Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 There was on going discussion in adviataL about the object and qualities. Since everybody is deeply meditating in this list, I thought I can post my other list post here for everyone to think deeply over the weekend if you are not lost in the etherial soup that Toni put us all. Hari OM! Sadananda --------------- It is recognized by all that qualities are different from substantive which is dravya. Since each sense picks up specific quality in its field (eyes -color and forms; ears - sound etc) but we know that color and form or sound are not the same as substantive. It is also true that these qualities are not dravya-s and therefore cannot exist independently of the substantives. The inherent relation is recognized by all - each school may use different terminology but bottom line is essentially the same, even though each school may claim theirs is unique. Qualities are called visheshaNa-s or guNa-s. Every object has qualities is also recognized by all schools. Conversely that which has qualities is an object is recognized by Advaita. Subject is different from an object. Therefore it also follows that subject cannot be qualified. Essence of adhyaasa is supreimposition of qualities (which belong to objects) to the subject, I, which is nirguNa. All qualities are measurable - that is what senses do. Anything that can be measurable is limited, by definition. From that it follows that objects that invariably have qualities are limited. Subject, I, therefore is not limited. Corollary is only finite has qualities since they are measurable. Infinite by definition cannot have qualities. One can say that infinite has infinite qualities - but that is not saying anything other than putting the same thing differently, perhaps more elegantly at least in their opinion. Now you can see why scripture says Brahman is nirguNa - and also aham brahmaasmi too. This is samanvaya as well as adhyaasa in a nutshell! Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Namaste Sri Sadananda, I was interested to read your post about dravya (substance) and qualities. It put me in mind of John Locke's theory of matter and primary and secondary qualities. Secondary qualities are mind- dependent eg. colours, sounds etc. Berkeley's problems with this are well known. However the originator of this notion was not Locke but Galileo. According to Collingwood the English philosopher (1889- 1943) "For Galileo, the secondary qualities are not merely functions of the primary and thus derivitive and dependent on them, they are actually devoid of objective existence; they are mere appearances." ('Idea of Nature' Clarendon Press 1945) The view of Vedanta according to Sw.Satprakashananda: "According to all schools of Vedanta, attribute and substance are non-different. The relation between the two is the relation of identity (tadamyasambandha). So is the relation between universal and particular, between action and substance. The two are distinguishable in thought but inseperable in fact. But Nyaya- Vaisesika maintains a different relation between the two, called the relation of inherence (samavaya-sambandha). It is conceived as a category independent of the terms related (eg.attribute and substance). Vedanta rejects the relation of inherence, since it involves regressus ad infinitum vide B.S.II.ii.13. Sankara's Commentary." (From 'Methods of Knowledge' pub.Advaita Ashrama 1965) Are dravyas, elements (4 or 5), humours, pranas only the relics of proto-science and like the atom which was supposed to be the ultimate constituent of matter, now exploded and rendered curiosities of the history of ideas? Best Wishes, Michael Sri Sadananda wrote: advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > There was on going discussion in adviataL about the object and > qualities. Since everybody is deeply meditating in this list, I thought > I can post my other list post here for everyone to think deeply over the > weekend if you are not lost in the etherial soup that Toni put us all. > Hari OM! > Sadananda > --------------- > > It is recognized by all that qualities are different from substantive > which is dravya. Since each sense picks up specific quality in its field > (eyes -color and forms; ears - sound etc) but we know that color and > form or sound are not the same as substantive. > > It is also true that these qualities are not dravya-s and therefore > cannot exist independently of the substantives. The inherent relation > is recognized by all - each school may use different terminology but > bottom line is essentially the same, even though each school may claim > theirs is unique. Qualities are called visheshaNa-s or guNa-s. > > Every object has qualities is also recognized by all schools. > Conversely that which has qualities is an object is recognized by > Advaita. Subject is different from an object. Therefore it also follows > that subject cannot be qualified. Essence of adhyaasa is > supreimposition of qualities (which belong to objects) to the subject, > I, which is nirguNa. All qualities are measurable - that is