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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om V Subrahmanian ji,

1. Mirage is not abhava. You can photograph it. Mirage is an erroneous
perception. The way your eyes perceive, so does the lens of a camera. It is
due to the light which comes after refraction from media of air having
different refractive indices. To think that it is some bhava in itself may
not be correct. Bhashya does not appear to say the bhava-rupatva of mirage.
However, we need to clearly understand what we mean by the word mirage. If
we mean the water, obviously that is an abhava irrespective of the fact
that it is perceived. There is no such rule that experienciability implies
bhavarupatva. In Prashna 6.2, Acharya says - अभावस्यापि
ज्ञेयत्वाभ्युपगमात्. I understand that it is said during interaction with
Vainashika, however the view of Acharya appears quite clear  - सिद्धं
ह्यभावविज्ञेयविषयस्य ज्ञानस्याभावज्ञेयव्यतिरेकाज्ज्ञेयज्ञानयोरन्यत्वम् । न
हि तत्सिद्धं मृतमिवोज्जीवयितुं पुनरन्यथा कर्तुं शक्यते वैनाशिकशतैरपि.
Clearly, abhava is said as jneya here. Jnana can be either of bhava-jneya
or of abhava-jneya.  Now if you were to say that the fact of jneyatvam
makes the jneya a bhavarupa, then I am afraid that statement of Acharya
will be violated. Therefore, your statement //Thus the deciding factor for
something to be a bhAvarupa entity is its experiencability.// does not
appear to be in conformity with bhashya.

Raghav ji,

1. // This adhibhautika aspect too is bhAvarUpA.// That is the whole point
of discussion.

2.//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.// The factum of positive experience does not make the
experienced a bhavarupa as mentioned above vide Prashna 6.2. Moreover, I
cannot cognise direction as some thing. It is just a reference and a way of
usage to communicate. Mere positive mention such as -- this is dakshina --
in Shruti does not impart bhavarupatva to something called dakshina. It is
space only which is being referred as east or west on the basis of
definition of word east or west such as sun rising etc.

3. //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.//
I pretty well appreciate this.

Venkataraghavan ji,

1. //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.// A difference appears to have been made on black
colour and darkness and hence I quoted. More apt would have been to refute
it then and there that even black is a colour and not merely absence of
white - even in vyavahara. Absence of this direct refutation led to my
quoting him on this issue.

Moreover, darkness and black colour are indeed different. Darkness can be
felt despite there being light if there are no objects such as in outer
space. Imagine yourself in outer space without anything around you. Even
the space shuttle. There will be darkness all around. However, black
'colour' is always of some object and it is a resultant of the intrinsic
property of the object AND the property of incident light AND the type of
eye. So an object having so called black 'colour' for we trichromat humans
can pretty well be having some definite 'colour' to a pentachromat animal.
Thus, the concept of colour is different and concept of darkness is
completely different. Whether a trichromat or pentachromat, they will see
darkness only in outer space. Therefore, it is not out of place to quote
Chitusukhi in that regard.

2. The word ayatana does not appear to be in the sense of abode which give
bhavarupatva to the ayatana. I have shared my view earlier. No point to
repeat.

3. //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.//

Even abhava can be a jneya as mentioned by me above vide Prashna 6.2. And
obviously our discussion itself started therefrom - sarva-aloka-abhava etc.
I don't really understand how you infer that abhavatva of tamas leads to
abhavatva of ajnanamaya-purushah.

4. //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// To me, this
discussion is of huge importance. And hence I endeavour to understand this
thoroughly in a manner which is not contradictory to pratyakasha namely
Science. We have infrared cameras and night-visions-glasses which don't
need any Aloka to destroy a bhavarupa darkness. It is simple theoretical
science.

5. If you get some time, then do share your views on Gita Bhashya 8.26 -
*शुक्लकृष्णे* शुक्ला च कृष्णा च शुक्लकृष्णे ज्ञानप्रकाशकत्वात् शुक्ला
*तदभावात्* कृष्णा एते शुक्लकृष्णे. Now, please not the word तत् अभावात् --
it is Panchami vibhakti and a fit case for application of causation. Here
Acharya appears prima facie to state that Krishna - because of the abhava
of jnana-prakashaka. Obviously, in Sampradaya, it is explained a little
differently and Swami Madhusudan Saraswati writes - शुक्ला
अर्चिरादिगतिर्ज्ञानप्रकाशमयत्वात्। कृष्णा धूमादिगतिर्ज्ञानहीनत्वेन
तमोमयत्वात्। Please note that the word तत् अभावात् is now तमोमयत्वात्.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.