| You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : March 2001 |
From: K. Sadananda (sada_at_anvil.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2001 - 04:59:51 PST
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@yahoogroups.com
>Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--------------------------------------------------------------
- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>