Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome viewers to this session. In this session, we will discuss the remaining part of Vaisesika
philosophy on which we were discussing in the previous classes, that is on substance;
then we will discuss Guna; Guna is the second substance according to Vaisesika philosophy.
As you know that, the Dravya is a substance and we were discussing about Dravya, and so
far, we have not yet completed the concept, the explanation given by Vaisesika and Dravya.
As you know that there are different arguments, Vaisesika philosophy has given, and also given
counter arguments to some other schools, those who post some of the questions on Vaisesika
explanation on the concept substance. To recap, what we had discussed so far, in
a very brief. Vaisesika school, when we had discussed, we said that it is the historical
background, when we are discussing the historical background, we said that Kanada was the founder
of Vaisesika school, and there are many other thinkers or scholars contributed many of their
theories for the existence and establishment of that Kaisesika school as a system among
other systems in Indian philosophy. Then further, we said that Nyaya Vaisesika
are considered to be a pair as like Samkhya and yoga, because we find there are many similarity
in Nyaya and Vaisesika philosophy. While discussing the similarity between Nyaya and Vaisesika,
we also discussed about their dissimilarities, on which ground they differ their opinion.
An example, I will tell you that Nyaya accepts 4 Pramanas, whereas Vaisesika accepts only
2 Pramanas. Vaisesika believes or Vaisesika scholars believe that, that Upamana or comparison,
verbal testimony or Shabda can be reduced to either perception or inference. Therefore,
they accept only 2 Pramanas; further Nayikas accept 16 ((Padarthas)) , but Vaisesika accepts
only 7 Padarthas, and what are those 7 Padarthas? These are known as Dravya, Guna - action,
Samanya, Samavaya, Vaisesa and Abhava. The 7 Padarthas accepted by Vaisesikas, again
I repeat I said that Guna, Dravya, action or karma, Samanya, Samavaya, Vishesha and
Abhava. Kanada performed the first 6 category or Padartha, but the last category known as
Abhava is described by other scholars, in a later period by in toto they have accept
a Vaisesika system accepts 7 Padarthas; further, they have also explained what they mean by
Padartha. They said that Padartha means - it stands for an object of having a particular
name, further they said that a Padartha must satisfy 3 features.
One is Astitva, that means, the Padartha must have an uniqueness, individuality; the second
one is [fl], that means, we can know that object, we can think of that object; the third
one is [fl], that means, there is a name stands for that object. So, therefore, Astitva, [fl]
and [fl] in English translation, if I will put it, then I say that the Padartha must
have an existence, and it is an unique one; and the second one is we can think of that
existence; and the third one is there must be name for that object, then only we can
call that one as Padartha. Now, further they said that each Padartha
has its own unique existence. We will describing the Padartha, then they said that we find
9 substances, and what are those substances? And how they explain substances? They said
that substance is one which in heres qualities and actions, but, however, if you put qualities
and action together, it could not able to explain or it it cannot construe the substance
itself. So, therefore, though qualities and actions in here in substances, but this two
together cannot able to explain, what is a substance. Further, they say that substance
exists independent of qualities and action, in the first stage of its production, and
in the second moment, it inheres qualities and action. So, therefore, they said that
substance is an independent Padartha, further they said that what Buddhism described about
substances, they are not agreed up on it, because according to Buddhist, a substance
is the conglomeration of all its constituent parts. A substance is the conglomeration of
its constituent parts; here Vaisesika disagreed with Buddhist thinkers, and said that a substance
is over and above of its constituent parts. What they mean? Is that if you put together,
all the constituent parts of a substance still, the togetherness of all the constituent parts
cannot able explain the substance as it such therefore, they subscribe the view by stating
that substance is over, and above of its constituent parts.
Then after listening from Vaisesika, Buddhist counter argue, Vaisesika explanation on substance.
