bAdha

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all,

 

Ah, if it only were the case that the ostensible definitions of words were

sufficient for an understanding of what their purport was in sentences

then the holding of many views would be abolished and each seeker would be

given an authorised dictionary as a guide to knowledge. Alas it is not

so; venerable and sincere Sanskritists dispute mightily about the meaning

of expressions and even within the sacred grove of Advaita dissent

occurs. Why do some find this puzzling and even a scandal?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michaelji :

 

You are absolutely right in your assessment of the debate

surrounding the definition of the term 'bAdhA'...

 

yes! A dictionary is always a good helper while reading books but

there is a world of difference between understanding and

comprehension. One can know Tat means 'That ' Twam means 'You' and

Asi means 'Are' But even Shevataketu took many many sessions to

fully comprehend what these three magical words meant even though

his guru was none other than Uddalaka muni .

 

Vada and Tarka are two powerful instruments in the hands of a

vedantic scholar ! After all if you read Shankara Digvijayam, you

see even Mandana mishra chalenging Adi shankara bhagvadapada !

 

actually that is what makes a group interesting - Healthy debates !

Vada not vitanda vada !

 

but Vitanda vada is a different cup of Tea ! We have many doubting

Thomases in our midst - they want to shake our 'faith' and sow seeds

of doubt in the words of even great saints and scholars ! that is

the 'scandulous' part not the questions or the arguments and counter

arguments .

 

btw please read Ken Knight's post on 'bAdhA sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM ' and

Michaelji Did you know that there are 16 forms of

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam " none of them except the aikya sAmAnAdhikaraNyam

can establish the true unity of the twoterms, and therefore of the

unity of existence as a whole, which is the purport of all VedAnta. "

This is post number 14337 available in Advaitin Archives and is a

great eye opener and the author clearly explains the meaning of Tat

Twam ASI using the technique of 'sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM' .

 

You are right - sometimes a word can mean more than wht we haer as

was evident from the term 'bAdhA' AND NAIRJI IS 100 % RIGHT IN

ASKING US TO USE THE WORD 'bADHA' IN A SENTENCE TO DERIVE THE FULL

MEANING OF THE WORD! ( THE CAPITAL LOCK IS TURNED ON ONLY FOR

EMPHASIS) !

 

Michaelji , you yourself in the past has questioned the translation

of the word 'bAdhA' to mean Sublation. here is that post ... and

Professorji's response

 

Re: Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

> Hello Madathil,

>>

> For myself I have lately been intrigued by a word which

> Swami Gambhirananda uses in relation to the dream -

> 'sublate'. B.S.B. II.ii.29 ...the perceptions of the

> waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream.

> Why?

> Because of difference in characteristics; for waking

> and dream states are really different in nature.

> In what does the difference consist?

> We say that it consists in being subject to sublation

> or not. To a man, arisen from sleep, the object

> perceived in a dream becomes sublated. > Best Wishes, Michael

 

-----------------------

 

Namaste, Michaelji

 

I had a quick look at the original of B.S.B. II ii 29. The original

of -- I quote from your paragraph above of Gambhirananda -- " We say

that it consists in being subject to sublation or not " is as follows

" bAdhAvabhAdhAu iti brUmah " . So the word 'sublate' has come from

the Sanskrit word 'bAdha'. This latter word means 'refutation'. So

I think 'refutation' could be (for us) a more comfortable

translation, but from the time of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan onwards, all

experts have been using the word 'sublation'.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

now , michaelji , pl read what ken knightji says on this subject

of ' 'bAdhA sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM '

 

" bAdhAyAM sAmAnAdhikaraNya (coordinate relation in

terms of contradiction): Someone mistakes a post for a

thief. Another man corrects him saying that the `Thief

is a post' (coraH sthANuH). The statement is intended

to show that the object is only a post. The terms

`thief' and `post' are contradictorily related. Yet on

hearing the statement, the man, who has misunderstood

the post to be a thief, corrects himself by abandoning

the object `thief'. The coordinate relation, that

exists between the terms `thief' and `post' in the

above statement is in terms of contradiction. "

 

So , Nairji is somewhat right in interpreting the word 'badha' to

mean contradiction and not sublation . But here again, a word is a

word and a word in a sentence is a different kettle of fish !

 

please read Ken knightji's article and he has done wonders with this

topic !

 

Nairji's doubta are valid but his doubts have been set at rest by

shastriji and our ever resourceful Sunderji and that is the beauty

of a Satsangha such as this !

 

michaelji , Sublation means Sublation is an English term; bAdhA is

a sanskrit word ; Hegel uses the German word 'Aufhebung.' The

German word Aufhebung literally means " out/up-lifting. "

In Hegel, the term Aufhebung has the apparently contradictory

implications of both preserving and changing (the German verb

aufheben means both " to cancel " and " to keep " ). SO YOU SEE ., THE

DIFFICULTIES WE ARE RUNNING INTO !

 

The main point is this - Dennisji is trying his best to translate

Sanskrit words into English - A herculean task ! We all nee to help

him as much as possible by not with 'contradictory' stands but by

concilliatory approach!

 

Sonia Gandhi is an Italian . She has learned to speak chaste 'Hindi'

so she can communicate effectively with the people of India , a

country of adoption. Bhagini Nivedita is another Italian who

embracved Hinduism and fully blended with India society , its

culture and customs .

 

I am myself a Hindu but till i came to this group for me 'Tat twam

Asi ' was a mere collection of three words but now years and years

later after reading all the posts in this Advaitin list , it is

dawning on me that 'It is more than a collection of words' it is the

Ultimate Truth!

 

KLove and Regards

 

Aum Shanti! Shantihi! Shanti!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste to all,

>

> Ah, if it only were the case that the ostensible definitions of

words were

> sufficient for an understanding of what their purport was in

sentences

> then the holding of many views would be abolished and each seeker

would be

> given an authorised dictionary as a guide to knowledge. Alas it

is not

> so; venerable and sincere Sanskritists dispute mightily about the

meaning

> of expressions and even within the sacred grove of Advaita

dissent

> occurs. Why do some find this puzzling and even a scandal?

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>