The Upanishad and Shankara hold 'tamas' darkness, to be a 'thing.'

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7 is the Antaryami Brahmanam where the Brahman is taught as the true nature of every being by portraying Brahman as the Antaryami, the inner controller, of every being. In the enumeration of several entities who are endowed with this Antaryami, the Upanishad says:

यस्तमसि तिष्ठंस्तमसोऽन्तरो यं तमो न वेद यस्य तमः शरीरं यस्तमोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १३ ॥

The one who stationed in tamas, the darkness principle, but whom the entity tamas does not know, for whom tamas is the body, who is the inner controller of tamas, this Immortal Antaryami is your Atman.

यस्तेजसि तिष्ठंस्तेजसोऽन्तरो यं तेजो न वेद यस्य तेजः शरीरं यस्तेजोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृत इत्यधिदैवतमथाधिभूतम् ॥ १४ ॥

This same is stated about Tejas, the light principle. 

समानमन्यत् । योऽप्सु तिष्ठन् , अग्नौ, अन्तरिक्षे, वायौ, दिवि, आदित्ये, दिक्षु, चन्द्रतारके, आकाशे, यस्तमस्यावरणात्मके बाह्ये तमसि, तेजसि तद्विपरीते प्रकाशसामान्ये — इत्येवमधिदैवतम् अन्तर्यामिविषयं दर्शनं देवतासु । अथ अधिभूतं भूतेषु ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु अन्तर्यामिदर्शनमधिभूतम् ॥

Shankara says in the commentary: tamas, the outside (physical) darkness, is of the nature of AvaraNa, enveloping.  He specifies Tejas as opposed to Tamas: tadviparIta.  

Thus for the Upanishad and Shankara, tamas, the principle of darkness (not the inner tamas of ignorance, hence Shankara specifies it as baahya, outside the body) is a physical 'thing.'  It is not just abhAva of tejas.  

Sureshwaracharya in the Vartika for the above clarifies:

तेजः सामान्यमात्रं स्यात्तदाधिष्ठातृदेवता ।।
एवं तमस्यपि ज्ञेयं क्षेत्रज्ञश्चाऽऽत्मसंज्ञितः ।। ४६ ।।    

There is a presiding deity for Tejas as well as one for Tamas (darkness).

Thus it is settled beyond doubt that the Tamas, darkness, is a 'thing.'

It is well known that the inner darkness, ignorance, avidya, is also called tamas and that also is a 'thing' as per the Bh.Gita:

ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमसः परमुच्यते ।
ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हृदि सर्वस्य विष्ठितम् ॥ १७ ॥   13.17.  Brahman is beyond  darkness of ignorance.  Shankara says:

तमसः अज्ञानात् परम् अस्पृष्टम् उच्यते ।  darkness = ajnAnam. 

Thus the darkness that is ignorance is a thing because it produces effects.  This is yet another evidence for a bhAvarUpa ajnAna/avidya in the Upanishad, Gita, Shankara and Sureshwara. 

In the following Shankara says darkness of night produces aviveka, non-discrimination, since it is of the nature of tamas.  This is exactly what Shankara has said in the Adhyasa Bhashya:  itaretara avivekena.  Since according to Shankara this aviveka is an effect produced by tamas, ignorance, the cause is also to be stated and Shankara does that in the words mithyAjnana.  The nimitta kAranam, aviveka, is stated and the upAdana kAraNam for that is also stated: mithyA ajnAna which is the upAdaana (by the word nimitta).  As stated already, the word nimitta has the general connotation of a hetu, kAraNam.   

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःश्लोक ६९ - भाष्यम्

………या निशा रात्रिः सर्वपदार्थानामविवेककरी तमःस्वभावत्वात् सर्वभूतानां सर्वेषां भूतानाम् । किं तत् परमार्थतत्त्वं स्थितप्रज्ञस्य………

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःप्रथमः पादः सूत्रम् २२ - भाष्यम्

………। तत्र कुत एव सृष्टिः कुतो वा हिताकरणादयो दोषाः । अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपकृतकार्यकरणसङ्घातोपाध्यविवेककृता हि भ्रान्तिर्हिताकरणादिलक्षणः संसारः, न तु परमार्थतोऽस्तीत्यसकृदवोचाम —

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्चतुर्दशोऽध्यायःश्लोक ८ - भाष्यम्

………तमः तृतीयः गुणः अज्ञानजम् अज्ञानात् जातम् अज्ञानजं विद्धि मोहनं मोहकरम् अविवेककरं सर्वदेहिनां सर्वेषां देहवताम् । 

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्त्रयोदशोऽध्यायःश्लोक २ - भाष्यम्

………चेत् , न ; अविद्यायाः तामसत्वात् । तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा, अग्रहणात्मको वा ; विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात् , तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥ ………

Om Tat Sat

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Indeed it is a settled principle of Advaita vedAnta that the physical darkness is not merely absence of light. It has been discussed in great detail in texts.

