Hello folks,

Before we debate whether Brahman has attributes or does not have attributes, perhaps we should define a substance (dravya) and an attribute (guna) as was discussed in Indian philosophy?

Any dualistic philosophy that differentiates between a substance on the one hand and an attribute that is different on the other hand immediately opens itself up to the problem of infinite regress.

That is, if an attribute is related to a substance by a relation (this relationship was posited to be one of samavaya [or inherence] by the Naiyayikas), how is the substance related to this relation?

Advaitins have used this basic argument to keep at bay Naiyayikas. Naiyayikas have devised workarounds and modified the rest of their philosophy to be consistent with this workaround.

This argument has also been called the Bradley problem in Western philosophical traditions.

My point is that before arguing about substances and attributes, should we not be clear what these are?