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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

On Sun, 5 May 2019, 04:47 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> No one even thinks of darkness as ~(A1 & A2.. & An). For eg, if sunlight
> is there but torchlight is not there... Who will even think of this
> situation as darkness so as to contemplate the definition as sarvAloka
> abhAva. A possibility of definition arises only if it makes sense.
>
The cognition of darkness as ~(A1 & A2.. & An) is not an impossibility. It
is simply a wrong definition and dismissed as such, but that is different
from being an impossibility. It is being mentioned for completion, in
contrast with the other two alternatives, not being offered up as an
independent definition of darkness.

In fact, your alternative of  ~A1 and ~A2 and ~A3.... and ~An... is the
actual impossibility here, because how on earth is one supposed to be aware
of the absence of every light source in the universe?! Because to know any
absence, you need the pratiyogi. So to know the absence of every light, one
has to know every light first. So such a cognition cannot even rise.


If sunlight is there but torchlight is not there, clearly there is no
> darkness but there is sarva-Aloka-abhAva.. then who with a sound mind will
> pose this situation as darkness and seek its rebuttal.
>
A person with an unsound mind will, and it is being so rejected.


> Generally we think of darkness as none of the lights present.
>
That is, ~A1 and ~A2 and ~A3.... and ~An... Do you think that this
> situation is covered under Aloka-mAtra-abhAva, Aloka-vishesha-abhAva or
> sarva-Aloka-abhAva taken by V? If yes, then under which category and what
> would be the rebuttal?
>
> Regards,
> Sudhanshu
>

No, it is not even mentioned, because even the possibility of such a buddhi
requires the awareness of all absences, which as none of us - whether of
sound or unsound mind - is a sarvajna, is an impossibility.

Such a rejection would be aprasakta pratiShedha.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


.
>
> On Sun 5 May, 2019, 01:33 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:04 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> sarvAloka abhAva = Not[L1 And L2....And L(n)]
>>>
>>> So a nivRtti of sarvAloka abhAva requires (L1 And L2....And L(n)).
>>>
>>> Let us see what it means. As per this meaning, sarvAloka abhAva = ~L1 OR
>>> ~L2 ... OR ~Ln. Does this make sense?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>> Can mere ~L1 mean to be sarvAloka abhAva. Note that since there is OR,
>>> either of them would satisfy as sarvAloka abhAva. That obviously cannot be
>>> meant. Can it be?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what is meant here. Even if one light is absent, one would
>> not have sarvAloka (total lights), and as darkness is defined in this
>> paksha as the absence of total lights, there would be sarvAloka abhAva. The
>> absence of total lights is very different from the absence of any light.
>>
>> That is why if darkness is defined as sarvAloka abhAva, its nivRtti is
>> impossible - sarvAloka abhAva is quite easy to achieve, whereas for its
>> nivRtti one literally needs every single light to be present.
>>
>> Further, what do you reckon as the difference between aloka-matra-abhava
>>> and sarva-aloka-abhava.
>>>
>>
>>  Aloka mAtra abhAva is the absence of any light. sarvAloka abhAva =
>> absence of total lights.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>