[Advaita-l] Chatgpt on Pratiyogi and Darkness

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

*This should quell all argument suggesting Avidya is a bhavarupa
existential like there's a darkness that covers light*

The Prompt: *"pratiyogi points to the positive existence of absence. That
would mean darkness is something other than the absence of light. provide
opposing argunments"*


The idea that *pratiyogī* (the counter-positive of absence) implies the
positive existence of absence, such as claiming that *darkness* is
something other than the absence of light, can be opposed using several
philosophical arguments from logic and metaphysics, particularly drawing
from Advaita Vedānta and classical Indian philosophy.
------------------------------
Opposing Arguments: 1. *Absence is Relational, Not Substantial:*

In Advaita Vedānta, absence (*abhāva*) is relational and not a substantial,
independently existing entity. It arises only when there is a locus where
the positive entity (pratiyogī) is expected but not found. Darkness is
perceived as the absence of light in a given locus, but this does not mean
darkness has an independent ontological status.

   - *Example:* Just as silence is the absence of sound, darkness is the
   absence of light. Silence does not exist independently of sound, nor does
   it have a substance of its own.

2. *Mithyā Nature of Distinctions (Advaita Vedānta):*

In Śaṅkara's philosophy, all distinctions such as presence and absence, or
light and darkness, are rooted in ignorance (*avidyā*) and are mithyā
(illusory). Darkness is a conceptual construct dependent on the presence of
light; it does not exist independently as a positive entity.

   - *Key Idea:* Darkness cannot exist without the concept of light. If
   light were never known, darkness would lose its meaning. This dependency
   shows darkness is not a positive entity.

3. *Epistemological Dependence:*

The cognition of absence (*abhāva-jñāna*) requires a reference to the
positive entity (*pratiyogī*). For example, we say "there is no pot on the
ground" because we are aware of what a pot is. Similarly, darkness is
understood only in contrast to light, suggesting it is defined by the
absence of light rather than being a positively existing entity.

   - *Key Argument:* If darkness were something other than the absence of
   light, we would have to perceive it directly and independently. However, we
   perceive darkness only in the absence of light, indicating its dependent
   nature.

4. *Absence as a Negation, Not a Positive Entity:*

Darkness can be better understood through the lens of negation (*abhāva*),
which negates the existence of its pratiyogī (light) in a given locus. This
negation does not add a new positive entity (darkness) but merely expresses
the non-presence of light.

   - *Philosophical Basis:* In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, *abhāva* is categorized as
   a lack, not a presence. Śaṅkara extends this view in Advaita, asserting
   that perceived absences (like darkness) are phenomena arising from
   ignorance and superimposition, not positive realities.

5. *Darkness as a Perceptual Construct:*

>From a psychological and perceptual standpoint, what we call "darkness" is
not a positive experience but a lack of visual stimuli due to the absence
of light. The brain interprets the absence of light signals as "darkness,"
showing that it is a mental construct rather than an independently existing
phenomenon.

   - *Example:* In complete absence of light (e.g., in a sealed dark room),
   what is perceived as "darkness" is simply the result of no photons reaching
   the eyes, not a positive entity filling the space.

6. *Dependency on Light for Meaning:*

If darkness were truly independent of light, it should be conceivable and
describable without reference to light. However:

   - Darkness is always defined in contrast to light.
   - The notion of darkness gains meaning only through the absence of
   light, showing that it is relational and not substantive.

7. *Light and Darkness as Conceptual Opposites:*

In classical Indian philosophy, opposites (*dvandva-s*) like light and
darkness, sound and silence, or heat and cold are conceptual constructs
used to understand the empirical world. These opposites are mutually
defining and do not exist independently.

   - *Advaita Insight:* Light and darkness are superimposed distinctions
   within *vyavahāra* (empirical reality). In the ultimate reality (
   *paramārtha*), both distinctions dissolve, revealing their dependent and
   illusory nature.

------------------------------
Counter to Positive Darkness:

If darkness were a positive entity:

   1. It would have to coexist with light in some locus, which is never
   observed.
   2. It would require independent perception, which never happens without
   reference to the absence of light.
   3. Its perception would have to contribute to empirical functionality,
   but all functionality attributed to darkness (e.g., night, shadows) is
   explained through the absence of light.

------------------------------
Conclusion:

Darkness is better understood as the *absence of light*, not as a positive
entity. Attempts to attribute a substantial, independent existence to
darkness rely on misconstruing absence (*abhāva*) as positive reality. In
both philosophical and perceptual terms, darkness is relational, dependent,
and conceptual—arising only as a negation of light.