Is the gap between thought and buddhi created by colour?
We could start by defining what ‘thought’, ‘buddhi’ and ‘colour’ are.
Buddhi– the direct perception that comes without identity?
Thought: occurs at the intellectual and philosophical levels, and may be described as a process of interaction between the individuals identity and the subject of perception.
It can also be referred to as an attempt to hold onto information /knowledge rather than perceive it directly. This may take the form of an idealised image of a subject based on previous experience that gets in the way of a direct perception of that subject.
Colour : in graphics there are two types of colour-additive and subtractive. Paint and print have subtractive colour- put all of the colours together and black is formed.
Computer screens and all forms of lighting have additive colour- put all the colours together and white light is formed(as all the colours fill in the missing wavelengths
A subjects colour in its physics sense is the absorption of more of the wavelength of light that is colour –wheel opposite to that of the colour perceived i.e. you actually see ‘lack of orange’ rather than ‘blue’.
A white object does not absorb any wavelength more than any other: the reverse is where white light gets broken down into the spectrum of colour by a glass prism, as Pink Floyd demonstrated!
So is colour a process of holding onto (or denying) some component of knowledge, thus separating from buddhi into thought? Is colour just another word for identity? In buddhi individual colours do not occur. This gap may also refer to the astral body that defines the colour that fills the spaces perceived from objects perceived by the mind.