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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,

the defect of impossibility which you raised in (~A1 & ~A2 .. & ~An) namely
absence of previous knowledge of all types of Aloka is equally present in
~(A1 & A2 ... & An). Isn't it? To know that all Aloka together are not
there, you would still need to know all Aloka. So that does not distinguish
the case and hence should not be a point of rejection.

My problem is that the interpreted definition of purva paksha as ~(A1 & A2
... & An) is downright incorrect because it would entail even daytime as
darkness. Should we think of purva-paksha as such a silly one as posing
daytime as darkness and seeking rebuttal?

Further, just explaining my argument a bit more -- if darkness is defined
as absence of photons having wavelengths 380 to 740 nm -- how would you
refute it in line with VPS or for that matter as per any argument of
Vivarana school. So my argument is -- darkness is not bhava but merely
absence of photons having wavelength 380-740 nm. What would be the
rebuttal.

Regards,
Sudhanshu.



On Sun 5 May, 2019, 15:49 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>