the two expressions.

 

S.N.Sastri

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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastri-ji,

 

May I repeat what I wanted to convey as follows:

 

Both sentences have Truth appearing as something else (bAdhita) due

to an affliction, limitation, adjucts or constraints. That is the

bAdhita state. But, Truth, in truth, cannot be afflicted or affected

in any manner. So, the three periods of time have no sway or effect

on Truth whatever the manifestations that we confront in the

phenomenal. That is trikAla-abAdhita satya.

 

There is nothing in that satya to negate. That is the Ultimate One-

without-a-second. So, a second way of saying what is said above is:

Truth is not negatable in the three periods of time (as you pointed

out).

 

My point is that the second meaning 'not negatable in the three

periods of time' is derived from the first. Thus, the immediate

meaning of abAdhita in trikAla-abAdhita is 'not afflicted or limited

etc.' If the direct meaning were 'not negatable....', then it should

have been trikAlE abAdhita. trikAla-abAdhita conveys the

sense 'trikAlEna abadhita'.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Will you kindly clarify if you only meant negation by sublation? If

yes, I have no disagreement after considering the various contexts.

But, I would still maintain that the word 'sublation' is an

overstretched expression if it is used to indicate the final

resolution of the manifest universe of multiplicity into its source -

Brahman - through the process of negation (nEti, nEti).

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

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

>

> Dear Shri Nair,

>

> You certainly can compose your own sentences. It is not necessary

that you

> should take only sentences from books. The object of my question

was to know

> what was the meaning of those sentences. For this I wanted to know

whether

> it appeared anywhere, so that I could find out the meaning in that

context.

> Now that you have said that it was composed by you, please let me

know what

> you intend to convey by the two expressions.

>

> S.N.Sastri

> 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. Will the

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

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

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry. I meant " the word bAdha " and not " the word sublation " in the

last para of my previous message.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Will you kindly clarify if you only meant negation by sublation? If

> yes, I have no disagreement after considering the various contexts.

> But, I would still maintain that the word 'sublation' is an

> overstretched expression if it is used to indicate the final

> resolution of the manifest universe of multiplicity into its source -

> Brahman - through the process of negation (nEti, nEti).

[Guest guest]

Regarding the ongoing search for legitimate references to bAdha as meaning

sublation, I have located one in madhusUdana's advaitasiddhi. I don't know

how much cachet this carries since he was somewhat later than Shankara. Here

is part of a post from Anand Hudli to the group from June 2000:

 

 

 

advaita-siddhi text:

 

atAtvika eva vA nishhedho .ayam.h | atAtvikatve .api na prAtibhAsikaH, kiMtu

vyAvahArikaH| nacha - tarhi nishhedhasya bAdhyatvena tAtvikasattva-

avirodhitvAdarthAntaram-iti vAchyam.h | svApnArthasya svApnanishhedhena

bAdhadarshanAt.h | nishhedhasya bAdhyatvaM pAramArthikasattva-avirodhitve na

tantram.h, kiMtu nishhedhyApexayA nyUnasattAkatvam.h | prakR^ite cha

tulyasattAkatvAt.h kathaM na virodhitvam.h |

 

Translation:

 

atAtvika eva - only unreal, vA - Or, nishhedho .ayam.h - this negation,

atAtvikatve .api - Even if it is unreal, na prAtibhAsikaH - it is not

illusory, kiMtu vyAvahArikaH - but empirical, nacha - And (it) cannot, tarhi

nishhedhasya - then, of the negation, bAdhyatvena - due to being sublatable,

tAtvikasattva-avirodhitvAd-arthAntaram - due to being not opposed to the

reality of (the world), there is the defect of arthAntara (proving something

other than what was intended), iti vAchyam.h - be said thus, svApnArthasya -

of the dream-object, svApnanishhedhena - by negation in the dream,

bAdhadarshanAt.h - because of experiencing the sublation, nishhedhasya - of

the negation, bAdhyatvaM - sublatability pAramArthikasattva-avirodhitve - in

being not opposed to the absolute reality, na tantram.h - is not dependent

(does not imply), kiMtu nishhedhyApexayA - but as compared to what is

negated, nyUnasattAkatvam.h - having a lower order of reality, prakR^ite

cha - And in the point under discussion, tulyasattAkatvAt.h - because of the

equal order of reality, kathaM na - how is there no, virodhitvam.h -

opposition.

 

Meaning:

 

Or we may say that this negation (of the world) is unreal. Even though it is

unreal, it is not illusory (prAtibhAsika), but empirical (vyAvahArika). And

(you) cannot say: " Since the negation, that is itself sublatable, cannot be

in opposition to the reality (of the world), there is the defect of proving

something other than intended. " (Why?) Because, of the instance of sublation

of a dream-object along with its dream-negation. There is no dependence or

implication of the non-opposition to absolute reality on the sublatability

of the negation, but on the negation's being of a lower order of reality

than the thing that is negated. In the present case, there is equality of

the order of reality (of the negation and the thing that is negated, ie. the

world). So how is there no opposition (to the reality of the world)?

