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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji



>
>
> 1. //Shankara clearly says that tamas, included in the list and tejas as
> well...constitute the adhidaivatam and that they are all devatas // You
> mean tamas i.e. the outside darkness itself is the adhidaivata?



Every adhidevatA has an adhibhautika aspect. This adhibhautika aspect too
is bhAvarUpA. That adhibhautika aspect does not physically constrain them
like in the case of lower beings like human beings. We are asked to face
the physical Sun and address him with mantras etc. So the physical or
adhibhautika aspect of a devatA is inseparably associated with him. At the
same time, the devatAs can assume forms and teach and be taught like Surya
was taught by Krishna (in a previous incarnation) and Surya taught
Yajnavalkya and Manu etc.

For many of us, it's easier to conceive of the inseparable connection
between this physical Universe as a whole and the 'devatA' viz., VirAt,
whose form we are experiencing. He pervades this physical universe but can
also assume specific forms in certain contexts of Bhaktapur and rishis etc
. Each devatA is an aspect of this One cosmic devatA and enjoys a similar
*inseparable* connexion with some adhibhautika entity like sUrya, manas,
tamaH, dik etc.(whether sthUla or sUxma).

When
> Prithivi does not refer to the astronomical prithivi, then how can tamas
> refer to the outside darkness? Tamas represents Mritya devata. That is
> quite clear.



When this physical Earth is worshipped or in some cases
exploited/disrespected, then Prithvi devatA is worshipped or in those other
cases disrespected. Prithvi devatA is not unrelated to the physical
Prithvi, as you suggest. It's only that they (devatAs) have the power to
assume anthropomorphic forms at will. That's why they are exalted and not
merely physically constrained  like humans who 'live in' bodies. Since
Shruti is not just doing  anuvAda of physical realities, the word Prithvi
in Shruti  is not referring merely to the adhibhautika physical Earth but
it refers to the adhidevatA aspect whose adhibhautika manifestation is
experienced by us as this physical Earth.

>
> 2. The question is whether a devata must necessarily refer to a positive
> objective entity. There is no such rule. For example direction.


Are you suggesting that direction (dik), is also abhAvarUpA? In the shrauta
paramparA, dik is also bhAvarUpa (it is experienced positively as 'ayam
daxiNah paxaH' etc., as Subbuji mentioned) and it's devatAs are ishAnan,
niRRta etc.

This word bhAvarUpa does not mean it has to be something grossly
objectifiable like chairs etc. The sUxma entities like manas etc are
apanchIkRta and yet they represent the  adhibhautika aspect of  a devatA.
It's  not as if the  adhibhautika  aspect of an adhidevatA has to be only
be made of pancIkRta bhUtas like in the case of the physical Sun etc. As I
understand, both tamaH and dik are bhAvarUpa and they have adhibhautika
(darkness and direction) and adhidaivika aspects. So your example of dik
only shows that dik and tamas are both bhAvarUpas.


Om

Raghav

>
>
>