[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A talk in Sanskrit on 'Darkness is material' (bhAvarUpa)

[V Subrahmanian]

While explaining the bhrama, error, it is always the case of मन्दान्धकारः
as opposed to घनान्धकारः - the first one means 'somewhat dark' and the
latter would mean 'pitch dark'.  An error can happen only in the former
condition and in the latter condition, the object there, the rope, is not
even cognized to be 'some' object.  In a bhrama, thus, the object must be
perceived but its specific identity is not cognized as for example 'this is
a rope'. In pitch darkness the object itself is not cognized; it would be a
case of apratipatti, not even samshaya, for, a doubt to arise, the object
must be cognized as 'a pillar' but in a foggy place.

Of course, even 'somewhat dark'  and 'pitch dark'  can't be absolute and
could be relative to the person involved there.

regards
subbu



On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 6:50 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghav ji,
>
>
> > Can we therefore make the corresponding positive statement in favor of
> the
> > bhAvarUpatvaM of tamas
> >
>
>
> > In a dimly lit room two existent entities are present in tension, I e ,
> > trying to counter each other's nature viz., darkness which is tending to
> > envelop/cover everything from being experienced and light which is
> tending
> > to bring things to 'being experienced'.
> >
>
> Yes, that is the siddhAnta view.
>
>
> > The fact of grades of darkness observed by all, goes against the
> abhAvatvaM
> > of darkness.
> >
> Yes, that is right.
>
>
> > Yes, 'Birds and bees' can see in UV light. But we see only darkness even
> in
> > the presence of UV light.
> >
> > But abhAvavAdins would say that darkness, (be it a relative) definition,
> is
> > only absence of light in the visible spectrum.
>
>
> Yes, it cannot be a universal darkness, because such an absence of all
> light is probably only true within the event horizon of a black hole, which
> I very much doubt was a well known fact in Shankara's time for him to use
> as an example.
>
> Therefore it must be some form of relative darkness that he had in mind.
>
> If we qualify darkness by saying it is the absence of light in the visible
> spectrum, that can only be true for one species at one time - because what
> is in the visible spectrum for one species may not be true for another. The
> daytime of owls is the darkness of night for humans and vice versa.
> Shankara says as much in his commentary to the yA nishA sarvabhUtAnAm gitA
> Sloka (2.69) - यथा नक्तञ्चराणाम् अहरेव सदन्येषां निशा भवति.
>
> Thus, if the darkness of humans *is* the light of nocturnal creatures such
> as owls etc. and vice versa, how can darkness and light be of a nature of
> mutual exclusion - ie when one is present, the other must necessarily be
> absent?
>
> If all is meant is darkness and light for one species, the example doesn't
> serve the purpose of establishing that self and the non-self cannot be of
> the nature of the other / be mistaken for the other.
>
> Those who hold that darkness is the absence of light, will have to agree
> that in the case of the dimly lit room, the dimly lit aspect is because of
> the presence of relatively fewer photons compared to the case of a well lit
> room.
>
> However the example loses its utility in the adhyAsa bhAShya - a small
> collection of photons scattered disparately, i.e. light, is present in the
> room, and so is darkness, i.e the absence of light. Clearly both presence
> and absence of light in one place is possible.
>
> What about mistaking one for the other? Well is the dimly lit room - dimly
> lit or lightly dark? If one calls the room dark, and the other person calls
> it illuminated because he is still able to make the outline of things, who
> is correct?
>
> 1) If one is correct, then it is possible for the other to mistake light
> for darkness or vice versa.
> 2) If both are correct, then both light and darkness can coexist and be
> co-observed, which would militate against presence and absence being
> co-located contemporaneously.
> 3) If both are wrong, then what is the right answer? How does that
> establish that the self and non-self cannot be mistaken for each other,
> like light and darkness?
>
> If it is down to the viewpoint of the seer (like seeing a glass as half
> full or half empty), then why would Shankara use such a tenuous example?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> The more they refuse to
> > 'see the light', the more it looks like they are merely defining the word
> > 'darkness' as "absence of light'.
> >
> > Those who argue for abhAva should at least understand, in mainstream
> > Advaita
> > these three words mean three different things
> > 1. prakAsha - light (directly experienced)
> > 2 tamas - veil of darkness (directly experienced)
> > 3. prakAshAbhAva - absence of light (which is appreciated by a quick
> > analysis of  2.)
> >
> > All the three above words are accepted as valid in mainstream Advaita.
> > 3. follows 2.    But 2. And 3. are cognitively processed different.
> >
> > 2. employs pratyaxa
> > 3. employs anupalabdhi
> >
> > Even humans do not see light
> > > and dark the same way - I may be able to see more in the dark than you
> > can
> > > and vice versa.
> >
> >
> > > That being the case, "the impossibility of mistaking light and the
> > absence
> > > of light for one another" is only true for one individual of one
> species
> > at
> > > one time - it turns out that it is not the universal example that the
> > > bhAShyakAra had in mind when he used the phrase tamahprakAshavat, if
> > > darkness and light are the absence and presence of light, respectively.
> > >
> > > So the example of tamahprakAshavat in the adhyAsabhAShya cannot be
> taken
> > to
> > > mean "taking the self to be the non-self and vice versa, should be an
> > > impossibility, like the absence and presence of light", because such a
> > > meaning (the impossibility of their co-location or knowledge of their
> > > co-location) does not universally apply in the case of the example
> itself
> > > (dark and light), let alone the exemplified (anAtma and Atma) - if
> > Shankara
> > > had referred to the absence of light by the use of the word 'tamas'.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Venkatraghavan
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, 18:22 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
> > > michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Namaste Sudhanshuji, pranam
> > > > How the text distinguishes between vishaya and vishayi is not as two
> > > > substances but as real and unreal (*satya anṛte mithunīkṛtya*) which
> > are
> > > > opposed to each other epistemologically not ontologically. Who
> commonly
> > > > takes darkness to be a thing?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 7:05 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> > > > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear Michael ji.
> > > >>
> > > >> SSSS points out "tamah prakashavad" ' is simply intended as an
> example
> > > to
> > > >>> be understood in common parlance. It is a diversion of intention to
> > > >>> discover controversial logical nuance in a drstanta. The merits of
> > the
> > > >>> argument is mere scholasticism.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> SSSS ji's statement is devoid of merit and logic. The intention of
> > > >> BhAshyakAra is to display mutual-anAtmatA of asmat-pratyaya-gochara
> > and
> > > >> yushmat-pratyaya-gochara and for that he chose prakAsha and tamas,
> > which
> > > >> indeed possess mutual anAtmatA.
> > > >>
> > > >> I had earlier refuted whatever SSSS ji said on this topic in my post
> > at
> > > >> https://tinyurl.com/m45jesps. I had received no response on this.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards.
> > > >> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > >> "advaitin" group.
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send
> > > an
> > > >> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > > >> To view this discussion visit
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDrD-VnXEWmw9K8x2udw9CTJ5nvh%3DFvvUaRQuyFgivj3A%40mail.gmail.com
> > > >> <
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDrD-VnXEWmw9K8x2udw9CTJ5nvh%3DFvvUaRQuyFgivj3A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> > > >
> > > >> .
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "advaitin" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send
> > an
> > > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > > > To view this discussion visit
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHg5qUOWoTjzGG4F1-AmnMmB65ezZ3vCnAwiHEvKs7%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHg5qUOWoTjzGG4F1-AmnMmB65ezZ3vCnAwiHEvKs7%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>