what senses > do. Anything that can be measurable is limited, by definition. From that > it follows that objects that invariably have qualities are limited. > Subject, I, therefore is not limited. Corollary is only finite has > qualities since they are measurable. Infinite by definition cannot have > qualities. One can say that infinite has infinite qualities - but that > is not saying anything other than putting the same thing differently, > perhaps more elegantly at least in their opinion. Now you can see why > scripture says Brahman is nirguNa - and also aham brahmaasmi too. This > is samanvaya as well as adhyaasa in a nutshell! > > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > ===== > What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. > > > > Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. > http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Namaste Michael Thanks for your scholarly article and information provided. I am not that much familiar with the western theories. --- svahauk <ombhurbhuva wrote: "For Galileo, the secondary qualities are not merely functions > of the primary and thus derivative and dependent on them, they are > actually devoid of objective existence; they are mere appearances." > ('Idea of Nature' Clarendon Press 1945) What constitutes the primary and the secondary qualifications? Is there a specific criterion to separate the two. Is the above statement 'they are devoid of objective existence' is it true for the primary qualifications too?. > > The view of Vedanta according to Sw.Satprakashananda: "According to > all schools of Vedanta, attribute and substance are non-different. > The relation between the two is the relation of identity > (tadamyasambandha). I am not familiar with this particular Swami, and from which school he comes from, etc. I donot think that is the view of all vedantins - it is only the dwaitins postulate the identity as I understand from the on going discussion in advaitaL. > So is the relation between universal and > particular, between action and substance. The two are > distinguishable in thought but inseperable in fact. Michael, I am lost in the above statement. Can you explain to me a little more detail? It sounds now more like vishishhTadvaita. The individuals or particular that you mentioned and universal, meaning the totality is the relation between the substantive and its qualities - Is that the meaning of the sentence. I am not sure the second part 'between action and substance' - Does it mean substantive cannot but act and they are inseparable - I am unable to grasp the meaning as well as implication. The last statement is even more puzzle. What in thought and in fact means -what constitutes 'fact'? Need little bit more explanation for me to understand. But Nyaya- > Vaisesika maintains a different relation between the two, called the > relation of inherence (samavaya-sambandha). It is conceived as a > category independent of the terms related (eg.attribute and > substance). Vedanta rejects the relation of inherence, since it > involves regressus ad infinitum vide B.S.II.ii.13. Sankara's > Commentary." > (From 'Methods of Knowledge' pub.Advaita Ashrama 1965) That is true. Samavaayu for inseparable entities and sambandha is for separable entities. Personally I find these are only terms - whether I say they are inherently related or related by some imaginary gluing process called samavayu - the bottom line is the same. > > Are dravyas, elements (4 or 5), humours, pranas only the relics of > proto-science and like the atom which was supposed to be the ultimate > constituent of matter, now exploded and rendered curiosities of the > history of ideas? Question is how does one establish the independent existence of the matter since senses can only perceive the qualities and not substantives. Is it an inferece of the mind based on the vyaapti j~naana that there cannot be qualities without a locus, object? Since the world is nothing but objects, we are faced with a question of how to prove the independent the existence of the world without the mind present? Or is it just a mental notion? Thanks. Hari OM! Sadananda > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > Namaste Michael > > > > The view of Vedanta according to Sw.Satprakashananda: "According to > > all schools of Vedanta, attribute and substance are non- different. > > The relation between the two is the relation of identity > > (tadamyasambandha). > > I am not familiar with this particular Swami, and from which school he > comes from, etc. I donot think that is the view of all vedantins - it > is only the dwaitins postulate the identity as I understand from the on > going discussion in advaitaL. > Namaste, What has been quoted is a footnote on page 48 of the said book. Sw. Satprakashananda was the founder-head of the Vedanta Society of St. Louis,Mo. from 1938 until the late 60's. His book is an elaboration of Vedanta Paribhasha of Dharmaraja Adhvarin, the classic work on Vedanta epistemology, and does not deviate from Shankara's stand. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.