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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

I also was saying the same thing. NAND of 5 lights. Darkness =
NAND(Light1,Light2,Light3,Light4,Light5). When even 1 light is switched off the
NAND value is 1. Darkness is present. All lights should be switched on
to make NAND value 0.

But is it the case? If even one light is switched off and other light is
switched on-- is darkness present? Is it not against pratyaksha?

Regards.
Sudhanshu.




On Sun 5 May, 2019, 09:32 Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> I also was saying the same thing. NAND of 5 lights. Darkness =
> NAND(Light1,Light2,Light3,Light4,Light5). When even 1 light is switched off
> the NAND value is 1. Darkness is present. All lights should be switched on
> to make NAND value 0.
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:47 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Sudanshuji,
> >
> > On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:47 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This is his argument which appears bizzare.
> > >
> > > Let darkness be A1-abhava AND  A2-abhava AND A3-abhava .........AND
> > > An-abhava where n is last type of aloka. Like surya-aloka-abhava AND
> > > deepak-aloka -abhava AND lamp-aloka-abhava upto nth type of
> aloka-abhava.
> > >
> > > If this is the premise then to remove darkness, we don't have to have
> the
> > > sannindhana of A1 to An as claimed by V. There is a basic logic. ~(~A1
> > and
> > > ~A2 and ~An) = A1 or A2 or An... That is to say, the negation changes
> the
> > > "and" to "or".
> > >
> > > To me, it appears that you have erred in interpreting sarvAlokAbhAva
> > which
> > should mean sarvAlokAnAm abhAvaH and not AlokAbhAvAnAm samUhaH. Thereby,
> > what it should lead to is that:
> > darkness is !(A1 &&A2 &&A3.... &&An) which is clearly present when any
> > Aloka is absent and to take away darkness, all AlokAs necessarily need to
> > be there. The truth-table is of a simple NAND.
> >
> > A1 A2 Darkness
> > 0   0   1
> > 0   1   1
> > 1   0   1
> > 1   1   0 (absence of darkness)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thus, his statement that removal of sarva-aloka-abhava can only be
> > achieved
> > > by the sannidhana of sarva-aloka is incorrect. The removal of
> > > sarva-aloka-abhava is by kinchit-aloka and not by sarva-aloka.
> > >
> > > So sannidhAna of sarvAloka is correct for darkness to go.
> >
> > Kind rgds,
> > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>