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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
Some responses below.

>
> 2. The question is whether a devata must necessarily refer to a positive
> objective entity. There is no such rule. For example direction. For example
> Aditya adhidaivata refers to rupa such as shukla and krishna. Now krishna
> is absence of shukla as admitted even by Chitsukhi. So no claim can be made
> that adhidaivata must necessarily refer to a positive entity. रूपाण्येव
> यस्यायतनम् । रूपाणि शुक्लकृष्णादीनि । य एवासावादित्ये पुरुषः — सर्वेषां हि
> रूपाणां विशिष्टं कार्यमादित्ये पुरुषः, तस्य का देवतेति — सत्यमिति होवाच ;
> सत्यमिति चक्षुरुच्यते ; चक्षुषो हि अध्यात्मत आदित्यस्याधिदैवतस्य
> निष्पत्तिः. (Brihad Aranyak 3.9.12) न च अयम् औपचारिक आलोकाभावे,
> शौक्ल्याभावे पटादौ नीलव्यवहारे इव इति युक्तम्, मुख्ये बाधभावात्.(चित्सुखी)
>
The chitsukhi quote above does not indicate that the colour black is the
absence of white. The chitsukhi kAra is simply refuting the opponent who is
saying that the bhAvarUpa of tamah is merely aupachArika, and who cites the
example of the vyavahAra of nIlo paTa: which occurs because of the absence
of white in the cloth.

This does not amount to the chitsukhAchArya accepting that the colour
called black is simply the absence of white. Even if the opponent's
dRShTAnta is accepted, it is only an acceptance of the vyavahAra (a cloth
being seen to be black, simply because that cloth is not white), it does
not amount to an acceptance of the colour black itself being the absence of
white. Further, we must remember that chitsukhAchArya himself is arguing
for tamah being bhAvarUpa, and is arguing against AlokAbhAva! We can't
simply quote him on a side matter without acknowledging his position on the
main issue under discussion.

In any case, to argue on this basis that - the meaning of रूपाणि as
शुक्लकृष्णादीनि in the brihadAraNyaka mantra implies that the the आयतनम्
can be abhAvarUpa - is quite a stretch of interpretation.


> 3. Mrityu is the adhidaivata for tamas does not mean that Mrityu-devata
> lives 'in' tamas as mentioned in //*तम एव यस्यायतनम् । तम इति
> शार्वराद्यन्धकारः परिगृह्यते ; *अध्यात्मं
> छायामयः अज्ञानमयः पुरुषः ; *तस्य का देवतेति — मृत्युरिति होवाच
> *;मृत्युरधिदैवतं तस्य निष्पत्तिकारणम् ॥ Surely, if 'tamah' is being
> described as the abode of a deity, surely the
> abode has to be an existent entity?"
>
> Tamas is *not* the abode of Mrityu-devata. There are three entities here.
> (i) tamas (ii) the ajnana-maya purusha (iii) the devata of
> ajnana-maya-purusha. Tamas is the ayatana or ashraya of ajnana-maya-purusha
> and NOT that of Mrityu-devata. Discussion of abode of devata is *not*
> mentioned
> here. Further, if one were to say that the ajnana-maya-purusha lives in
> tamas then that obviously is not the case here because that purusha is
> within this karya-karana-samghata and not in outside tamas. So, no claim of
> positive-ness can be made on account of abode because that is not mentioned
> here at all.
>

Hang on, in mantra 10 shankarAchArya does translate the word Ayatanam as
Ashraya पृथिव्येव यस्य देवस्य आयतनम् आश्रयः. Swami Madhavananda translates
this word as abode in standard translation.

You are correct though - tamah is not mrityu's abode, it is the ChAyAmaya /
ajnAnamaya puruSha's. You are also corrext in saying that Ashraya / abode
here does not mean the place where someone lives.

In fact, it means the locus / basis of the puruSha (which in this context,
means the manifestation of hiraNyagarbha).

