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

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sadananda Ji,

Reg  << taadaatmyam - seem to mean identity -
Or does it mean just inseparable? Red flower -  Redness is different from
flower-ness since flowers can be red or blue.
In the sense, Red is a property that needs a locus. Besides Redness, the
flower has many other properties that are different from redness >>,

Not sure if the following helps in clearingup  many of your doubts. I am
just bringing it to your notice for whatever it is worth.

BSB 2-1-18   << अपि च कार्यकारणयोर्द्रव्यगुणादीनां
चाश्वमहिषवद्भेदबुद्ध्यभावात्तादात्म्यमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । >>

<<  api cha kAryakAraNayordravyaguNAdInAM
chAshvamahiShavadbhedabuddhyabhAvAttAdAtmyamabhyupagantavyam | >>

Translation (Swami Gambhirananda) << Besides, we do not have any such idea
of difference between cause and effect, substance and qualities, and such
other pairs as between a horse and a buffalo ; and hence their
non-difference has to be admitted >>.

Sri SSS, in the footnote to this, gives an interesting interpretation for
the term त्तादात्म्यम (tAdAtmyam) appearing in the above as follows.

Translation from kannada is mine. I have used Sanskrit script retaining
kannada terminology for many terms to bring out their significance better

<< त्तादात्म्यम् (tAdAtmyam) should not be taken to mean भेदसहिष्णु अभेद
(bhedasahiShNu abheda). Both are identical means कार्य(kArya) is
non-different from कारण(kAraNa), it is कारण रूप(kAraNa rUpa) only ; गुण(guNa)
etc are द्रव्यरूप(dravyarUpa) only  >>.

I thought this interpretation could be of help in resolving many of the
doubts you have. Hopefully.

The position in respect of MimAmsa (Bhatta School) is also the same,
concerning the relation between substance and quality, namely one of
tAdAtmya.

<< परिमाणगुणाधारं द्रव्यं द्रव्यविदो विदुः। >>

<< parimANaguNAdhAraM dravyaM dravyavido viduH |>>

Meaning based on English translation by Dr Kunhan Raja and Prof
Suryanarayana Shastri of the text Manameyodaya-An elementary treatise on
MImAmsa by Narayana, pp 149/150

<< The Bhatta Mimamsaka admits that a substance and a quality are produced
at the same moment, and non-different from each other, since both of them
are produced by the same causal conditions taken together. They are
produced at the same moment, and found to the related to each other as
cause (upadana) and effect (up'adeya). This perception is not illusory,
because it is not borrowed. Therefore, a substance is the substratum of
dimension and quality.

 Kumarila denies the category of inherence (samavaya). It is said to be ;
relation between two inseparable entities, substance and quality, substance
and action, the whole and the parts, and the universal and the individual
which is the cause of motion.

Kumarila regards inherence as identity (tadatmya) >>.

Hope this could be of some help.
Regards

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Venkatraghavan and Subbiji - PraNAms
> taadaatmyam - seem to mean identity -
> Or does it mean just inseparable? Red flower -  Redness is different from
> flower-ness since flowers can be red or blue.
> In the sense, Red is a property that needs a locus. Besides Redness, the
> flower has many other properties that are different from redness.
> Another problem for me is to distinguish between swaabhaavika vs
> taadaatmya.
> Take the example of brown sugar. Sugar can be white or brown but both have
> to be sweet.
> There seems to be a difference in the attributes of brown and white vs
> sweetness.
> Another aspect that I am also concerned about is Swarupa lakshnaam.
> Sugar is sweet but the converse does not apply - as in sweet need not be
> sugar. It can be equal or Splenda, etc.
> For an attribute to be swaruupa, it has to be necessary and sufficient
> qualification as in Consciousness is Brahman. Brahman is consciousness is a
> direct statement - Scripture defines using a converse statement as
> prajnaanam brahma, which implies it is necessary and sufficient - hence
> forms swaruupa (from my perspective). Shankara calls it swaruupa because of
> -anantatvaat.
> For sugar, the swaruupa lakshana may be some C6H12O6 or something like
> that as in H2O is water and water is H2O.
> In a sense, all qualities or attributes are not taadatmya sambandha.
> I hope I am not confusing the issues here.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>