[Advaita-l] Relation between the object and its attributes

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji and Venkat ji
Thank you for the relevant passages on tAdAtmya sambandha.

In conventional parlance, we have the blue lily, red cow etc., and there
the attributes and substantive are inseparable and are said to have
tAdAtmya;  so we say guNasya dravyAtmakatA. One thing implicit was that,
the focus was on relation - and while the relation or saMbandha was shown
to be devoid of any dravya or substance corresponding to it, that
automatically leads to guNa being dravyAtmaka. Is it not so?

The context for this as you wrote, in bhAShya, included a critique of the
ideas of samavAya, asamavAya and samyogaH which involve cause and effect
discussions.

Can we use word tAdAtmya apply to the idea of kArya and kAraNa (normally we
use the word ananyatvaM ) as in pot-shaped clay?

In other words, should we distinguish tAdAtmya from ananyatva and say -
Blue lily etc., (visheShana visheShya) are in tAdAtmya saMbandha; whereas
in the case of kArya-kAraNa (pot-shaped clay, ladle-shaped clay), there is
ananyatva.

Or

the two words in siddhAnta are conveying the same idea and therefore
interchangeable. (Because these two words are being advanced by siddhAnta
in lieu of samavAya etc., of nyAya)

Om

Raghav




On Thu, 21 May, 2020, 2:51 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Thanks Subbuji, our emails must have crossed - I sent Sadaji an email today
> saying exactly what you have said below.
>
> This was the email:
>
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2020-May/054524.html
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2020, 19:26 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > While in a conversation with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, I asked about
> this
> > topic and he said this:  In Advaita the relationship between guNa and
> guNi
> > is tAdAtmya:
> >
> > We thank Sri Sada ji for raising this question.
> >
> > This is from the Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.17:
> >
> > Objection: Even the smoke that is distinct from fire is seen to be
> > dependent on fire. Siddhantin: True it is so, but owing to the perception
> > of difference between the two, we conclude their mutual difference.
> However
> > in the case of - white blanket, red cow, blue lotus - the objects
> (blanket,
> > cow, lotus, etc.), since the object itself is perceived 'as endowed with'
> > those attributes, there is never a perception of distinction as in the
> case
> > of fire and smoke. Thus, the attribute is of the 'nature' ('sameness') of
> > the object.
> >
> > Apte
> >
> > तादात्म्यम् [tādātmyam], Sameness of nature, identity, unity;
> > नयनयोस्तादात्म्यमम्भोरुहाम् Bv.२.८१; भगवत्यात्मनस्तादात्म्यम् &c.
> >
> > नन्वग्नेरन्यस्यापि सतो धूमस्याग्न्यधीनत्वं दृश्यते ; सत्यं दृश्यते ;
> > भेदप्रतीतेस्तु तत्राग्निधूमयोरन्यत्वं निश्चीयते ; इह तु — शुक्लः कम्बलः,
> > रोहिणी धेनुः, नीलमुत्पलम् — इति द्रव्यस्यैव तस्य तस्य तेन तेन विशेषणेन
> > प्रतीयमानत्वात् नैव द्रव्यगुणयोरग्निधूमयोरिव भेदप्रतीतिरस्ति ; *तस्माद्*
> > *द्रव्यात्मकता** गुणस्य *।
> >
> > warm regards
> > subbu
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>