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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Let's call it a day Sudhanshu ji.

I don't think you have understood what I have said, and I have other things
I need to get back to.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, 5 May 2019, 15:03 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> I had read your email carefully. Only after that I posed my question
> carefully.
>
> 1. By your response to first query, it appears that you mean that there is
> no hard and fast rule of having the previous knowledge of pratiyogi. You
> would agree that as per you, it is impossible to know the pratiyogi in case
> abhava is defined as ~(A1 & A2.. & An). And yet you contemplate (rightly)
> that it can be known. A contradiction. Is it not?
>
> 2. Darkness is needed to perceive photons? Suppose a monochromatic light
> of wavelength 380 nm is present. And you beam an additional monochromatic
> light of wavelength 700nm. Don't you think that we will be able to see the
> additional light notwithstanding the absence of darkness. Therefore, it
> cannot be a rule that darkness is sine qua non for perception of light.
> Perception of light is due to inherent nature of photons and eyes. Darkness
> does not seem to have any connection therewith as illustrated above.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu.
>
> On Sun 5 May, 2019, 19:15 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>