Is color inherent in rupa?

[Alex123]

Dear all,

As I understand it, each rūpa kalāpa among other qualities, has : color (vaṇṇa), smell (gandha) and taste (rasa).

Does this mean that according to Abhidhamma: color, smell, and taste exist independent of consciousness (eye, nose, tongue, in this case)?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

An unconscious digital camera can detect colour if light reflected from material phenomena, so I guess we should conclude that the quality of colour (i.e. the wave lengths that it absorbs/reflects) is inherent in rūpa.

[Alex123]

Bhante, Thank you for your reply.

As I understand it, camera detects electromagnetic wave. Color, such as red, is electromagnetic wave 620–750 nm long with 400–484 THz frequency that is converted to seeing red color in the brain. Obviously red is not inherent in phenomenon because different people can see different color there. Some may see red, some may see black...

[Hanzze]

Have you ever observed rupa that has a color?

To the sentence above:
...can detect colour if light (?) reflected from material phenomena -> is inherent? I am not sure if the camera can dedect anything.

I guess it's good to face rupa as an atribute and not that much as material.

What about a color-blind? Mabye color (thinking on the different waves) is related with "fire". Color it self, I would regard more as a mental construct. I guess it's not easy to draw a sharp line, but that is good so.

[DAWN]

I'am sorry, i'dont have any experiance of Abhidhamma studying, but i would like to reply:

Light is the wave
Light have not a color
Color is the reflection of this wave
When there is reflection (ex: echo, color), the wave is slowed by the object's surface and so the wave becomes longer and change his propriety.

So we can conclude that the color is not inherent in rupa and the color is not inherent in light, that is an conditioned fenomena, an illusion

[mikenz66]

Members,

This area is for discussion of Abhidhamma. Posts should be supported by relevant quotes from primary or secondary sources.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Mike

[Hanzze]

Maybe that is useful (and in line with the perception how it should be quoted):

from paccaya (condition)

(2) Object-condition (ārammana-paccaya) is called something which, as object, forms the condition for consciousness and mental phenomena. Thus, the physical object of sight consisting [maybe "appearing" is better] in colour and light ('light-wave'), is the necessary condition and the sine qua non for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakkhu-viññāna), etc.; sound ('sound wave') for ear-consciousness (sotā-viññāna), etc.; further, any object arising in the mind is the condition for mind-consciousness (mano-viññāna). The mind-object may be anything whatever, corporeal or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary.

As quoted by Dawn, I guess it is importand to understand the "wave" as rupa while the color is an very individual appearence.

[reflection]

Light is really particles called photons, not waves. The particles can seem to behave like waves though, so the term wavelength is used. It's the energy of the photons that determines the respective wavelength. The perception of the eye interprets the energy of only a small subset of the possible energies as a particular color. Radio waves, heat radiation (infrared) or microwaves are esentially the same thing, but we can't see all of those. But it's not just the wavelength that determines color, we add a lot to it.

For example, white is not a wavelength (it's all types of visible light together), neither is black (it's no light). Still those are perceived as colors. It's also funny how a computer screen has just red, green and blue pixels, yet the brain turns it into a wide variety of colors. A digital camera also doesn't detect the wavelength, it has three different type of sensors that only recognize the intensity of red, green and blue light.

Also there are these famous optical illusions where colors don't seem as they are. All the things I mentioned show color is really a matter of perception and is not a property of an object.

By the way, the wavelengths don't change with reflection, but certain lengths are absorbed and others are reflected.

I don't know the abbidhamma, but here is a quote from the suttas:

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[gavesako]

This is also relevant here:

Light Darkness and Colours – Goethe’s Theory of Colours

http://records.photodharma.net/document ... of-colours

In the book Goethe opposed the Newtonian Theory of Colours, and managed to show that there are, in fact, more colours in the spectrum than Newton had recognised, which he illustrated in his famous colour wheel.

