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

[H S Chandramouli]

Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  << there is no drArshtAntika here. It is an independent discussion of
Vivarana
school as to whether darkness is bhava >>

and

<< Apart from this, I am curious to know as to how darkness is not merely
absence of photons having wavelength of 380-740 nm >>,

I am not sure if the following makes sense in the current context. You may
like to consider.

Darkness is not bhAva, it is bhAvarUpa. It is not a vastu  to be termed
bhAva. But since it conceals bhAvAs, it is termed bhAvarUpa.  It pertains
to jnAna, not artha. Presence or absence of photons or anything else does
not make for presence  or absence of darkness. However their noncognition
in the absence of anything else to hinder their cognition implies
darkness.

Regards

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:42 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>