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

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sudhanshu Ji,

In sushupti, veiling power of ajnAna is experienced. And ajnAna is
bhAvarUpa. Would that be enough of a pramANa for you to similarly consider
darkness as bhAvarUpa in as much as its characteristic is one of veiling of
everything otherwise cognizable. Just a thought.

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
I’m
protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free forever.
<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:10 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Pranams Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> I have not read Chitsukhi. I have to search through for the pramANa.
> However I am doubt if the context in which tamas is used in your citation
> of Chitsukhi is synonymous with darkness as understood in the current
> context. You may please confirm.
>
> Regards
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183> I’m
> protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free
> forever.
> <https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
> <#m_-3593023610152226568_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:55 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183> I’m
> protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free
> forever.
> <https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
> <#m_-3593023610152226568_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>