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

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sudhanshu Ji,

I have not read Chitsukhi. I have to search through for the pramANa.
However I am doubt if the context in which tamas is used in your citation
of Chitsukhi is synonymous with darkness as understood in the current
context. You may please confirm.

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
I’m
protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free forever.
<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:55 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Hari Om Chandramouli ji,
>
> What is the pramana for the following?
>
> Darkness is not bhAva, it is bhAvarUpa. It is not a vastu  to be termed
> bhAva. But since it conceals bhAvAs, it is termed bhAvarUpa.
>
> Chitsukhi clearly articulates darkness as द्रव्यान्तर. I quote --
> "तमालश्यामलज्ञाने निर्बाधे जाग्रति स्फुटे। द्रव्यान्तर तमः कस्मात्
> अकस्मात् अपलप्यते।।" It goes on to prove darkness as द्रव्यान्तर through
> various logic.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
> Mon 6 May, 2019, 20:42 H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Sudhanshu Ji,
>>
>> Reg  << there is no drArshtAntika here. It is an independent discussion of
>> Vivarana
>> school as to whether darkness is bhava >>
>>
>> and
>>
>> << Apart from this, I am curious to know as to how darkness is not merely
>> absence of photons having wavelength of 380-740 nm >>,
>>
>> I am not sure if the following makes sense in the current context. You may
>> like to consider.
>>
>> Darkness is not bhAva, it is bhAvarUpa. It is not a vastu  to be termed
>> bhAva. But since it conceals bhAvAs, it is termed bhAvarUpa.  It pertains
>> to jnAna, not artha. Presence or absence of photons or anything else does
>> not make for presence  or absence of darkness. However their noncognition
>> in the absence of anything else to hinder their cognition implies
>> darkness.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:42 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hari Om V Subrahmanian ji,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > how is the analogy of avidya relevant here? I tried to understand the
>> > analogy in the present context but could not find any relevance. Pl
>> explain
>> > the similarity.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bhaskar ji,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > there is no drArshtAntika here. It is an independent discussion of
>> Vivarana
>> > school as to whether darkness is bhava. I will explain my points once
>> again
>> > so that the problem becomes clearer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Shri Vidyaranya ("SV") is countering the purvapaksha that darkness
>> cannot
>> > be mere Aloka-abhAva. Because if it were to be Aloka-abhAva, it can be
>> > either Aloka-mAtra-abhAva or Aloka-vishesha-abhAva or
>> sarva-Aloka-abhAva,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We are concerned here with his rebuttal for sarva-Aloka-abhAva. He gives
>> > the rebuttal that if darkness were to be sarva-Aloka-abhAva, then it
>> could
>> > not be removed unless there is coming about of sarva-Aloka. And he stops
>> > there.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The discussion is related to the meaning of the word sarva-Aloka-abhAva.
>> > Let there be n types of Aloka like surya-Aloka, deepa-Aloka etc. In
>> short
>> > A1 to An.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now sarva-Aloka-abhAva can refer to the following:-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ~(A1 & A2 ... An) or (~A1 & ~A2....& ~An).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Let us abbreviate these as I-1 and I-2. That is, I-1 = ~(A1 & A2 ... An)
>> > and I-2 = (~A1 & ~A2....& ~An)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now, if I-1 is the meaning of sarva-Aloka-abhAva, then SV is correct by
>> > saying that it cannot be removed unless all Aloka are brought about
>> > simultaneously. However, as per my understanding, I-1 cannot be the
>> correct
>> > interpretation. This is so for following reasons:-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (a) The knowledge of an abhava needs the previous knowledge of its
>> > pratiyogi. In case of I-1, the pratiyogi is A1&A2..&An. Now none has the
>> > knowledge of A1 to An together. Hence none has the knowledge of the
>> > pratiyogi of I-1 and hence none can know the I-1 either. Hence, I-1
>> cannot
>> > be thecorrect interpretation of sarva-Aloka-abhAva.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (b) If one were to say that actually I-1 is nothing but ~A1 OR ~A2 ..
>> OR ~
>> > An. And knowledge of either of A1 to An (say A3) would satisfy the
>> > knowledge of ~A3 which will ensure knowledge of I-1. Then this view is
>> not
>> > correct because pratiyogi of I-1 is not A3 but A1 to An together. On
>> this
>> > count, the meaning I-1 cannot be taken.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (c) If one were to dilute this rule of previous knowledge of paratiyogi,
>> > even then I-1 cannot be taken because I-1 entails even daytime as
>> darkness.
>> > How? In daytime, when surya-Aloka is there, none uses torch-Aloka.
>> Hence,
>> > as per I-1, there is sarva-Aloka-abhAva and there is darkness J Now
>> this is
>> > obviously incorrect as no person of sound mind would try to define
>> darkness
>> > in such a manner that even daytime comes within its purview. And would
>> SV
>> > refute such definition not by pointing out the inherent infirmity of
>> this
>> > definition but by taking a roundabout route that it cannot be removed
>> > unless you bring A1 to An together. Should we deem purva-paksha to be
>> such
>> > a person of unsound mind as posing daytime as darkness and SV of
>> refuting
>> > the objection of a person of unsound mind. I think purva-paksha needs
>> some
>> > respect. :-) He is a learned Naiyayika,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On the other hand, if one were to take the I-2 as the interpretation,
>> > then:-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (a) The pratiyogi of I-2 is A1 OR A2 OR A3.. OR An. We know this. And
>> hence
>> > the condition of previous knowledge of pratiyogi is satisfied. Now, one
>> > cannot argue that you must know each A1 to An to know their simultaneous
>> > abhava. This is so because pratiyogi of I-2 is connected by OR.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > (c) However, to remove I-2, we do not need A1 to An together. And hence,
>> > the response of SV does not appear proper (to a foolish person like me.
>> No
>> > imputation to SV)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The above is the description of my problem.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Apart from this, I am curious to know as to how darkness is not merely
>> > absence of photons having wavelength of 380-740 nm. If a view is held
>> that
>> > darkness is required to see these, then it is countered easily because
>> even
>> > in daytime, when a monochromatic light of wavelength 700 nm is flashed,
>> you
>> > would know it and hence darkness is no sine qua non for perception of
>> > photons of wavelength 380 to 740 nm.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now the big question. Why I am breaking my head on this? You will get
>> the
>> > answer if you pose to any of your friends that darkness is like table
>> and
>> > chair. An existing object. And it comes about directly from
>> > Maya-vishista-Brahma as soon as you switch off the light. Just as
>> lightning
>> > comes when cloud collide. Vivarana – आलोकविनाशितस्य च तमसः पुनः
>> मूलकारणादेव
>> > झटिति महाविद्युदादिजन्मवज्जन्म सिद्ध्यति.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> > Sudhanshu.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
I’m
protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free forever.
<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>