substance and attribute

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadananda,

 

Chapter 1 of the book 'Fundamentals of Visistadvaita' has a detailed

discussion on he topic of substance and attribute. "Based on valid

pramanas and in particular our common experience, the visistadvaitin

accepts the concept of substance and attribute. The two, according to

him, are distinct but integrally related. whenever we perceive an

object we comprehend it as qualified by an attribute. Thus, for instance,

when we perceive a blue lotus, we see the flower along with its colour.

That which is substrate or basis for the colour is regarded as

substance; the colour that cannot exist by itself but oly in relation to

the substance is the attribute."

 

In language we accept the notions of substance and attribute. For

example, in the sentence "the rose is red, pretty, and bright" we

predicate of the substance rose the attributes of redness, prettiness,

and brightness. In like manner, in the sentence "satyam jnanam anantam

brahma" we predicate of the substance brahman the attributes of truth,

consciousness and infinitude. (I am giving this example to point

out the relevence of substance-attribute concept to visistadvaita.

There is more discussion of this sentence in the book in the context

of it being a definition of brahman.)

 

The book continues "The very distinction made between substance and

attribute is questioned by the critics. The existence of substance other

than the attributes is not accepted by some buddhists. Similarly, the

real existence of attributes other than the substance is denied by

the advaitins. ......."

 

The book is based on vedantadesika's tattva-muktA-kalApa.

 

best wishes

Kasturi

[Guest guest]

Thanks Kastuuri - for your kind response. Shree Krishna Kalale

referred me the book and some of these questions in fact arose while

I am studying these concepts. I am going to raise the issues to get

little more clarification of my understanding. I want to be clear in

my understanding and all my questions are towards that end. I am

assuming these questions are not beyond the scope of this list.

>Dear Sri Sadananda,

>

> Chapter 1 of the book 'Fundamentals of Visistadvaita' has a detailed

>discussion on he topic of substance and attribute. "Based on valid

>pramanas and in particular our common experience, the visistadvaitin

>accepts the concept of substance and attribute. The two, according to

>him, are distinct but integrally related. whenever we perceive an

>object we comprehend it as qualified by an attribute. Thus, for instance,

>when we perceive a blue lotus, we see the flower along with its colour.

>That which is substrate or basis for the colour is regarded as

>substance; the colour that cannot exist by itself but oly in relation to

>the substance is the attribute."

 

 

> In language we accept the notions of substance and attribute. For

>example, in the sentence "the rose is red, pretty, and bright" we

>predicate of the substance rose the attributes of redness, prettiness,

>and brightness.

 

Yes I understand the paragraphs and also followed through Indian

logicians arguments in terms of substance and attributes. I know

that in VishishhTaadviata and even dwaita accept that substance is

different from attributes and there is relation between the two - the

rule of inherence - associated with these. - 'Based on valid

pramaaNa and in particular our common experience" - Here I am

questioning validity of these pramaaNa and experience - The

attributes are recognized by the senses and that is the pratyaksha

pramaaNa - I have no problem there - blue lotus or green lotus - the

blue ness one can see and the form of the lotus one can - that is all

eyes can see - the color and form -But form and color are not the

substance. Form includes all its paraphernalia - curvatures, length,

height, etc, etc. Eyes cannot see anything other than these

attributes. Ears can hear , touch can provide softness texture etc

all are attributes - input from different senses. Now where is the

-substance - recognized by the senses. Sense can only recognize the

attribtues. But attributes are not the substance. Substance has the

attributes. Anubhava or experience is - based on conditioning of the

mind to the association of the attributes with a locus of attributes

-

 

I am asking here - there is a substance out there which is locus for

the attributes - is it an inferential statement of the mind based on

the conclusion that there must be a substance for the attributes to

have a locus. What I am asking is - that the substance exists is a

inferential conclusion or factual statement. How can we tell this

apart?.

 

Or is it an axiomatic statement that there is substance out there

since I am seeing attributes? - This is what I am trying to resolve

- axioms verses statement of facts based on validity of pramaaNa.

 

Inference, I am sure you are aware, is anumaana pramaaNa (separate

from anubhava), it requires again vyaapti j~naanam or concomitant

relation and that is again should relay either on pratyaksha if it

is loukika anumaana or shabda if it is shaasriiya anumaana - or

scriptural declarations. Pratyaksha does not help since I am back to

just attributes and not substance. If it is shabda then - where

exactly it is said and how is it interpreted comes into question.

 

Anubhava or experience is not considered as pramaaNa since it is

subjective - it may confirm the knowledge but not considered as an

independent pramaaNa or means of knowledge. Even if everyone has the

same anubhava does not validate still as pramaaNa. I am aware that

Bhagavaan Madhvachaarya considers an experience as knowledge.

Everyone experiences the sun rise and sun set, yet sun does not rise

or set is a real knowledge.

 

I do not know if you can sympathize my labor pains - I have to go

through this because of the conditioning in this so called scientific

groove for umteen years.

 

 

>In like manner, in the sentence "satyam jnanam anantam

>brahma" we predicate of the substance brahman the attributes of truth,

>consciousness and infinitude. (I am giving this example to point

>out the relevence of substance-attribute concept to visistadvaita.

>There is more discussion of this sentence in the book in the context

>of it being a definition of brahman.)

 

Yes you are right - that is exactly I will be driving towards

ultimately to resolve in my own mind - I know Bhagavaan Ramanuja

emphasizes that - That is the reason I was asking the question about

jiiva in moksha too - what are attributes of jiiva and what swaruupa

lakshaNa-s in contrast to tatastha lakshhaNa-s - is there an

hierarchy of jiiva and on what basis - is it based on attributes or

intrinsic nature and how is that intrinsic nature is recognized or is

based.

> The book continues "The very distinction made between substance and

>attribute is questioned by the critics. The existence of substance other

>than the attributes is not accepted by some buddhists. Similarly, the

>real existence of attributes other than the substance is denied by

>the advaitins. ......."

 

At this stage of the game - If you excuse me for saying so - I am

trying to find the truth - not in particular what buddhists say or

advaitins say, ultimately I have to resolve in my own mind. See I

am a student of Science and Vedanta and trying to understand the

nature of the reality. Please do not misunderstand me - I am not

trying to reinvent the wheel only trying to understand the wheel or

wheels. I am trying to understand the fact with my limited

intellect and taking the help as much as possible from the great

source of knowledge of the achaarya-s. Trying to understand the

beauty of this creation and that infinite intelligence behind this

creation - That is where I am finding my bhakti.

 

> The book is based on vedantadesika's tattva-muktA-kalApa.

 

 

Yes - at the advise of Shree Krishana Kalale I am getting many

vishishhTadvaita books and also through these lists and listening to

great achaaryas and corresponding with them I am trying to clarify my

understanding. It is difficult to study these texts without a

teacher, hence I am posing these questions to the lists to gain

knowledge from those who have already gone through these pains - in

that sense these list serve is a blessing indeed for those who want

to learn.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>best wishes

>Kasturi

>

>-----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

>To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

>Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623