kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 6 09:56:36 CDT 2003
Jay - I have explined clearly in response to KrishaNa's post.
--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> > process - eyes see the form and color, right - therefore for form
> > color eyes are the only pramaaNa - for sound, the ears and like wise
> > each of the senses have their specific fields. But form and color
> > only attributes and not the substantive. Each sense can only sense
> > qualities but not substantive. 'Which reveals 'this' my fried. Now
> Why did you ignore "vishEsha" while formulating your question?
> Your question is : is dravyatva a guNa? or not?.
> What indriyas can sense is only guNas, then how can you have the
> knowledge of the dravya. That is your question.
> The answer is that guNas are identical with the substance in the
> sense that they can not be seperated. The two are different in
> the following sense:
> When you hold a white towel in your hand, you are holding the
> substantive in your hand. It is as simple as that. You can not
> towel in your left hand and its whiteness in your right hand.
> The word "towel" stands for a substance. The word "whiteness" stands
> for an attribute. The words towel and whiteness are not synonymous.
> If one hears the word towel, one does not have the idea of whiteness.
> If one hears whiteness, one does not have the idea of towel.
> The towel serves a definite purpose, which whiteness does not.
> Whiteness serves a different purpose. If I just say "bring a towel"
> one need not bring me white towel. The expression "towel is not
> involves self-contradiction. But the expression "cloth is not white"
> correct. A blind man can recognize a cloth, but he can not the
> It is possible to spot out a towel in darkness, but not its colour.
> Darkness affects the whiteness and not the cloth.
> These experiences or usages point to the difference between a cloth
> its whiteness. None of them is an illusion. They are as true as
> experience that tells us that cloth and its whiteness are identical.
> So we can not deny any one set of experiences in the interest of the
> We have only to draw the implication of both of them with a view to
> removing the apparent contradiction between them.
> Thus the towel and its whiteness are given in one sense as identical
> in the other as different. This peculiarity is called "vishEsha".
> So, we may conclude that there is the idea of different properties
> reference to the same thing owning to the presence of vishEsha in it.
> So, the relation between a substance and its properties is that of
> But this identity admits of the idea of difference. The reason for
> is the presence of vishEsha in the thing. From this point of view, we
> may characterize the identity as the identity conditioned by vishEsha.
> We call it "savishEsha-abhEda". It is simply an expression of the
> idea that a substance is a unity in its diversity, in so far as it
> Even the diversity in it is the expression of its unity.
> So when I put a towel on my hand, my sensory organs generate
> the knowledge of guNas, and because of savishEsha-abhEda
> we get the knowledge of the substance towel.
> I hope I have answered your question.
> If you want to know the physical process of
> indriyArtha-sannikarsha between the object-senseorgan-mind,
> let me know.
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list