[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A kilogram of darkness please

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji. Kalyan ji.

> Not the same, I’m afraid. Space is where you put stuff – if there isn’t
> any when you need to tidy up, you have a problem.
>
Fine. But how does this militate against the bhAvatva of space? Space is
bhAva avidyA-kArya, as it is created (तस्मात् वा एतस्मात् आत्मनः आकाशः
सम्भूतः). It is triguNAtmak and yet does not have any measurable unit. Fits
perfect as an example for immeasurability of bhAva tamas.

Electric and magnetic fields have measurable effects on other accepted
> objects.
>
Yes. But they are not measurable in kg. You asked for one kg of tamas.

> But, in the case of ‘darkness’, it is the way that we use language that is
> the problem. ‘Darkness’ is the word that we use for ‘lack of light’.
>
This is your presumption arising on account of non-deliberation. It is
proved through anumAna that darkness is not abhAva. I will demonstrate how.
You will need to contradict the anumAna and not merely cite presumed
linguistic usage as a counter-argument.

> Switching on a torch does not ‘remove’ darkness; it introduces light. If
> we keep bumping into things and hurting ourselves, what is needed is a
> torch (to remedy the lack of adequate light) or spectacles (to remedy the
> lack of good eyesight). Suppose that someone enters the cave, without a
> torch, and suffers an injury. The reason for this is that he tripped over a
> rock, which he was unable to see. It is clearly true that he couldn’t see
> because there was no light in the cave, but darkness was not the ‘cause’ of
> his injury. The cause was the rock which lay in his path. With a good
> torch, he would have been able to see and
>
Again this is just presumption. You are assuming. On what reasoning can you
say that it is not created immediately when torch light is put off? There
is no reason. If it is proved that tamas is not abhAva, then you will have
to accept it's creation.


*Why darkness cannot be mere absence of light *

In order to know abhAva, we need to have prior knowledge of pratiyogI. For
example, in order to know there is pot-abhAva in the room, we need to know
what a pot is. Unless we know a pot, we cannot aver that there is
pot-abhAva in the room.

When darkness is posited as prakAsha-abhAva, we need to ask whether it is
prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva or prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva or
sarva-prakAsha-abhAva.

That is to say, let there be A = {p1, p2, p3..pn}, which is a set of
prakAsha in the universe. Then, the darkness which is posited as
prakAsha-abhAva can be either

(i) the abhAva of any of the elements in the set A.

(ii) the abhAva of any specific element in the set A.

(iii) the abhAva of all the elements of the set together.

(iv) the abhAva of each of the elements of the set together.

None of the scenarios are admissible. For example, let us take situation 1
and 2. They are both similar. Let any general or specific element of the
set be absent and yet there is sunlight. Can there be darkness? No. Thus,
mere absence of a general or specific element of the set does not imply
darkness. Hence, it is proved that prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva or
prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva are not darkness.

Let us take situation 3. This is not tenable either. Because in order to
remove darkness, we will need to switch on all p1 to pn. Let us see
carefully here: Darkness = abhAva of (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3… ∧ pn). So to remove
darkness, we need to have p1 & p2 & p3… & pn, which is contrary to
experience. Further, it also implies that we must know p1 ∧ p2 ∧ p3… ∧ pn
in order to know darkness, which is impossible. Thus, it is proved that
darkness is not sarva-prakAsha-abhAva either.

Now, situation 4 states darkness = (~p1 ∧ ~p2 ∧ ~p3 … ∧ ~pn). This implies
that in order to know darkness, we need to know each of the p1 to pn.
Because unless we know p1, we cannot know p1-abhAva. Thus, similar to
situation 3, this situation 4, which demands prior knowledge of all
prakAsha, is an impossibility.

Thus, it is proved that darkness is not prakAsha-abhAva.

*Another reason*

तमः शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः,
स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।

(i) There are some particular features of abhAva. It resides at more than
one place. For e.g. cloth is pot-abhAva. Table is also pot-abhAva. Thus,
pot-abhAva-tva resides in cloth as well as table. However, pot-ness exists
only in a pot. It does not exist anywhere else. Thus, pot is a padArtha
which is swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak. Meaning thereby, its qualitative
feature inheres only in it. All non-abhAva-padArtha are similarly
swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak.

Now, whether darkness-ness is seen anywhere other than darkness? Is it seen
in a pot? No. Thus, darkness is also swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak.

(ii) The knowledge of an abhAva cannot arise without the knowledge of its
pratiyogI. Thus, cognition of abhAva is dependent or causally linked with
the cognition of prayogI. Thus, abhAva is always pratiyogI-jnAna-janya.

However, darkness is pratiyogI-jnAna-ajanya. We directly perceive darkness.

(iii) Like a pot, darkness is also an object of pratyaksha.

Thus, just as pot, darkness is swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak,
pratiyogI-jnAna-ajanya and pratyaksha-vishaya. And there is a vyApti,
whichever entity is
swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak-pratiyogI-jnAna-ajanya-pratyaksha-vishaya,
that entity is not abhAVa. तमः शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः,
स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।

Thus, we prove through anumAna, which is a valid pramANa, that darkness is
not abhAva. Here, darkness is paksha. Hetu is
swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakArak-pratiyogI-jnAna-ajanya-pratyaksha-vishaya-tvam.
SAdhya is non-abhAva-tva. DrishTAnta is pot.

*Another reason*

ShankarAchArya says in Brahma Sutra BhAshya 2.2.26 – निर्विशेषस्य त्वभावस्य
कारणत्वाभ्युपगमे शशविषाणादिभ्योऽप्यङ्कुरादयो जायेरन् ; न चैवं दृश्यते ; यदि
पुनरभावस्यापि विशेषोऽभ्युपगम्येत — उत्पलादीनामिव नीलत्वादिः, ततो
विशेषवत्त्वादेवाभावस्य भावत्वमुत्पलादिवत्प्रसज्येत ; नाप्यभावः
कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत्. abhAva does not
give rise to anything. On account of being abhAva, like horns of hare.
There are no vishesha in abhAva like blue-ness is vishesha in case of
lotus. Why? Because on account of this vishesha itself, abhAva will turn to
non-abhAva like lotus.

Darkness has a vishesha of black-ness. There is no vishesha in cases of
pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva. Thus, this vishesha itself turns darkness into
non-abhAva.

The fact that darkness is not abhAva implies that it is bhAva.

Further, please note that anything which is seen is created and
triguNAtmak. So, even if you hold darkness as prakAsha-abhAva, it still is
bhAvarUpa because abhAva is also bhAvarUpa as proved by the following
anumAna - अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः —
यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं
तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं
स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव
भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।


Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>