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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om V Subrahmanian ji,



how is the analogy of avidya relevant here? I tried to understand the
analogy in the present context but could not find any relevance. Pl explain
the similarity.



Bhaskar ji,



there is no drArshtAntika here. It is an independent discussion of Vivarana
school as to whether darkness is bhava. I will explain my points once again
so that the problem becomes clearer.



Shri Vidyaranya ("SV") is countering the purvapaksha that darkness cannot
be mere Aloka-abhAva. Because if it were to be Aloka-abhAva, it can be
either Aloka-mAtra-abhAva or Aloka-vishesha-abhAva or sarva-Aloka-abhAva,



We are concerned here with his rebuttal for sarva-Aloka-abhAva. He gives
the rebuttal that if darkness were to be sarva-Aloka-abhAva, then it could
not be removed unless there is coming about of sarva-Aloka. And he stops
there.



The discussion is related to the meaning of the word sarva-Aloka-abhAva.
Let there be n types of Aloka like surya-Aloka, deepa-Aloka etc. In short
A1 to An.



Now sarva-Aloka-abhAva can refer to the following:-



~(A1 & A2 ... An) or (~A1 & ~A2....& ~An).



Let us abbreviate these as I-1 and I-2. That is, I-1 = ~(A1 & A2 ... An)
and I-2 = (~A1 & ~A2....& ~An)



Now, if I-1 is the meaning of sarva-Aloka-abhAva, then SV is correct by
saying that it cannot be removed unless all Aloka are brought about
simultaneously. However, as per my understanding, I-1 cannot be the correct
interpretation. This is so for following reasons:-



(a) The knowledge of an abhava needs the previous knowledge of its
pratiyogi. In case of I-1, the pratiyogi is A1&A2..&An. Now none has the
knowledge of A1 to An together. Hence none has the knowledge of the
pratiyogi of I-1 and hence none can know the I-1 either. Hence, I-1 cannot
be thecorrect interpretation of sarva-Aloka-abhAva.



(b) If one were to say that actually I-1 is nothing but ~A1 OR ~A2 .. OR ~
An. And knowledge of either of A1 to An (say A3) would satisfy the
knowledge of ~A3 which will ensure knowledge of I-1. Then this view is not
correct because pratiyogi of I-1 is not A3 but A1 to An together. On this
count, the meaning I-1 cannot be taken.



(c) If one were to dilute this rule of previous knowledge of paratiyogi,
even then I-1 cannot be taken because I-1 entails even daytime as darkness.
How? In daytime, when surya-Aloka is there, none uses torch-Aloka. Hence,
as per I-1, there is sarva-Aloka-abhAva and there is darkness J Now this is
obviously incorrect as no person of sound mind would try to define darkness
in such a manner that even daytime comes within its purview. And would SV
refute such definition not by pointing out the inherent infirmity of this
definition but by taking a roundabout route that it cannot be removed
unless you bring A1 to An together. Should we deem purva-paksha to be such
a person of unsound mind as posing daytime as darkness and SV of refuting
the objection of a person of unsound mind. I think purva-paksha needs some
respect. :-) He is a learned Naiyayika,



On the other hand, if one were to take the I-2 as the interpretation, then:-



(a) The pratiyogi of I-2 is A1 OR A2 OR A3.. OR An. We know this. And hence
the condition of previous knowledge of pratiyogi is satisfied. Now, one
cannot argue that you must know each A1 to An to know their simultaneous
abhava. This is so because pratiyogi of I-2 is connected by OR.



(c) However, to remove I-2, we do not need A1 to An together. And hence,
the response of SV does not appear proper (to a foolish person like me. No
imputation to SV)



The above is the description of my problem.



Apart from this, I am curious to know as to how darkness is not merely
absence of photons having wavelength of 380-740 nm. If a view is held that
darkness is required to see these, then it is countered easily because even
in daytime, when a monochromatic light of wavelength 700 nm is flashed, you
would know it and hence darkness is no sine qua non for perception of
photons of wavelength 380 to 740 nm.



Now the big question. Why I am breaking my head on this? You will get the
answer if you pose to any of your friends that darkness is like table and
chair. An existing object. And it comes about directly from
Maya-vishista-Brahma as soon as you switch off the light. Just as lightning
comes when cloud collide. Vivarana – आलोकविनाशितस्य च तमसः पुनः मूलकारणादेव
झटिति महाविद्युदादिजन्मवज्जन्म सिद्ध्यति.



Regards.

Sudhanshu.









On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:17 AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> A1 , A2 etc are light sources.
> ~A1 implies A1 is switched off.
>
> sarvAloka = (A1 AND A2 ...ad infinitum)
> ~(sarvAloka) = ~A1 OR ~A2 OR .... etc.
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> What exactly is the 'dAshtrAntika' here ??  Being a below average student
> of maths and science I have lost myself in these equations.  If avidyA is
> compared to darkness and light as jnana then please explain this by using
> avidyA and vidya terms so that dull wits like me would atleast come to know
> the problem being discussed here.  Thanks in advance.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>