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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om V Sumrahmanian ji,

In a plate of khichdi, suppose 10 grams of salt is used for an ordinary
person. Now in one plate, there is 5 grams, in another 2 gram and in one
plate, there is no salt at all. All three plates of khichdi are before me.
We will taste and say one is bland, other is blander and yet other is
blandest. It does not mean that bladness is some object. It is mere absence
of salt. Similarly गाढ़ अंधकार, मंद अंधकार etc can be explained.

However, this is not in connection with the sequence of logic used in VPS.
And this is not what I intended to discuss. My idea was regarding
understanding of sarva-Aloka-abhAva.

Regards,
Sudhanshu.


On Mon 6 May, 2019, 12:57 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> namaste sudhanshuji
> the idea of sarvAlokAbhAva is not as infructuous as it seems. Other posts
> too have pointed this out.
>
> The idea is -  are there grades of tamaH ? This question is a legitimate
> one. It's common to consider ideas like semi darkness, total darkness,
> partial darkness etc. If tamaH is abhAvarUpA, then someone could maintain
> that there is less and less tamaH as more and more light sources light up.
> And in that case there is *total* nAsha of tamaH *only* when all possible
> light sources are present. When just a little light is there then someone
> can still possibly maintain that there is partial or semi-darkness which
> leads to rajju-sarpa bhrama etc. This idea of gradual lifting of the veil
> of darkness (say, at dawn etc) corresponds to definition saying that
> darkness (tamaH) is sarva-Aloka-abhAva. (your pratyaxa objection is dealt
> with by claiming that darkness is only gradually removed and not *fully*
> removed by a photon or two. ) Therefore such a tamaH is therefore removed
> only by sarvAloka. And please also note that sarva-Aloka does not hold true
> if just a few finite number of alokas are shining. This is the implication
> of :
> A1 , A2 etc are light sources.
> ~A1 implies A1 is switched off.
>
> sarvAloka = (A1 AND A2 ...ad infinitum)
> ~(sarvAloka) = ~A1 OR ~A2 OR .... etc.
>
> Even if one light source is inactive the condition for (sarvAloka) becomes
> falsified - so there is sarvAloka-abhAva - and then there is some 'degree'
> of darkness - that is the idea in this incremental model of darkness
> removal.
>
>
>  What about pratyaxa? Don't we see that even one light source removes
> darkness? No. Not so fast. The counter or answer to this simplistic
> pratyaxa objection by a possible supporter of tamaH = sarvAlokAbhAva, would
> be that pratyaxa can also be used to say "its so dark in here" even when a
> few photons from a zero watt bulb are flying around. The gradual lifting of
> darkness at dawn etc., can also be called pratyaxa siddha. So its even
> stevens. Its therefore a mere unquestioned assumption to say that a single
> light source comprehensively removes all darkness. This is rarely the case
> or we could just have a single zero watt bulb in any given room in our
> respective residences. No need for so many LEDs and bulbs in a single room,
> since darkness is totally destroyed by a little bulb!
>
> So it is an unquestioned assumption that a single (or some n number of)
> photon(s) removes darkness - its not pratyaxa सिद्ध. Or even in the early
> hours of dawn , we would have to say darkness is totally destroyed. Because
> the pratyaxa statement/objection stems from assuming a priori that darkness
> is of such and such nature.
>
> Coming back to VPS - it concludes saying that tamaH = sarvAlokAbhAva is
> incorrect.  Such a putative definition of tamaH is asambhava and that would
> also imply that such a tamaH is never going to be fully destroyed since its
> प्रतियोगी viz., sarvAlokA is asambhava.
>
> To sum up.
> X is defined as X-abhAva-pratiyogI.
> That X which is nothing but X-abhAva-pratiyogI is negated by X-abhAva.
> This is the usual nyAya language.
>
>  VPS frames the pUrvapaxa as the following.
> Now its tricky, but replace X with tamaH defined as sarvAlokAbhAva
> (remember we are analyzing the gradualist model of darkness. )
>
> Then tamaH is only unconditionally and fully negated by
> sarvAloka-abhAva-abhAva which is sarvAloka itself.
> ~~A = A
>
> All this was briefly hinted at in the hindi explanation of the VPS in the
> relevant page dealing with the three models of examining whether tamaH can
> be abhAva rUpa.
>
>
> Another related query is - my guess is that our nyAya logicians were smart
> enough to know the simple logical syllogism
> ~(X AND Y) = ~X OR ~Y
>
> But I wonder if there is any reference to it or its application anywhere in
> earlier texts?
>
> Apologies if I have repeated myself in this post.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat 4 May, 2019, 5:37 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Hari Om,
> >
> > In Vivarana school, it is a well settled doctrine that darkness is not
> > merely abhava of light. In order to prove that in Vivaran Prameya
> Samgraha
> > ("VPS"), Shri Vidyaranya gives following logic:-
> >
> > If darkness were to be abhava, then it can be either
> > (a) aloka-matra-abhava OR
> > (b) aloka-vishesha-abhava OR
> > (c) sarva-aloka-abhava
> >
> > I am quite convinced of his arguments on first and second. However, his
> > explanation for third one does not appear convincing. Let me explain his
> > logic. He says, if darkness were to be sarva-aloka-abhava then unless
> there
> > is sannidhana (bringing about) of sarva-aloka, darkness cannot be
> removed.
> >
> > This is his argument which appears bizzare.
> >
> > Let darkness be A1-abhava AND  A2-abhava AND A3-abhava .........AND
> > An-abhava where n is last type of aloka. Like surya-aloka-abhava AND
> > deepak-aloka -abhava AND lamp-aloka-abhava upto nth type of aloka-abhava.
> >
> > If this is the premise then to remove darkness, we don't have to have the
> > sannindhana of A1 to An as claimed by V. There is a basic logic. ~(~A1
> and
> > ~A2 and ~An) = A1 or A2 or An... That is to say, the negation changes the
> > "and" to "or".
> >
> > Thus, his statement that removal of sarva-aloka-abhava can only be
> achieved
> > by the sannidhana of sarva-aloka is incorrect. The removal of
> > sarva-aloka-abhava is by kinchit-aloka and not by sarva-aloka.
> >
> > And thus his logic appears prima facie to be incorrect and inadmissible.
> >
> > Views of learned members are welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sudhanshu.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>