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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
I would suggest you reread that last email I sent. Both your questions have
answers there.

On Sun, 5 May 2019, 14:23 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Pl see -- your argument is -- to know an abhAva,
> one needs to have prior knowledge of its pratiyogi. If darkness is defined
> as ~(A1 and A2 .. & ~An), then it's pratiyogi is (A1 & A2 ... & An). The
> knowledge of pratiyogi here means previous knowledge of all Aloka together.
> This is my point and hence no difference can be made in two interpretations
> of this count so as to reject the possibility of one.
>
The result of ~(A1 and A2 .. & An)  can be achieved even if A1=0, so there
is no need to wait for every Aloka.

>
> As for photons, yes, let us say a minimum number of photons say x between
> the range of 380-740 nm which make us feel the existence of visible light.
> So the argument is -- darkness is mere absence of x or  number of photons
> of the range 380-740 nm. It is the absence of these photons which is named
> as darkness. How would it be countered?
>

Again, has been answered. To perceive those photons you need darkness,
without darkness the eyes don't have the capacity to see that level of
light.

So darkness and light have a mutually contradictory nature, but not of the
nature of presence and absence of light.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


> Regards.
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
> On Sun 5 May, 2019, 18:17 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>>
>> On Sun, 5 May 2019, 11:48 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> No, because even if one light is absent, the condition of sarvAloka
>> absence is met if it is defined as ~(A1 & A2 ... & An). So, a candidate
>> for the definition exists.
>>
>> Whereas if sarvAloka absence is defined as ~A1 & ~A2 .. & ~An), a
>> candidate for the definition would only emerge if every light was absent.
>> Such a candidate cannot exist for the reasons outlined previously, hence
>> the charge of asambhava lakshaNa.
>>
>> Btw to clarify, I didn't say that one needs to have the absence of prior
>> knowledge of all types of light to know sarvAloka abhAva (per your
>> definition), I said one should have prior knowledge of all types of light
>> to know sarvAloka abhAva. The absence of knowledge is not knowledge of
>> absence.
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Not really, because this is primarily meant to refute a false
>> extrapolation to a universal rule based on limited observed data.
>>
>> So while even the frivolous pUrvapakshi is addressed, it is meant to
>> refute those situations where people mistake the light sources they know as
>> all the light there is, and based on the absence of those light sources,
>> conclude that all light is absent and therefore hold that the nature of
>> darkness is the absence of all light.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> A possible rebuttal could be that a single photon is not visible to the
>> naked eye, so darkness defined as the absence of a single photon is not
>> tenable, wavelength notwithstanding.
>>
>> What about a group of photons?
>>
>> In experimental conditions, it was demonstrated that a minimum of 90
>> photons have to enter the eye for them to be visible to the naked eye, but
>> there was a requirement that the room be dark for that amount of light to
>> be visible.
>> (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html)
>>
>> Therefore, one could argue that to define darkness as the absence of a
>> group of photons (of a wavelength within the visible spectrum) is not
>> tenable, because darkness is needed to see that group of photons in the
>> first place.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>