Definition - Bhaskar
Shankara uses the word bAdha multiple times
at various places...In ArambhaNAdhikaraNam (2-1-14)
sUtra bhAshyaM Shankara in a single para uses
this word several times to say that bAdha is
nothing but sublation of
wrong knowledge (bAdhitAnuvrutti
or bAdhita mithyAj~nAna). It would be important
here to note that Shankara alternatively, at
some places uses the words like nAsha, laya etc.
But these words also implicitly & contextually
mean bAdha only...
The word bAdha can be explained with a simple
example. If I see a synthetic snake, the first
cognition of the 'snake' causes be fear, anxiety
etc. After the detailed examination of the same,
I get the knowledge that the snake is not real
but it is mere 'synthetic' snake. But even
after having the correct knowledge of the snake,
the shape of snake does not disappear from my
sight... but for me ONLY wrong
knowledge of
'real' snake will get sublated. Though I could
see the curved snake with its broad hood in the
front, sharp tail at the end, now I have the
bAdhita j~nAna of this seemingly 'real' snake & with
that bAdhita j~nAna of that 'real' snake, there
is no more anxiety & fear to trouble me.
So, bAdhA or bAdha means when one knows/realizes
the true nature of the object. Though it appears
in all its (seeming) reality, one's realization
would be that it is not real; it is mere false
appearance & does not have actual existence.
Shankara applies the same logic & says though
brahma j~nAnI, like other loukika-s, sees this
world, for him the knowledge of the seemeing
reality of the world will get sublated with the
real knowledge of Atman. He explains this beautifully
in sUtra bhAshya (
2-1-14)
:
atashcha idaM shAstrIyaM brahmAtmatvaM
avagamyamAnaM svAbhAvikasya shArIrAtmatvasya
bAdhakaM saMpadyatE rajvAdhi buddhaya iva sarpAdi
buddhInAM, bAdhitE cha shArIrAtmatvE tadAshrayaH
samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati.
From the above, it may be noted that for a brahma
j~nAnI too, there exists the jagat & he too
sees the vyavahAra as others do, but the difference
for him is that the seeming reality of the existence
of the world has been sublated (bAdhita) by the
really real, non dual nature of brahman.
Comment from Michael Reidy
It occurred to me in this discussion of bAdha/sublation
that the prime examples of its working viz. dream
and confusion, can have their own distorting
effect. We need to distinguish between manner
and matter, between the act of sublation and
that which is being sublated. Because of the
examples of sublation that are the analogy for
the ultimate sublation happen to deal with the
unreal, we may be nudged into thinking, that
this relative state when sublated upon our achievement
of a realisation of the absolute, will be likewise
unreal, fantastical, and without substance.
As we have seen, bAdha stresses that the state
that is sublated is not thereby annihilated but
continues to exist, preserved if you like, with
a different understanding of its nature. If we
focus on the activity of sublation rather than
the matter that is sublated then counter intuitive
and incredible positions about the status of
the world for the j~nAnI may be avoided.
This is the thinking behind the Tripura Rahasya's
statement:
..."I say that you do not understand the
advaita shastra; nowhere do the sastras declare
the jagat to be unreal. But yet they proclaim
advaita to be certain. shruti-s such as "He
became all", Only the non-dual Supreme Being
shines as the universe", declare the jagat
to be real and thereby non-duality is not impaired.
Though the town reflected in a mirror seems distinct
yet it cannot exist without the mirror and so
is no other than the mirror; in the same manner
the jagat though seeming distinct is no other
than the Supreme Self. So non-duality is unimpaired." (pg.240)
Jagat is sublated on realisation. Our understanding
of what it is alters radically. The acts of sublation
that we are offered as analogies have as their
matter dream and confusion but we ought not to
let that fact alter our view of creation. What
creation is for the j~nAnI is beyond the dichotomies
of reason.
Return to the Contents page for the Terms and Definition. |