There are many arguments, we had discussed just to recapitulate for you, one argument
I will give now as an example; Vaisesika said that substance exist independent of qualities
and actions in it is the first production. In other words, qualities and actions in here,
in the substance in the second step, but if the first step of its production the substance
is independent of qualities and actions. Here, Buddhist claim that whatever we see, whatever
we experience as an object - we experience the object through the qualities therefore,
qualities only exist, no substances, because as explained by Vaisesika substance cannot
be perceived therefore, Buddhist say that whatever we are seeing, whatever we are we
are experiencing it is the qualities therefore, substance does not exist, but the quality
is exist. Or if substance exists, substance cannot exist
independent of qualities and actions. We must accept that qualities and actions; inhere
in the substance in its production at the first moment itself. Because Buddhism as given
an argument saying that, if a person said that that I am enjoying a mango, what really
he is enjoying; He is enjoying the taste, he is enjoying the smell of the mango, he
is enjoying the attributes of that mango, but in this case, he is not enjoying the substance
of that mango. Therefore, Buddhist clearly empathize that;
there is nothing called substance. If at all something exist as a substance, it must exist
with qualities and actions, and there are many other arguments, Buddhist put forward
to Vaisesika thinkers or scholars. Then further, we had discuss that how Vaisesika defense
Buddhist argument? Vaisesika said that you are very correct,
you are the Buddhist are very correct, because you are saying that there are many qualities,
we find in a substance. Now, please tell us that if there is nothing called substance,
then how more than 1 or 2 qualities we find in a particular object. And quality cannot
exist independent of it, quality like color, quality like taste, do you think? Quality
can exist independent of substance, if not sure then tell me, why there are different
kinds of qualities we find in a substance? If quality cannot exist independent of it,
it requires something for its existence and what is that something - that something is
known as Ashraya or locos and that locos is nothing, but substance. And there are many
other arguments, here Vaisesika have given for defending the Buddhist argument on the
concept substance. Then further, we have discussed that there
are many substances we find; there are 9 kind of substances, and all other substance can
be subsumed under this 9 substances, and what are those 9 substances? They said that 9 substances
are divided broadly in to two kinds -one is eternal substances, another is non-eternal
substances. Eternal substances are those which exist permanently,
timelessly which can never created nor destroyed. Now, non-eternal or tangible substances are
those which can be produced, which can be destroyed? The 9 substances are air, ether
then earth, light, time, space, mind, soul in this way.
So, if you find that there are 9 substances, and out of 9 substances, they said that time,
space, mind, soul are eternal substances. Then they said that time is the cognition
of you say that past present and future, then space is the cognition of you say here there,
all this concept they have discussed, these are the eternal substances. The non-eternal
substances are those which has also qualities; for example, earth has a quality, ether has
a quality, sound. Here, they said that we cannot perceive the earth, but we can hear
the sound and because of the quality, we must infer that there must be a substance; otherwise
quality cannot exist independent of it. Therefore, ether or Akasha is a substance
and its quality is sound. In the same way they said that fire or say light - light is
the substance and color is its attribute. In this way they said that every substance
has an a unique attribute; every substance exist independently with its uniqueness.
And no substance can be derived from other substance, because each substance is unique
in its character, and there are plenty of substances exist, because here Vaisesika behaves
that there are many things exist in this earth, there are many atoms exist in this earth,
because we find that eternal atom and non-eternal atom. Therefore, they are called as atomistic
pluralism. Further, they said that that soul is of two
types. While discussing the concept soul, they said that soul is of two types. One is
individual soul, another is eternal soul. Individual soul are those which are in the
process of movement. In individual soul: we find the consciousness, if the soul is the
substratum of the consciousness, and because of the consciousness, we find different individual
souls in this earth. Even you cannot count, how many living creatures are existing in
this earth? Because we have a limited knowledge; we know something which is very limited in
character? Therefore, they say that those who are living
in this earth? Starting with animals, plants, birds, reptiles then many creatures, even
a insects, worms, they have a life, they have a individual soul. On the other hand, they
said that there is a person known as omniscient being which has a supreme soul, and supreme
soul is one who really responsible for creating the whole universe in a very beautiful way?
He designs the universe in such a magnificent way.
