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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Firstly thank you for an interesting discussion.

You wrote -
 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.

For the record -
We don't by see a flashlight of a certain frequency if there is already
intense enough light at that frequency. It needs a prior background of
'darkness' at that frequency for that particular light to become known.

An example would be how stars, which are like mini flashlights are not
visible during daytime due to absence of darkness on account of light
scattering of sunlight  by air.

On another note -
There were earlier discussions on bhAvarupatvaM of tamaH and the point that
Chandramouli ji made came up viz., it (avidyA) is bhAva-rUpA . A pramANa
too was supplied in that earlier discussion for this idea disambiguating
bhAva from bhAvarUpA. I would request Chandramouli ji or Subbuji to help
with this reference.

This discussion on tamaH was regarded as important enough for all our
Acharyas from SrI PadmapAda  to SrI vidyAraNya go to great pains to
establish that avidyA is not abhAvarUpA. So although the discussion might
seem to be a hair splitting one, it's not so .

Om
Raghav




> >

On Tue 7 May, 2019, 1:22 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>