[Advaita-l] Whether darkness is bhava - Vivarana Prameya Samgraha of Shri Vidyaranya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Pravin ji,

The truth-table is of a simple NAND.

A1 A2 Darkness
0   0   1
0   1   1
1   0   1
1   1   0 (absence of darkness)

If A1 is 0 and A2 is 1, then as per your truth table - the darkness is 1
i.e. Darkness is there-----. that is -- say torchlight (A1) is not there
but sunlight (A2) is there, then will there be darkness? It won't be.
However, as per the interpreted definition of sarva-Aloka-abhAva, there
will be darkness. Hence this cannot be the intention of V.

This definition of sarva-Aloka-abhAva as !(A1 & A2 .. & An) is against
pratyaksha.. it does not make sense.. does it?

Regards.
Sudhanshu.

On Sun 5 May, 2019, 01:47 Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudanshuji,
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:47 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > This is his argument which appears bizzare.
> >
> > Let darkness be A1-abhava AND  A2-abhava AND A3-abhava .........AND
> > An-abhava where n is last type of aloka. Like surya-aloka-abhava AND
> > deepak-aloka -abhava AND lamp-aloka-abhava upto nth type of aloka-abhava.
> >
> > If this is the premise then to remove darkness, we don't have to have the
> > sannindhana of A1 to An as claimed by V. There is a basic logic. ~(~A1
> and
> > ~A2 and ~An) = A1 or A2 or An... That is to say, the negation changes the
> > "and" to "or".
> >
> > To me, it appears that you have erred in interpreting sarvAlokAbhAva
> which
> should mean sarvAlokAnAm abhAvaH and not AlokAbhAvAnAm samUhaH. Thereby,
> what it should lead to is that:
> darkness is !(A1 &&A2 &&A3.... &&An) which is clearly present when any
> Aloka is absent and to take away darkness, all AlokAs necessarily need to
> be there. The truth-table is of a simple NAND.
>
> A1 A2 Darkness
> 0   0   1
> 0   1   1
> 1   0   1
> 1   1   0 (absence of darkness)
>
>
>
> > Thus, his statement that removal of sarva-aloka-abhava can only be
> achieved
> > by the sannidhana of sarva-aloka is incorrect. The removal of
> > sarva-aloka-abhava is by kinchit-aloka and not by sarva-aloka.
> >
> > So sannidhAna of sarvAloka is correct for darkness to go.
>
> Kind rgds,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>