Goethe’s theory is that colour arises through the interplay between light and darkness, which can in fact be easily shown, by flooding with light or withdrawing it altogether: the result is the same, nothing can be seen.

In pursuing his expermiments on this theme Goethe came up with some surprising results: colour can be shown to emerge where darkness and light meet, as at the sunrise or sunset, and also that the more intense the light and darkness are the more intense the colours are.

Another surprising thing we find out in this film is that light is invisible: it only becomes visible when it strikes an object. In a vacuum (like outer space) it is not seen. When it hits an object, like a planet, or interplanetary dust, it becomes visible.

Many other surprising and intriguing things are presented in the film, which will make you stop and look again at a phenomena that we so much take for granted.

[DAWN]

Light is really particles called photons, not waves.

Buddha said that all it's a wave.

All is energy, all dhamma is energy.
Light is pure energy.
To get energy we must have an mouvement from 0 to +1 from +1 to 0, from 0 to -1 and from -1 to 0.
We must have a burn, arise, decline and death. It's a wave mouvement.

There is no atta, there is no particles.

Some one said that : "In this world, there are no nouns, there are only verbs."

Light is composed by primary colors : red green and blue, and after he decline on rainbow and other varieties. So we have all in one. Light have not any color, but he have all colors at the same time.
If there are particles, the light must be composed by all of particules for each color, that an object can obsorb or reflect.
It's not like this.

All light is reflecled by dhammas. Sun-light shows us material objects, mind-light show us mental objects.

But why it is reflected?
It's reflected because it's not absorbed, it's not absorbed because it's have not the same nature, is different. For example water can absorb water, but water can't absorb a stone, a stone will not be deluded by water, so he is reflected by the water.
Reflection arise from duality

The Buddha said that all dhamma is mind, also Buddha said that "Buddha's light is unsurpased".
So we can understand that light (phisical or mental) is the concsiousness, that apears between 0 and 1, between Budhha and dhamma, Buddha is not any dhamma, but Buddha is all dhammas at the same time. 0 is no 1, but all numbers take their place relatively 0, all mathematics re constructed on 0, all dhammas are constructed on Buddha, thats why Buddha is not any dhamma, Buddha is all dhammas at the same time, Buddha is the Non-duality, no conscisousness.

It's consciousness will determinate wich form will take a dhamma.

Consciosness apears when there is duality
Light apears when there is duality

So there is no color and no rupa,
Just consciousness, just a light of Buddha

I hope somebody will understand this heretic reply.

[Hanzze]

I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).

[reflection]

Light is really particles called photons, not waves.

Buddha said that all it's a wave.

All is energy, all dhamma is energy.
Light is pure energy.
To get energy we must have an mouvement from 0 to +1 from +1 to 0, from 0 to -1 and from -1 to 0.
We must have a burn, arise, decline and death. It's a wave mouvement.

There is no atta, there is no particles.

Some one said that : "In this world, there are no nouns, there are only verbs."

Light is composed by primary colors : red green and blue, and after he decline on rainbow and other varieties. So we have all in one. Light have not any color, but he have all colors at the same time.
If there are particles, the light must be composed by all of particules for each color, that an object can obsorb or reflect.
It's not like this.

All light is reflecled by dhammas. Sun-light shows us material objects, mind-light show us mental objects.

But why it is reflected?
It's reflected because it's not absorbed, it's not absorbed because it's have not the same nature, is different. For example water can absorb water, but water can't absorb a stone, a stone will not be deluded by water, so he is reflected by the water.
Reflection arise from duality

The Buddha said that all dhamma is mind, also Buddha said that "Buddha's light is unsurpased".
So we can understand that light (phisical or mental) is the concsiousness, that apears between 0 and 1, between Budhha and dhamma, Buddha is not any dhamma, but Buddha is all dhammas at the same time. 0 is no 1, but all numbers take their place relatively 0, all mathematics re constructed on 0, all dhammas are constructed on Buddha, thats why Buddha is not any dhamma, Buddha is all dhammas at the same time, Buddha is the Non-duality, no conscisousness.