And maintaining, the cosmological order in a very logical sequence, it is the supreme
soul who brings the harmony in this earth? You find in the morning sun raises, you find
then there is a noon then in the evening sunsets. And again you find there is done time, and
morning see why this rotation comes? Because there is a someone, who really regulates?
The universe system as such, in this way they said that individual soul and supreme soul;
while discussing the concept individual soul, they said that it is the mind which really
helps to identify the internal aspects of an human being, such as pain and pleasure.
So, in this regard, you find that it is the mind which is an eternal substance which helps
to find the internal qualities of an individual soul known as pain, pleasure, satisfaction,
so and so forth.
Now, the argument now coming forward and saying that we were in a problem, we have finding
the difficulty to understand what is Vaisesika stands when on substance? In this regard,
the problem is very specific - the problem as you can see in my slides that in one hand
Vaisesika is are considering that substances exist independent of qualities, and actions,
in the first moment of its production. And in the next moment, it inheres the qualities
and action. And further, they are saying that substances
which have a quality can be consider as a substance, and the on the other hand, they
are saying that substance which does not have a quality, and they have given two examples:
like a eternal substance, like mind, soul, it does not have a quality.
You have space - space does not have a quality, it is an eternal substance, but on the other
hand we find tangible objects like table, chair, water, all the things which have a
quality. Now, question arises how it and object can be treated as a substance in one hand
whenever, it has a quality on the other side, whenever it does not have a quality, still
also its it can be consider as a substance. Therefore, I have said the difficulty of the
problem may be realized from the fact that the notion of substance is applying to both
tangible objects like glass, chair, etcetera; and non-tangible objects like space, time,
soul, etcetera. Now, how it is so, in one hand you are saying that these are the substance,
because these are having qualities, because of the qualities we identify the substance,
we recognize the substance with having so and so, name.
We never identify table as a chair, because we know that what is the quality of chair?
What are the attributes of the table? Therefore, with clearly we distinguish what is chair
- and how it is different from table? On the other hand, we find that there are many substance
which does not have a quality; for example, space, time it does not have a quality, but
still we we call it is a substance. Now, in this regard Sridhara - Sridhara is
a scholar of Vaisesika philosophy in his work Nyaya manjari, he said that substance is one
which is felt that self subsisting, and something that exist in its own rights. Sridhara here
clearly, empirically explain what is a substance? From this we can know what is their standpoint
on the concept substance, he said that substance is one which is self subsisting? It does not
require anything for its existence. Rather other things inheres in it like color,
and action cannot exist independent of themselves for their existence they require substance,
but substance is such, it exist independent of those even in its first moment of its production.
Therefore, they said that substance exist independent of actions and quality, in the
first moment of its production, and it does not require any other things, all the in the
later period it inheres qualities and actions; however, if you see that qualities and actions,
they cannot exist independent of themselves. Therefore, they said that substance can be
known by itself, but quality cannot be understood without substance, if I say bitter taste then
immediately we will ask how do you find bitter taste - what you have eaten?
That means there is a substance that I have eaten therefore, I found a bitter taste. If
I say that that Rasgulla taste its very sweet, then here we find something substance Rasgulla
therefore, we can describe it taste sweet. In the same way, you find every substance
has its own peculiar quality; that is the uniqueness of that substance.
Now, this view is rejected by Cit-Suk-Charya, this view cannot accepted by Cit-Suk-Charya.
Therefore, in his work Tattva-Pradipika; he has asked 3 pertinent questions – 3 fundamental
question to Vaisesika scholars.
And these questions are what is meant by self subsistence? The second question, is it equivalent
to existence without substratum, the third and the last question, he posed to Vaisesika
scholar saying that can we perceive a thing independent of its substratum, these three
questions are very fundamental. Now, if you consider, the second point that is it the
case that substance is something which exist independent of substratum? If this is the
case, then we find there is a problem to understand the concept substance.
