[Advaita-l] Whether darkness is bhava - Vivarana Prameya Samgraha of Shri Vidyaranya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

In Siddhant Bindu and other texts also, darkness (andhakara/tamas) is
placed at same footing as other vastu like akasha, vayu etc. It is just
another dravya. They have even explained the reason as to why it has not
been enumerated in Taittiriya in srishti-krama (since it is not the upAdAna
of body which is cause of samsAra). They posit creation of darkness
directly from Brahman (in Chitsukhi -- from avidya, in SiddhAnta Bindu) in
a flash like lightning..

I wanted to know, as I recollect, whether the distinction of bhAva and
bhAvarUpa is made anywhere.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.

On Fri 27 Dec, 2019, 19:56 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  Namaste  Sudhanshu  Ji,
>
> Reg  the question you had posed to me at the following reference
>
> <<
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2019-May/052145.html
> >>
>
> Which I am copying below
>
> << What is the pramana for the following?
>
> Darkness is not bhAva, it is bhAvarUpa. It is not a vastu  to be termed
>
> bhAva. But since it conceals bhAvAs, it is termed bhAvarUpa.
>
> Chitsukhi clearly articulates darkness as द्रव्यान्तर. I quote --
>
> "तमालश्यामलज्ञाने निर्बाधे जाग्रति स्फुटे। द्रव्यान्तर तमः कस्मात्
> अकस्मात्
>
> अपलप्यते।।" It goes on to prove darkness as द्रव्यान्तर through various
>
> Logic >>,
>
> I recently came across the following in Sidhanta Bindu of Sri Madhusudhana
> Saraswati
>
> << एवमविध्यात एवान्धकारोपि भावरॄप एवावरणात्मा चाक्षुषज्ञानविरोधी
> आलोकनाश्यश्च झटिति महाविध्युदादिवदाविर्भवति तिरोभवति चेति सिद्धान्तः ॥ >>
>
> << evamavidhyAta evAndhakAropi bhAvarRRIpa evAvaraNAtmA
> chAkShuShaj~nAnavirodhI AlokanAshyashcha jhaTiti
> mahAvidhyudAdivadAvirbhavati tirobhavati cheti siddhAntaH || >>
>
> Sri MS uses the word अन्धकार (andhakAra) itself meaning darkness instead
> of the word tamas which could have different meanings depending upon
> context.
>
> I am not sure if this meets with your requirement. If not please ignore
> this post. I am not trying to reopen the debate. Only  responding to your
> specific query.
> Regards
>