bAdhA

[Guest guest]

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.

 

There is of course a difference, as you have pointed out. The dream objects

disappear completely on waking up. But on realization the world continues to

be seen, only no reality is attached to it by the jnAni. This is explained

in vedAntic works in two ways. One is the example of the crystal looking red

in the vicinity of a red flower. Even after one realizes that the red colour

is due to the flower, the crystal continues to look red as long as the

flower is there. In a mirage, even after one has gone close to it and found

out that there is no water, it will again look as if there is water there if

he looks at it again from a distance, but now he knows the truth and will

not rush towards it for water. In these two cases the adhyAsa is with

upAdhi, the upAdhi being the red flower in the first case and the sunlight

in the second, which makes the sand look like water. Similarly the mind,

which is the upAdhi still continues after realization and so the jnAni

continues to see the world of duality, but he is not affected because his

mind is free from likes and dislikes. In the rope-snake example there is no

upAdhi and so the snake disappears as soon as the rope is known. This is the

difference between sopadhika adhyAsa and nirupAdhika adhyAsa. Another

explanation is that vikshepaSakti continues for the jnAni and so he sees the

world, but since there is no AvaraNa he is not affected like others. This

has ben said by Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati in his commentary on

VivekachUDAmaNi. 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.

 

Please let me know your views on these points.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji,

>

>

>

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

>

>

 

Namaste,

 

This may seem a digression, but it illustrates the 'tortuous

travels' or 'torturous travails ' of translation! The following

history of the word is worth noting:

 

http://www.hegel.net/en/sublation.htm

 

Sublation

by Kai Froeb

 

One central term of Hegel, the German word " aufheben " , is usualy

translated as " sublation " into English.

It has three meanings, which Hegel all means at the same time:

a) in it's basic meaning, it stands for a picture: to raise something,

from a lower place to a higher place. Usually, you would think of

taking something from the floor/ground into your hand.

Out of this picture, came these meanings:

b) You can see in that picture the meaning " raising something to a

higher level " , taking it a step further etc. While Hegel plays much

with this meaning (in the sense that the Aufhebung / Sublation needs

to take the original thesis to a higher level, think for example of

Newton Physics vs. Einstein Physics), it is not really that much

explicit present in the common use of that phrase in German common

language.

c) You take something from the ground to examine it or to store it

away. So the phrase is also used in the sense of " storing " , " saving " ,

" preserving " (usualy for later use). This is a common use of the word

in German. Hegel uses this interpretation in the sense that the

original thesis and antithesis are still present in some sense in the

wider sublation (again one can think of Newton vs. Einstein).

d) Another popular use of " Aufhebung " / " aufheben " in the German common

language is nearly the opposite of c): I think the English language

also uses the verb " to lift " (as present in the original picture

presented in a)), in the sense of " to end " , " to negate " say in the

expression " to lift a ban " etc.

In German we also speak i.e. of the lift of a law, when a law of the

state is expressed to be not more valid anymore.

Hegel thinks of this aspect of sublation/Aufhebung in what I tried to

express in 2d of that Hegel posting. While c) lays the expression on

the fact that the older thesis are not just denied, but that all what

was reasonable in them is preserved in a better system (and that the

better system is not better/subject to criticism in the grade it fails

to implement all reasonable from the thesis), d) lays the emphasis

more in the aspect in that the Sublation is also something new and

also a kind of critique of the former thesis (otherwise, why would one

need the sublation? The thesis would be enough). Especially, the idea

here is that the implicit assumptions, borders of thesis (and probably

antitheses) are " lifted " / " overcome " in a meaningful " sublation " .

In order to express these three aspects all together, Hegelians prefer

to speak from " Aufhebung " instead of expansion, inclusion, synthesis

or similar, which all more focus on some aspects. BTW, Hegel himself

never used the term " synthesis " for the concept of " sublation "

discussed here.

================================================================================\

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

 

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001837.php

 

SUBLATE.

I just learned a new word, and I rather wish I hadn't. ……………….

 

That's classic High Academic dialect, but I was able to hack my way

through most of it; the verb " sublate, " however, defeated me. It turns

out that, although it has been used by logicians to mean simply

'deny,' it has a more specific meaning: 'to negate or eliminate (as an

element in a dialectic process) but preserve as a partial element in a

synthesis,' in the admirably clear words of Merriam-Webster. I say

" admirably clear " because the OED throws up its hands and says simply

" see quots. 1865. " You want to see quots. 1865? Here they are:

 

1865 J. H. STIRLING Secret of Hegel I. 354 Nothing passes over into

Being, but Being equally sublates itself, is a passing over into

Nothing, Ceasing-to-be. They sublate not themselves mutually, not the

one the other externally; but each sublates itself in itself, and is

in its own self the contrary of itself. Ibid. 357 A thing is sublated,

resolved, only so far as it has gone into unity with its opposite.