Why it is so, because if you see that quality exist, but quality does not have a any further
qualities; for example, if I say sound is a quality what is the further qualities of
sound? Nothing, but if you see the substance Akasha or ether, then the qualities is the
sound, but then question arises. If something exist independent of substance, we can call
them substance then quality can be a substance as such, however quality cannot be a substance,
then if this is the case it really caught the grounds of Vaisesika explanation the theory
substance. I repeat this is the logical argument. Cit-Suk-Charya
posed to the Vaisesika scholars; Cit-Suk-Charya in his second questions he said that is it
the case that we accept something has a substance, only when it does not have any substratum.
By considering this question, he explains that if we accept something as a substance
when he does not have a any qualities, then quality becomes a substance, because quality
does not have a further qualities - quality like taste, it does not have a further quality
- quality like sound, it does not have a any further qualities, if it is so, then quality
becomes a substance. But then, he is asking, can we say so, that
quality becomes a substance, we cannot say so, because quality requires something for
its existence, it cannot exist independent of substance. It needs a locos or Ashraya
for its existence. Now, further Cit-Suk-Charya arguing that space and time do not have qualities;
thus they may be treated as substance. As Vaisesika said, but then if it is so, then
what about tangible goods? Time space it is understood, you may call
it is a substance, because it does not have a quality, then if this is your basis to call
something as a substance on which basis you are arguing that the tangible goods or the
tangible objects is also treated as a substance, because in the tangible objects, we find qualities
like a table, and chair, and a pen, say duster, say laptop, say cow, tree these are the tangible
objects or tangible beings. If this is the case, we find the qualities
in them, then on which basis you are claiming that the tangible objects is is also be treated
as substance. So, there are 2 questions and the valid questions. Now, we can see the logical
argument that how Cit-Suk-Charya pose to Vaisesika thinkers?
Now, Nyaya Vaisesika defines or try to explain, what Cit-Suk-Charya is asking or what Cit-Suk-Charya
is imposing in the question form on the concept substance. Now, Nyaya Vaisesika try to explains
Cit-Suk-Charya that what you have understood that is not the correct that we mean on the
concept substance. Now, the first question that Cit-Suk-Charya
ask what do mean by substance? When you say that substance is self subsisting; now here
Nyaya Vaisesika defines, he said that that the substance is over and above of its constituents
that means, if you divide a substance, you find different constituent and each constituent
has a some peculiar qualities - some of the qualities may be you find, when the substance
is in the whole form? Before, you divide it. And here he saying that there is some uniqueness,
you find in that substance when you put together all the part of a substance and make it a
whole, you find that the substance is not full pleasured in its form, you find something
more that in that substance. Therefore, you saying that what is that more; that more is
something which binds to claim that something exist in that substance. Therefore, we claim
that a substance is something more than of its constituent parts.
Because if you put together, all the constituent parts it cannot frame the whole as such; for
example, once the jar will be broken; now, you have a pieces in your hand, if you put
together pieces, you may frame or you may produce a jar, but the jar may not be the
same jar as such, but the jar may not be solve some of the purposes.
Therefore, we must accept that a substance is something which is over and above of its
constituent parts, and here the something is to underline and that is the spirit, we
must understand what is substance? Further they said substance exist independently in
the first stage of its production, and acquires perceivable qualities in the next stage.
They agreed; Nyaya Vaisesika agreed that qualities and actions we find in the substance and because
of the qualities, we recognize a substance; however, substance has its own existence,
because there may be different qualities will we find in a particular substance. And henceforth
since, we find there different qualities, in different moment in a particular substance,
we must consider that something presupposes as a form of substance as a result, we are
imposing different qualities, on it and henceforth we recognize the object by the help of its
qualities. Now, this is the explanations Nyaya Vaisesika
has given to Cit-Suk-Charya. Now, you can see the logical argument between Buddhism
and Vaisesika between Vaisesika and Cit-Suk-Charya and how they really explain the concept - the
concept substance. How they really establish their argument by stating that substance is
independent, in the first stage of its production although it inheres qualities in the next
moment. Now, the question arises whether motion find
in substance or not? And if at all we find motion in substance, what kind of motion it
is? Considering the issue and motion, the Nyaya school explains that there are 2 types
of motion. One is potential motion another is actual motion.