In any case,  shankarAchArya translates tamah to cover external darkness
also (the Adi in shArvarAdi andhakAra) तम इति शार्वराद्यन्धकारः परिगृह्यते.
There is no incongruity in concluding that the abode of ajnAnamaya
puruSha, characteristised by the internal darkness of ignorance, has
darkness - both internal and external - as his locus. The problem only
comes if Ayatana / abode is taken literally to mean house.

In fact, it must be borne in mind that this is an upAsana section. If the
upaniShad says that you have to meditate upon the devatA in *this* manner,
one has to do it exactly in *that* way, there is no room to argue for
anupapatti based on the expectation of a literal connection between the
upAsya devatA, his pratIka and the stated visheShaNa.

If we say that tamah is abhAvarUpa, then the अज्ञानमयः पुरुषः himself is
abhAvarUpa, so there is no manifestation available for the meditation
itself.


> 4. Ayatana is not in the sense of abode. Otherwise we will need to infer
> Aditya-stha-puruSha to live in krishna-rupa which is admittedly an abhava.
> Or kAma-maya-puruSha to live 'in' kAma. Point 3 is also supported here
> because women, who are kama-uddipaka and who are devata of
> kama-maya-purusha, don't live 'in' kama but they live in house of
> kama-maya-purusha. काम एव यस्यायतनम् । स्त्रीव्यतिकराभिलाषः कामः कामशरीर
> इत्यर्थः । हृदयं लोकः, हृदयेन बुद्ध्या पश्यति । य एवायं काममयः पुरुषः
> अध्यात्ममपि काममय एव, तस्य का देवतेति — स्त्रिय इति होवाच ; स्त्रीतो हि
> कामस्य दीप्तिर्जायते
>

Again, the word abode was used because Swami Madhavananda does so in his
translation. Yes, it does not mean the place where one lives in - it means
the locus of the puruSha. Here the puruSha is hiraNyagarbha in the form of
kAma (sexual desire), and there is nothing incongruous in taking his locus
to be kAma.

devatA, in all these upAsana-s is a technical word meaning 'source or
origin' of the puruSha, the particular manifestation of hiraNyagarbha. See
mantra 10 bhAShya for meaning of devatA. यस्मान्निष्पद्यते, यः ‘सा तस्य
देवता’ इत्यस्मिन्प्रकरणे विवक्षितः. It does not mean a deity who lives in
the abode.

There is nothing incongruous in describing the source of sexual desire as
women. The interpretation that women live in the house of the kAmamaya
puruSha is incorrect.

Adityastha puruSha has form as his Ayatana / Ashraya/ abode. Form in this
context simply means colours in general - to take the chitsukhi sentence to
mean black as the absence of colour - and thus conclude that rUpa in this
mantra is an abhAvarUpa Ayatana, is a stretch.

Another point to support that rUpa is bhAvarUpa is shankarAchArya
clarifying what he means by rUpa in this mantra (12) by contrasting with
the rUpa which is again mentioned as an Ayatana in mantra 15. In that
bhAShya he says पूर्वं साधारणानि रूपाण्युक्तानि इह तु प्रकाशकानि विशिष्टानि
रूपाणि गृह्यन्ते ;


> 5. Even in 6.2.11 //रात्रिः अर्चिः, समित्सम्बन्धप्रभवसामान्यात् ; अग्नेः
> समित्सम्बन्धेन हि अर्चिः सम्भवति, तथा पृथिवीसमित्सम्बन्धेन शर्वरी ;
> *पृथिवीछायां हि शार्वरं तम आचक्षते *// I fail to appreciate as to how this
> supports the view of darkness as some positive entity. On the contrary,
> Acharya is quite clearly saying that darkness is nothing but shadow of
> earth. Discussion will arise on the meaning of shadow. One will say it to
> be absence of light and the other as some positive entity. Similarly the
> other quotes from Anandagiri reference does not add anything new and need
> understanding the concept of shadow itself.
>
Yes one gets dragged into a debate whether shadow is a positive entity or
not, which given that the question of darkness is not settled, does not
move us forward. I simply mentioned it as a point of interest

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan