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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Chandramouli ji,

What is the pramana for the following?

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.

Chitsukhi clearly articulates darkness as द्रव्यान्तर. I quote --
"तमालश्यामलज्ञाने निर्बाधे जाग्रति स्फुटे। द्रव्यान्तर तमः कस्मात् अकस्मात्
अपलप्यते।।" It goes on to prove darkness as द्रव्यान्तर through various
logic.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.


Mon 6 May, 2019, 20:42 H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>