What is potential motion? Potential motion is one which we find in a substance and the
substance is capable to move or shift from one place to another place. That is a potential
motion, because of the potential motion of that substance - the substance could able
to move from X to Y distance. They also said that as like quality action
cannot exist; or the motion cannot exist independent of substance, it needs something for its existence
and then something is nothing, but the substance. And while explaining the other kind of action
- other type of action known as actual action, they said that it is the individual.
Responsible for its own motion, for its own movement that is called actual action, and
a ordinary example I will give for example, there is a glass of water on my table, now
I am moving the glass, I am moving the glass of a water from the place X to Y, then here
we find, because of the potential motion find in that glass as a result, I could able to
move the glass from one place to another place from X to Y.
Now, we as a human being, we as an animal having individual souls, we are moving from
one place to another place. He saying that it is an actual motion, something inbuilt
in the life, something inbuilt in that substance as a result, the substance able to move the
traumatically whenever he or she desires to move. So, therefore, according to Nyaya there
are 2 types of action - one is potential action, another is actual actions.
Now, Buddhist be one motion, Buddhist said that there is a nothing call the concept motion,
rather they agreed on the concept saying that motion can be explained with the word change,
because they believe that on the only potential motion.
They have given an example, while explaining the concept potential motion. They said that
if you know put a table in front of you in a particular room, you say that immediately
you cannot recognize its change its motion, but after some years, after some time say
2, 3 years after 10 years or after 15 years, once you come to that room and see that some
of the qualities of that table would not remain as it was there in the earlier time. Therefore,
something is moving although we cannot notice how it moves? Although we cannot notice the
moment from X to Y. We cannot notice the change from X to Y, but however, in the long run
we can observed; we can perceive the change in it.
Therefore, Buddhism explain in this case saying that; that action or motion, we can explain
by the help of the word change, because they believe that change is permanent and other
things are momentary, it is bound that we need to change in our life and every things
are constantly changing. In some cases, we are noticing and some cases we could not notice
it. Now rejecting; on the one hand Nyayayikas view, on the other hand Buddhist explanation
of motion. Vaisesika argued that there is neither potential nor actual motion found
in this 9 substances. He said that although actions inheres in the
substance in the later period, but substance as such in its early stage of its production
nothing included in it, it is just a pure, it is absolute; it has nothing to do with
qualities and action in the first of its production.Here, Vaisesika claimed that unlike Nyayayikas and
Buddhist there is an action, inheres in the substance, because action cannot exist independent
of it, but the inherences of the action in the substance, it happens in the next moment
of its production of the substance, but in the early stage of its production, the substance
is itself is pure is an absolute, it does not require any kind of quality or action
for its own existence. Therefore, they say that substance is prior
to qualities and actions; although they inhere in it, it is the substrate of all other categories
- all other categories like you have Karma, you have quality Guna quality, you have then
Samanya, you have Vishesha, you have Samavya and Abhava, you explain all this all this
Padarthas. If you must realize that everything will be
explained by the help of only Dravya or substance; for example, quality - quality resides in
substance say Vaisesa. Vasiesa stands for particular, what is that particular? Particular
substance anything in the form of atom that is a particular, and atom here also explained
as a substance, because it has its own uniqueness. Now, further if you stress the argument to
the nonexistence which stands for Abhava, nonexistence of an object in a particular
place can be explained by the help of existence. For example, if I say there is no tiger in
the study room, what I mean here is that the nonexistence of tiger, I could able to explain
in the form of existence in that room therefore, they said that substance is the bedrock on
which we can explain all other Padarthas. Therefore, they say that it is the substrate
of all other categories. The Dravya or substance is the substrate of all other categories,
thus Kanada treated substance as the first and foremost category among others. Now, Kanada
as a scholars and the founder of Vaisesika system very clearly explains that what is
substance? And very elucidate, logically defines other arguments on understanding the concept
substance. Now, I hope you have understood the logical argument, and the counter argument
while establishing the concept substance on the account of Vaisesika philosophy.
