[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Upanishad and Shankara hold 'tamas' darkness, to be a 'thing.'

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

> I meant cognition of darkness needs chakshu-saanikarsha of location of
darkness. When it is said **there is darkness**, chakshu-saanikarsha is
needed for the cognition **there is**. This part is pramAtri-gamya. However
*darkness* itself is sAkshi-bhAsya.

In case of rope-snake adhyAsa, there is chakshu-sannikarsha with the
avachchhedaka of substratum of the illusory snake, which is idam. The
substaraum is idam-avachchhinna-chaitanya. In case of darkness, which is
mUlAvidyA-kArya, the substratum is shuddha chaitanya. There cannot be
chakshu-sannikarsha with shuddha chaitanya.

>PanchapAdikA holds illusory snake also to be mUlAvidyA-kArya  while others
hold it to be tUlAvidyA-kArya.

That is not damaging to the fact that darkness has shuddha chaitanya as
substratum whereas illusory snake has idam-avachchhinna-chaitanya as the
substratum. While chakshu-sannikarsha with avachhcedaka-of-substratum is
possible in case of the illusory snake, it is not possible in case of
darkness.

> If it is cognized as *blue-rUpa*, as for example in respect of a flower
having blue-rUpa, then it is pramAtri-gamya. But in respect of *darkness*
as an object, the cognition is of a different nature. Well, cognition is of
*darkness*, not * blue-rUpa*.

Cognition is of blue(black)-rUpa-vat-tamas "अस्ति हि तमस्तमालश्यामलमिति
प्रतीतिः". Thus, tamas is accepted as rUpa-vat-dravya.

I would request the views of other learned members on this issue.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.