[Advaita-l] vishEsha

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Jay - I have explined clearly in response to KrishaNa's post.

Hari OM!
Sadananda
--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> > process - eyes see the form and color, right - therefore for form
> and
> > 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
> are
> > only attributes and not the substantive. Each sense can only sense
> the
> > qualities but not substantive. 'Which reveals 'this' my fried. Now
> tell
> 
> 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
> hold
> 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
> towel"
> involves self-contradiction.   But the expression "cloth is not white"
> is
> quite
> correct.  A blind man can recognize a cloth,  but he can not the
> whiteness.
> 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
> and
> its whiteness.   None of them is an illusion.    They are as true as
> the
> 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
> other.
> 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
> and
> in the other as different.     This peculiarity is called "vishEsha".
> 
> So,  we may conclude that there is the idea of different properties
> with
> 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
> identity.
> But this identity admits of the idea of difference.  The reason for
> this
> 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
> exists.
> 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:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 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).
http://calendar.yahoo.com