Now, we are switching over to the second Padartha known as quality or Guna. Guna is a Sanskrit
term and the English translation is quality, it is an independent category among others
Kanada said that that Guna is an independent category like Dravya, because it satisfy 3
features, it has existence and the existence is unique, you cannot derive one Guna from
another Guna, you cannot derive one quality from another quality.
The second feature is knowability, we can think of that color. The third feature it
is satisfying known as namebility, we identify a color of it having particular name say green
color or say good taste or bad taste say it is a harsh sound, all this we can say it is
a particular name to that. So, therefore, quality is an independent Padartha
like Dravya according to Kanada. They said that substance and Guna are organically related
with each other, and Guna cannot exist independent of substance, it needs substance for its existence,
in this way substance and quality are organically related with each other. It resides in substance
as I said and in English, if you translate Guna people call it attribute as well as quality.
Now, Guna by explaining the concept Guna, Kanada has written this words, you can now
see that words Dravya-sreya, agunabam, samyoga, vibhagesva, karanamal, anapeksaiti, Guna laksanam,
Dravya-sreya, agunabam; that means, Dravya-sreya it resides in Dravya, agunabam it does not
have a any further quality, Samyoga, vibhagesva, karanamal, anapeksaiti, Guna laksanam.
What clearly it explains is that, Guna is that which inheres in a substance, because
as you know that Guna cannot exist independent of it, and further said that Guna does not
possess any further qualities, and action it does not produce any composite things,
and which is not the cause of conjunction and disjunction.
So, these are the explanation Kanada has given while explaining the concept Guna. I read
for you further, Guna is that which inheres in a substance which does not poses qualities
and action which does not produce any composite things and which is not the cause of conjunction
and disjunction. If we explain all this parts, we could able
to understand what Vaisesika mean when they explain the concept Guna? I said that a quality
is devoid of action. If we now, devoid the whole definition of Guna. Now, we find that
a quality is devoid of action, take any quality, say color is a quality, you say that green
color, blue color is a quality, if this quality resides in a object, you cannot say that the
green color exist independent of it. You say that that is green color and that stands for
here is the substance. You say that the chair is green color, here
the chair is an substance and the color of it is a green, but the green does not have
further qualities; an example, they have given. Now, we can see your fan is moving, say ceiling
fan or table fan in our experiences, why they have given this kind of example? Because you
can understand the true spirit of the concept Guna.
Now, you can see the fan is moving when the fan is in the move, you find that also the
color seems to be moving, but here Vaisesikas are arguing is that the color is moving with
this fan we think so, but it is not true, because the color cannot exist independent
of substance, it is a substance fan is on move. Since, color is associated with that
substance, we think that color is also moving including the substance, but which is not
the case. Color is devoid of action, color does not
have further quality. Therefore, they said a quality is devoid of action when the fan
is moving, the quality of the fan does not really moving, it is the substratum which
moving we think that quality is moving, because the quality inheres in the substance.
Now, I believe you can understand that a quality is devoid of action, it is a very clearly.
Now, a second point a quality is devoid of quality; take an example, that number say
number1, 2, 3, 4 etcetera. If I say that what is one? What is two stands for can we understand
independent of any substances, if I say two then immediately we will ask, what is that
two? Are you referring to chair or you referring to students or you referring to - to television
or you referring to something. So, therefore, whenever we say that number
it always refers to a substance, but again do you we think or is it possible for us to
find that number is a quality, it has also some further qualities; no, it is not so,
therefore, a qualities is devoid of qualities - a quality does not have further any quality.
A quality for its own existence, it resides in a substance; however, it does not have
further qualities. Therefore I said, number is the quality of
a substance, it is not a quality of its color, taste and other qualities. Can we reduce,
can we deduce color from test, can we deduce color from number, can we deduce number from
say any other qualities - qualities like smell no therefore, each quality has its uniqueness,
has its own existence and we identify that quality of having so and so of particular
name therefore, quality is an independent Padartha according to Kanada.