It's consciousness will determinate wich form will take a dhamma.

Consciosness apears when there is duality
Light apears when there is duality

So there is no color and no rupa,
Just consciousness, just a light of Buddha

I hope somebody will understand this heretic reply.

Now I agree that everything is in the mind. And the Buddha was a perfect teacher for understanding this reality from an inside point of view, but scientific understanding of the 'outside' world at his time was very limited. So be careful mixing the two up. I just wanted to correct some statements made in this topic about the physical properties of light, not because I think it is important for understanding the Dhamma - not at all - but just because of some obvious errors - at least when compared to the current scientific understanding. And I think people should be careful to not make statements about things they haven't really studied, it creates a very imcomprehensible read - and may even affect the overal credibility of this forum. Now I don't want to go into details and I also admit I don't know it all, but you can use google (or better a good physics book) to catch up on the theories to see where some statements made here are obviously incorrect.

[DAWN]

I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).

Internet is alrady a formless loka.

[DAWN]

Now I agree that everything is in the mind. And the Buddha was a perfect teacher for understanding this reality from an inside point of view, but scientific understanding of the 'outside' world at his time was very limited. So be careful mixing the two up. I just wanted to correct some statements made in this topic about the physical properties of light, not because I think it is important for understanding the Dhamma - not at all - but just because of some obvious errors - at least when compared to the current scientific understanding. And I think people should be careful to not make statements about things they haven't really studied, it creates a very imcomprehensible read - and may even affect the overal credibility of this forum. Now I don't want to go into details and I also admit I don't know it all, but you can use google (or better a good physics book) to catch up on the theories to see where some statements made here are obviously incorrect.

All this can be verified by the one here and now, without getting up from chair.

Is any dhamma can not be verified here and now, it is not The Dhamma

[Alex123]

Have you ever observed rupa that has a color?

We can see colors and shapes based from them.

What about a color-blind? Mabye color (thinking on the different waves) is related with "fire". Color it self, I would regard more as a mental construct. I guess it's not easy to draw a sharp line, but that is good so.

Here is an interesting thing. If a person with normal vision and color blind person sees dark red apple, color blind person can see different color. Also red apple in a dark room can appear black. This suggests that color is not objectively inherent in rūpa itself. In the suttas, color seems to be function of saññā. Maybe in Abhidhamma rūpa goes along with saññā and other relevant cetasikas so it is not "objective matter" but perceived matter?

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception. SN22.79

[Hanzze]

I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).

Internet is alrady a formless loka.

So here we are and still much colors

Maybe just the fine material world. Would there be the perception of color in the formless realms?

[DAWN]

I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).

Internet is alrady a formless loka.

So here we are and still much colors

Maybe just the fine material world. Would there be the perception of color in the formless realms?

I dont know

[gavesako]

If you want a good discussion of this subject with historical references, see

Buddhist Atomism
The Theories of Paramanu and Kalapa in Post-canonical Buddhism
by Piya Tan

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... m-piya.pdf

[UhBaUnTaUh]

Namo Buddhaya


Hello. Can I join this topic ?

In Mulatika book said that Vaṇṇa, Gundha, and Rasa don't have in Arūpabhūmi.

However in Atthakatha book didn't seperate write in this case. They only said that Rūpakalāpa in Arūpabhūmi can have eight, nine, or ten qualities.

Ref at gatha 86 : http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/abh06 ... xml#para68

Happy y'all.

note: Wave is a mass of many Rūpakalāpas.

[Hanzze]

Know, Perceive, Conceive, and View

To know that it is "that form (rupa)" is a delusion of mind (citta).
To perceive that it is that form is a delusion of perception (saññā).
To conceive that it is that form is a delusion of conceit (māna).
To view it as that form is a delusion of view (ditthi).

Modified and taken from A Manual of the Path Factors