 

MadhusUdana says here that the negation of the world can be viewed as

vyAvahArika. This prompts an objection: If the negation of the world is

vyAvahArika, then this negation should itself be sublated. Upon sublation of

the negation of the world, the world's reality, not unreality, would be

affirmed. That means the advaitin is proving something other than what he

intended, a defect called arthAntara. To this objection, MadhusUdana replies

that it is not the case that world's reality would be affirmed upon

sublation of the negation of the world. In the example of a dream, an object

in the dream may be negated later in the same dream. And the negation itself

is negated upon waking up. This does not result in the dream-object becoming

real in the waking state! So what implies the reality of a thing is NOT the

mere fact that its negation is sublatable, but the fact that such negation

is of a lesser order of reality than that of the thing itself.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

06 October 2007 18:23

advaitin

Re: bAdhA

 

 

 

Sorry. I meant " the word bAdha " and not " the word sublation " in the

last para of my previous message.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear members,

can 'bAdhA' be translated as " To falsify " , " Falsification " ?

In this connection I would like to quote an excerpt from

Sri Shankara's commentary to mantra 1-3-13 of Kathopanishad:

QUOTE:

" EvaM puruShE sarvaM pravilApya nAmarUpakarmatrayaM

yanmithyAj~JAnavijRumBitaM kriyAkArakaPalalakShaNaM

svAtmayAthAtmyaj~JAnEna marIcyudakarajjusarpagaganamalAnIva

marIcirajjugaganasvarUpadarSanEnaiva svasthaH praSAntAtmA

kRutakRutyO Bavati yataH || "

Translation (By Swami Gambirananda ):

Just as the water in a mirage, the snake on a rope, and dirt in the

sky, are eliminated through the perception of the real nature of the

mirage, rope, and the sky, similarly by dissolving in

the Purusa-the Self- through the KNOWLEDGE OF ONE'S OWN SELF, all that

is projected by unreal ignorance, which is charecterized by action,

instrument, and result, and which is constituted by

the three-name, form and action-one becomes established in the SElf

and peaceful in mind, and he has his goal achieved.

UNQUOTE.

I think Sri Shankara has clearly explained what " bAdha " is and also

the methodology for execution of the same.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

In the last posting of mine The sentence " " EvaM puruShE sarvaM

pravilApya " should read as

" EvaM puruShE Atmani sarvaM pravilApya " .

 

The error is regretted.

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Dear members,

> can 'bAdhA' be translated as " To falsify " , " Falsification " ?

> In this connection I would like to quote an excerpt from

> Sri Shankara's commentary to mantra 1-3-13 of Kathopanishad:

> QUOTE:

> " EvaM puruShE sarvaM pravilApya nAmarUpakarmatrayaM

> yanmithyAj~JAnavijRumBitaM kriyAkArakaPalalakShaNaM

> svAtmayAthAtmyaj~JAnEna marIcyudakarajjusarpagaganamalAnIva

> marIcirajjugaganasvarUpadarSanEnaiva svasthaH praSAntAtmA

> kRutakRutyO Bavati yataH || "

> Translation (By Swami Gambirananda ):

> Just as the water in a mirage, the snake on a rope, and dirt in the

> sky, are eliminated through the perception of the real nature of the

> mirage, rope, and the sky, similarly by dissolving in

> the Purusa-the Self- through the KNOWLEDGE OF ONE'S OWN SELF, all that

> is projected by unreal ignorance, which is charecterized by action,

> instrument, and result, and which is constituted by

> the three-name, form and action-one becomes established in the SElf

> and peaceful in mind, and he has his goal achieved.

> UNQUOTE.

> I think Sri Shankara has clearly explained what " bAdha " is and also

> the methodology for execution of the same.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

I re-read your original definition several times in the light of your

post below and other posts in this thread and am happy to say that

you are right.

 

I seem to have jumped the gun. I notice that, by bAdha, you

originally meant only an annulment (often by producing a superior

sort of evidence). The problem was with me. I seem to have

forgotten the dictionary meanings of words like 'sublation' due to my

preoccupation with vedanta and mistook you to be drawng together the

entire process of vedantic enquiry and its ultimate consummation

under the umbrella of bAdha.

 

Immense thanks to Shri Sastri-ji for his invaluable clarifications.

However, I would still await his views on my explanation of trikAla-

abAdhita.

 

This exchange of views has educated me immensely!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Regarding the ongoing search for legitimate references to bAdha as

meaning

> sublation, I have located one in madhusUdana's advaitasiddhi. I

don't know

> how much cachet this carries since he was somewhat later than

Shankara. Here

> is part of a post from Anand Hudli to the group from June 2000: