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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

On Sun, 5 May 2019, 11:48 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> the defect of impossibility which you raised in (~A1 & ~A2 .. & ~An)
> namely absence of previous knowledge of all types of Aloka is equally
> present in ~(A1 & A2 ... & An). Isn't it?
>
To know that all Aloka together are not there, you would still need to know
> all Aloka. So that does not distinguish the case and hence should not be a
> point of rejection.
>
No, because even if one light is absent, the condition of sarvAloka absence
is met if it is defined as ~(A1 & A2 ... & An). So, a candidate for the
definition exists.

Whereas if sarvAloka absence is defined as ~A1 & ~A2 .. & ~An), a candidate
for the definition would only emerge if every light was absent. Such a
candidate cannot exist for the reasons outlined previously, hence the
charge of asambhava lakshaNa.

Btw to clarify, I didn't say that one needs to have the absence of prior
knowledge of all types of light to know sarvAloka abhAva (per your
definition), I said one should have prior knowledge of all types of light
to know sarvAloka abhAva. The absence of knowledge is not knowledge of
absence.


> My problem is that the interpreted definition of purva paksha as ~(A1 & A2
> ... & An) is downright incorrect because it would entail even daytime as
> darkness. Should we think of purva-paksha as such a silly one as posing
> daytime as darkness and seeking rebuttal?
>

Not really, because this is primarily meant to refute a false extrapolation
to a universal rule based on limited observed data.

So while even the frivolous pUrvapakshi is addressed, it is meant to refute
those situations where people mistake the light sources they know as all
the light there is, and based on the absence of those light sources,
conclude that all light is absent and therefore hold that the nature of
darkness is the absence of all light.


> Further, just explaining my argument a bit more -- if darkness is defined
> as absence of photons having wavelengths 380 to 740 nm -- how would you
> refute it in line with VPS or for that matter as per any argument of
> Vivarana school. So my argument is -- darkness is not bhava but merely
> absence of photons having wavelength 380-740 nm. What would be the rebuttal.
>
A possible rebuttal could be that a single photon is not visible to the
naked eye, so darkness defined as the absence of a single photon is not
tenable, wavelength notwithstanding.

What about a group of photons?

In experimental conditions, it was demonstrated that a minimum of 90
photons have to enter the eye for them to be visible to the naked eye, but
there was a requirement that the room be dark for that amount of light to
be visible.
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html)

Therefore, one could argue that to define darkness as the absence of a
group of photons (of a wavelength within the visible spectrum) is not
tenable, because darkness is needed to see that group of photons in the
first place.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


> Regards,
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>
> On Sun 5 May, 2019, 15:49 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>> On Sun, 5 May 2019, 04:47 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hari Om Venkataraghavan ji,
>>>
>>> No one even thinks of darkness as ~(A1 & A2.. & An). For eg, if sunlight
>>> is there but torchlight is not there... Who will even think of this
>>> situation as darkness so as to contemplate the definition as sarvAloka
>>> abhAva. A possibility of definition arises only if it makes sense.
>>>
>> The cognition of darkness as ~(A1 & A2.. & An) is not an impossibility.
>> It is simply a wrong definition and dismissed as such, but that is
>> different from being an impossibility. It is being mentioned for
>> completion, in contrast with the other two alternatives, not being offered
>> up as an independent definition of darkness.
>>
>> In fact, your alternative of  ~A1 and ~A2 and ~A3.... and ~An... is the
>> actual impossibility here, because how on earth is one supposed to be aware
>> of the absence of every light source in the universe?! Because to know any
>> absence, you need the pratiyogi. So to know the absence of every light, one
>> has to know every light first. So such a cognition cannot even rise.
>>
>>
>> If sunlight is there but torchlight is not there, clearly there is no
>>> darkness but there is sarva-Aloka-abhAva.. then who with a sound mind will
>>> pose this situation as darkness and seek its rebuttal.
>>>
>> A person with an unsound mind will, and it is being so rejected.
>>
>>
>>> Generally we think of darkness as none of the lights present.
>>>
>> That is, ~A1 and ~A2 and ~A3.... and ~An... Do you think that this
>>> situation is covered under Aloka-mAtra-abhAva, Aloka-vishesha-abhAva or
>>> sarva-Aloka-abhAva taken by V? If yes, then under which category and
>>> what would be the rebuttal?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sudhanshu
>>>
>>
>> No, it is not even mentioned, because even the possibility of such a
>> buddhi requires the awareness of all absences, which as none of us -
>> whether of sound or unsound mind - is a sarvajna, is an impossibility.
>>
>> Such a rejection would be aprasakta pratiShedha.
>>
>> Regards
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>> .
>>>
>>> On Sun 5 May, 2019, 01:33 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:04 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>>>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sarvAloka abhAva = Not[L1 And L2....And L(n)]
>>>>>
>>>>> So a nivRtti of sarvAloka abhAva requires (L1 And L2....And L(n)).
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us see what it means. As per this meaning, sarvAloka abhAva = ~L1
>>>>> OR ~L2 ... OR ~Ln. Does this make sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can mere ~L1 mean to be sarvAloka abhAva. Note that since there is OR,
>>>>> either of them would satisfy as sarvAloka abhAva. That obviously cannot be
>>>>> meant. Can it be?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is what is meant here. Even if one light is absent, one would
>>>> not have sarvAloka (total lights), and as darkness is defined in this
>>>> paksha as the absence of total lights, there would be sarvAloka abhAva. The
>>>> absence of total lights is very different from the absence of any light.
>>>>
>>>> That is why if darkness is defined as sarvAloka abhAva, its nivRtti is
>>>> impossible - sarvAloka abhAva is quite easy to achieve, whereas for its
>>>> nivRtti one literally needs every single light to be present.
>>>>
>>>> Further, what do you reckon as the difference between
>>>>> aloka-matra-abhava and sarva-aloka-abhava.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Aloka mAtra abhAva is the absence of any light. sarvAloka abhAva =
>>>> absence of total lights.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>