bAdha

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

This word 'bAdha' as used by Shankara is evidently to some degree a

technical one. 'Contradiction' has too propositional a force. I say that

it is raining, you say that it is not. We contradict each other. Very

well, there is a truth of the matter.

 

'I saw a snake in the yard'. No what you saw was a coiled rope. One

statement contradicts the other. Indeed, but there was a consciousness

which had snakeform. That is the higher truth of the matter beyond the

basic contradiction.

 

I dreamt that I met with John Wayne. We discussed the sub prime mortgage

problem. On waking I know that this is not so. But as a consciousness

this dream is not contradicted. It is this flexibility that bAdha

adumbrates and this is why that I think that the plain word

'contradiction'/'refutation' is not adequate or could potentially mislead.

 

Was this 'bAdha' a developement of Shankara's? From reading the Karikas

of Gaudapada there is no sense that the dream events are sublated. No,

dream and waking are just two streams of consciousness having the same

scope.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

I don't think you can apply the term to dreams. When we wake up, the dream

is realized to have been unreal. Rather, you apply it in the waking world

where things are not unreal but mithyA. Therefore it is possible to have a

better, clearer understanding of them. When we realize that objects are not

separate entities but simply name and form of brahman, the objects do not

disappear. Instead, the old understanding is sublated by the new.

 

I guess that what I am saying is that the concept of bAdha is only

meaningful in vyavahAra; it simply does not (cannot) apply to pratibhAsa.

(This is not to say that you could not have a bAdha 'experience' within the

dream itself, of course.)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of ombhurbhuva

10 October 2007 00:34

advaitin

bAdha

 

 

 

Was this 'bAdha' a developement of Shankara's? From reading the Karikas

of Gaudapada there is no sense that the dream events are sublated. No,

dream and waking are just two streams of consciousness having the same

scope.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

But on realization the world continues to be seen, only no reality is

attached to it by the jnAni.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, shankara too says this in tattusamanvayAt sUtra bhAshya...the *shabda

pratyaya* is same for both jnAni & an ordinary shepherd...there is no

difference between them...*AtmAnAtmavivEkinAmapi paNditAnAM ajAvipAlAnAmiva

Aviviktau shabda pratyayau bhavataH* That is the reason why, people might

have seen ramaNa maharshi cutting vegetables at kitchen or doing vyavahAra

like any other mortals...but shankara says, though they are doing vyavahAra

they lost the *satyatva buddhi* in it as a result of *avagati jnAna*....

 

Sri Sastri prabhuji at the end you said :

 

//quote //

THere is a lot of discussion in vedAntic works on whether avidyA continues

after jnAna. The general view is that there is avidyA-leSa or trace of

avidyA. This is another subject.

//unquote//

 

Sri Sastri prabhuji, you know both the versions very well....would you

kindly explain us how it would be appropriate to attribute *avidyA lEsha*

even for a brahma jnAni...if this is true, in which state a jnAni can

realise the truth of shruti vAkya *bhidhyate hrudaya graNthi, chidyante

sarva saMshayAH* ??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

Well, of course one can use words in any way one likes... J

 

 

 

Seriously though, if Sri Shankara has used the word in this way, then that

must be acceptable (effectively by definition). I would not have thought of

doing so from a logical point of view. It seems to me that the sublating

concept must somehow 'contain' the sublated, i.e. must still be talking

about the same thing but provide a more comprehensive and reasonable

explanation. To put this another way, I find it natural to talk about the

rope-snake being sublated once the rope is realized because both actually

have the rope as adhiShThAna but in the case of the dream, there does not

seem to be any substrate - the whole thing was just a concoction of the

mind. The snake can still be at least imagined - one can, perhaps half-close

the eyes or return in darkness and still make out the hooded head and forked

tongue. But once one has awoken, there is simply no way to see anything of

the dream-that-was; it all dissolves and 'leaves not a rack behind'.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of S.N. Sastri

10 October 2007 11:11

advaitin

bAdhA

 

 

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

In his bhAshya on brahma sUtra 2.2.29 Sri Sankara says: bAdhyate hi

svapnoplabdham vastu pratibuddhasya---- The things seen in dream are

sublated on waking up. The case of the rope-snake is similar to dream

objects. Both are prAtibhAsika. The rope snake is realized to be unreal and

is not seen any more when the rope is known. The term 'bAdha' is used for

the rope-snake. So why can it not be used for dream objects? prAtibhAsika

and vyaVaharika are both mithyA. The dream state is also part of the

vyAvahArika plane and the objects that appear are all prAtibhAsika. The

waking state too is in the vyAvahArika plane and some objects that appear in

this state, like the rope-snake, have prAtibhAsika reality, while others

have vyAvahArika realty.