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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.


> Even a simple non-figurative language use known to  everyone will show how
>> darkness is a bhAva padArtha. We say: it is a little dark, too dark, pitch
>> dark, etc. Where is gradation possible in lack of light! If it be said that
>> it is due to gradation of light, then still one has to accept there is some
>> light that cannot counter the darkness present. And then the aprakAshaH
>> tamaH definition not given but used by the opponent will have the
>> virodArthe na~n, not abhavArthe.
>>
>
Indeed!

Namaste Dennis ji.

//You must concede that, although such an approach often puts a stop to
arguments, it does not necessarily win them.//

it is not about winning or losing but about learning what the advaita
siddhAnta holds.

I will try presenting my own understanding as to how I got convinced in the
heart of hearts that darkness is triguNatmaka. Let us refer to
drishTi-srishTi-vAda which posits absolute identity between waking and
dream. Aitareya Upanishads says - trayah swapnAh. I am sure you would be
well aware of this.

Now, if we analyse the dream-darkness, is it logical to say that it is
dream-prakAsha-abhAva? No. Whatever is seen in a dream, be it light or
darkness or pot or pot-abhAva or whatever -- is all avidyA-kArya and hence
triguNAtmaka.

Dream-light cannot be placed at a higher pedestal than dream-darkness. No
one is contingent on another. Both are seen, hence both are illusory and
hence both are at par being triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya.

Waking being identical to dream imples waking-darkness to be also
triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya.

SrishTi-drishTi-vAda also holds the same but uses complex logic as I
presented. I agree that it is difficult to even understand. But we need to
put in requisite effort if we need to have clarity.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.