The third point they said a quality is a non-inherent cause. The inherent cause what they mean is
that material cause. The substance can be the material cause for its production, say
if cloth is the effect or cloth is the output then the material cause is the thread - the
color thread, it is an inherent cause or material cause, but here action is not included in
the substance, in the in the production of its first moment.
The action does not include in the substance, in the first moment of its production, but
somehow it inheres in it in the next moment. Therefore, they said that a quality is a non-inherent
cause, it cannot be a inherent cause or a material cause, a quality is a non-inherent
cause of an substance. A substance is an inherent or material cause, but a quality does not.
There are 24 Gunas or qualities, there are 24 Gunas qualities that we find in Vaisesika
system or philosophy, Kanada as you know the founder of Vaisesika system performed at 17
Gunas, then the other 7 Gunas or remaining 7 Gunas are mentioned by Prasastapada. So,
therefore, 17 plus 7 is equal to 24 Gunas we find.
Now, it is not only 24 Gunas. Vaisesika also aware with a fact that there are not only
24 Gunas, there are many other Gunas that we find and if we count that that will be
a very great number, but they claim that all other Gunas that we are talking about which
are great in number can be subsumed under this 24 Gunas.
Now, what are this 24 Gunas. Let us discuss, they further said that each quality - a particular
quality cannot be reduced from any other qualities, but a complex quality can be explained by
the help of it is a division for example, if somebody explain orange color, then I could
able to explain that orange color may be consisting of yellow and red. Therefore, a complex color,
orange color can be reduce to yellow and red, in this way they have explained there are
24 qualities. Now, let us discuss what are those qualities?
As I was said that first Guna or quality is known as Rupa color as you know that the color
are of different; say black color, white color, so many colors and each color has its different;
you know, different frames for example, if I say that this is deep black, that is little
black or that is front black; in that way they said that many of these Gunas have further
subdivisions, and each Guna tries to express or tries to explain a particular existence.
Now, the second Guna they said that taste, we have different taste say that is sweet,
that is hard sweet or that is so much bitter taste. So and so forth, The third Guna is
Gandha smell, you say that that is very bad smell, that is a good smell, see there are
different qualities subdivision; however, if you add all these qualities, you find that
is a smell. All things can be subsumed under smell, in the same way you have find Sparsa
touch, Sabda sound then Sankhya is a number then Parimana is a quantity or magnitude.
You say that that is 1 kilo rice that is 2 kilo sugar; it is a quantity or magnitude.
Say 1 kilo sugar, 2 kilo sugar, 3 kilo sugar. Now, if you bring down all these things if
you can reduce, you find that sugar is a quality and it is a magnitude, because of the magnitude
you say that 1 kilo sugar is different from 2 kilo sugar, because of its weight age.
Now, you have find Pruthakatva distinction, chair is different from table or that chair
is different from this chair. Now, Paratva, Aparatva, Buddhi, Samyoga conjunction, the
union between two objects or two things, Vibhaga separation between two objects then Iccha
we has a human beings have many desires, while living in this earth we desire for our different
purposes. Therefore, Iccha, Dvesa aversion.
Then we have Sukha, Dukha. Sukha you know that pleasure, we derived many pleasure from
various context get also receives many pain, because of many reasons. Then say Gurutva
heaviness - the weight age of that heaviness, then Snehatva viscidity, Dravyatva fluidity,
Samskara tendency, we say that we are suffering in this earth, because in our last Karma we
have done so and so, Karma that is a quality, because of that qualities inhere in us we
are suffering, we are behaving toward a particular subject differently, we are behaving towards
a table differently than our behavior towards an object lets a dot pen or a map.
Now, Dharma - Dharma merit; that means, a blissful life; Adharma its not a blissful
life. Then each quality has its own existence and identity as I said no quality can be reduced
or deduced from other qualities. It cannot be reduced from any other qualities an example,
as you know that color cannot be reduced from sound, neither sound can be reduced from the
color. So, in this way they have explain, the concept
qualities in Vaisesika system. Now, I hope you have completely understood the concept
substance and qualities explained by Vaisesika schools, thank you.