bAdha-'Reality as opposed to mere Appearance '?

[Guest guest]

Thank you Anandaji for a simple but truthful explanation of the

term 'bAdha' ! i can understand why one is uncomfortable with

translating Sanskrit words into English - the fault is not so much

in 'translation' as much as in understanding and comprehension .

 

Take the Greek word 'Alétheia ' for instance ! What is the correct

translation for this Greek word? Does 'Alétheia' mean 'True'

or 'reality as opposed to mere apperance' ?

 

After reading the controversy regarding the word' bAdha' the

following lines from Poet Robert Graves comes to mind

 

e in a new confusion of his understanding;

I in a new understanding of my confusion.

[Robert Graves, 1895-1985: 'In Broken Images']

Humor apart , i particularly resonated with these words in your poem

" Each show of any part of world

that is perceived or thought or felt

is not quite true; as it ignores

what's left unseen, unthought, unfelt.

 

True knowing cannot know in part.

It cannot be attained mixed up

with ignorance of what perception,

thought and feeling fail to show. "

 

Anandaji , may i also make bold to say that while 'language is all

Thought , understanding and comprehension' - the Truth of Advaita is

not a 'thought or an understanding or comprehension' tHE Truth of

Advaita is a state of 'being' , would you not agree ? There lies

the 'bAdha'

 

love and regards

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> I must confess to being somewhat uncomfortable with technical

terms

> like 'bAdha' and 'sublation'. Literally 'bAdha' means 'opposition,

> repulsion, driving away'. >

> The mix-up is not fully true.

> Nor yet is it completely false.

> It's a perplexing, tricky show

> of mind's belief in partial lies.

>

> These partial lies keep being told

> by our perceptions, thoughts and feelings

> of a world that seems made up

> from many different, changing things.

>

> Each show of any part of world

> that is perceived or thought or felt

> is not quite true; as it ignores

> what's left unseen, unthought, unfelt.

>

> True knowing cannot know in part.

> It cannot be attained mixed up

> with ignorance of what perception,

> thought and feeling fail to show.

>

> Where knowing truly is attained,

> it must be realized unmixed

> with part perceptions, thoughts and feelings

> showing objects in the world.

>

> Just that true knowing stays on present

> through all change of mental states.

> Its knowing presence carries on,

> as they appear and disappear.

>

> It is their knowing principle:

> found common to each one of them,

> as they perceive and think and feel

> each object in the seeming world.

>

> That knowing is called 'consciousness'.

> It knows itself, as knowing light,

> illuminating every act

> of body, sense and mind in world.

>

> Whatever may appear perceived,

> or thought or felt, by anyone,

> expresses that same consciousness

> and is absorbed back into it.

>

> It is thus plain and simple truth:

> found by returning back to it

> as that which knows, as one's own self,

> identical with all that's known.

>