 

Got that? Me neither. The Secret of Hegel could remain a secret

forever with explanations like that. But why " sublate " ? Here the OED

is more forthcoming: " rendering G. aufheben, used by Hegel as having

the opposite meanings of `destroy' and `preserve.' " And yes, aufheben

is a many-splendored word; the basic meaning is 'pick up' (heb es auf

'pick it up!'), but it also means 'keep, put aside,' 'abolish, do away

with,' 'raise, lift' (eg, a blockade), and 'offset, make up for.' So

if you're translating dear old Hegel, how do you render it in English,

given that English does not have a word with that particular

combination of senses?

Well, there are several approaches. You could keep the down-to-earth,

colloquial nature of the word and render it " pick up, " letting the

reader get used to the specialized usage and forcing future writers to

say " to pick it up, in the Hegelian sense. " Or you could keep the

sense of the word in context, giving up on the basic-vocabulary

aspect; you could, for instance, render it " supersede, " which I think

conveys the meaning well enough. But James Hutchison Stirling (for I

assume it was he who set English Hegelianism on this contorted course:

" his style, though often striking, is so marked by the influence of

Carlyle, and he so resolutely declines to conform to ordinary

standards of systematic exposition, that his work is almost as

difficult as the original which it is intended to illuminate " ) chooses

to reach into the grab-bag of Latinity he doubtless picked up at

Glasgow University and pulls out sublate (from sublatum, the past

participle of tollo 'pick up'), a verb that will convey absolutely

nothing to the average reader and thus is catnip to a certain type of

scholarly mind. ……………………..

 

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

 

Gearge Thibaut used this word in his translations of Shankara's

sutra-bhashya in 1890, and in Ramanuja's in 1904.

 

[ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/index.htm Shankara 1890

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/index.htm Ramanuja 1904 ]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunder-ji,

 

 

 

Excellent references - I have added the links to the definition (I don't

think I can add the actual text because of copyright). Incidentally, you

don't mention that Eliot Deutsch uses the word 'subrate'! Now I wonder where

he got that from???

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Sunder Hattangadi

10 October 2007 19:20

advaitin

Re: bAdhA

 

 

 

 

http://www.hegel.net/en/sublation.htm

 

Sublation

by Kai Froeb

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

 

> Incidentally, you

> don't mention that Eliot Deutsch uses the word 'subrate'! Now I

wonder where

> he got that from???

 

Namaste,

 

This has not been accepted yet by Merriam-Webster Dictionary! (he

coined the neologism in 1973:

 

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o & d=14390659

 

 

2

 

Levels of Being

 

Reality is that which cannot be subrated by any other experience.

 

Appearance is that which can be subrated by other experience.

 

Unreality is that which neither can nor cannot be subrated by

other experience.

 

 

I

 

" What is the mental process through which men generate

their ontologies, their ordering of experience in terms of the con­

cept of " being " ? And how can this process be employed as a crite­

rion for the making of distinctions between " orders of being " ? The

Advaitic: answer to this is embodied in the Sanskrit term b & #257;dha --

which means " contradiction " and, in the context of Advaita ontol­

ogy, is often translated as " cancellation " or " sublation. " For pur­

poses of clarity and for drawing out its meaning more fully, this

concept may be reconstructed as subration. "

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

dennisji /sunderji :

 

Thank you for all these references ! in fact , in my post number

37261 , i also mentioned this word 'sublation' in a cursory manner -

here is that reference

 

" 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 !

 

Dennisji , here is more

 

" Nirguna is of course the substratum for all the sagunas. But the

process of subration doesn't immediately take you from any saguna

directly to the nirguna. It can take you from a saguna level to

another higher saguna level too. In the example of the rope and

snake, subration makes the snake unreal, but that saguna snake is

now replaced by a saguna rope. The snake doesn't just get subrated

all the way to nirguna in one shot.

 

In the example of dream, when you wake up from dream, the reality of

dream is subrated by the waking reality. But isn't it the point of

advaita that even the waking reality can be subrated further?

 

Therefore it is quite alright to say that a saguna when subrated can

still lead to a saguna. The whole process leads through a sequence

of sagunas with a limit in the nirguna. "

 

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t460-200.html

 

Dennisji

 

It is amusing to see you worry about 'copyright' so much ! Do you

know the difference between ' copyright and 'auteursrechten''

 

Enjoy the break from 'bAdha'

 

 

sumin

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Dear Sastri-ji,

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

>

>