Here one important thing which can be mentioned is the following - the creation of darkness is not through panchabhUtAs but it is directly from mAyA, immediate and spontaneous. Chitsukhi mentions it following VivaraNa. (ChitsukhI - page 54 - https://archive.org/details/chitsukhiyogindrananda/page/n97/mode/2up)

Further, it does appear prima facie a bit hard to a modern educated person to accept that darkness is some material thing like table and chair. I also had struggled a lot with this concept.

However, due analysis resolves the issue.

Further, the drishTi-srishTi-vAda makes it crystal clear to understand that darkness is triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya.

The darkness that we see in dream is not abhAva of dream-light. Dream-darkness is as much real/tangible/illusory as is dream-light. Both are same. 

Waking being same as dream, waking-darkness has to be on equal footing as waking-light, which inc turn has to be on equal footing with dream-light/darkness.

That is why one of the most useful feature used in VedAnta to decide the mithyAtva is that of drishyatva. BhAshyakAra proves in MK 1.2.

जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । 

दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः । 

स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । 

It is such a powerful anumAna presented by AchArya. It has the potential to transform our daily living completely into a meditative life.

Is it drishya? Yes? Then, it is mithyA. On the analogy of dream.

Darkness is seen, just as the darkness of dream is seen. And is hence mithyA and is hence avidyA-kArya.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, it is only the naiyAyikAs who should be interested in this discussion of abhAvatva of darkness. For the vedAntI, even if darkness is absence of light, it does not make even one Paisa of difference. Because we hold all vishesha-abhAva to be triguNAtmaka. So, even if darkness is light-abhAva, it still is triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya just as pot-abhAva is avidyA-kArya!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg // Further, it does appear prima facie a bit hard to a modern educated person to accept that darkness is some material thing like table and chair //.

There is a difference. Table and chair are pramAtru bhasya while darkness is sAkshi bhAsya. A modern educated person is probably mostly unaware of the difference.

Regards

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC3j0%2BXX_G63CE9FOAngzPNTO8apVwoYsQVMdEX4FGEiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Respected Sudhanshuji, Namaste

I do not have any opinion on the mUlAvidyA debate. But this one caught my attention -

"Indeed it is a settled principle of Advaita vedAnta that the physical darkness is not merely absence of light. It has been discussed in great detail in texts."

How does this correlate with our common observation (and also Science) that darkness is just absence of light?

Just turn off the lights in a room at night, and the room is dark! Or, did I misunderstand your above statement?

Best Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

I cannot readily recollect if the sAkshi-bhAsyatva of tamas is mentioned anywhere explicitly. If you can give a citation, I will be grateful.

As such, tamas having rUpa is accepted. So, what objection can probably arise against its pramAtri-vedyatva?

Namaste Kalyani ji.

argument 1

the non-abhAvatva of darkness is proved by anumAna: तमः शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः, स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।  

tamas is not abhAva, on account of being swa-mAtra-vritti-dharma-prakAraka, being pratiyogI-jnAna-ajanya, and being pratyaksha-vishaya, just like a pot.

argument 2

Also, if tamas is an abhava,then you will not be able to describe its pratiyogI.

argument-3

if one were to argue that darkness is not vishesha-abhAva but nirvishesha-abhAva, then it is contradicted by the presence of vishesha "black-ness".

I have merely outlined the arguments. For detailed explanation, https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/what-is-darkness.pdf can be seen.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg // So, what objection can probably arise against its pramAtri-vedyatva? //,

Because, for sense of sight to be functional, presence of light is compulsory.

Regards

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDAWNou2JM7hQa%2Bgc9m-ptXAYJY5DGE0cNh4b8cgGoa%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Sudhanshuji, Namaste

Your explanation is too complicated for me to understand. 

If this is fine, please consider the specific example of turning off lights in a room at night. 

Best Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

 

Reg // So, what objection can probably arise against its pramAtri-vedyatva? //,

Because, for sense of sight to be functional, presence of light is compulsory.

Nice point. I will check and get back on the issue after due application of mind.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Raghav Kumar]

Most modern educated people don't know that even the vacuum of space is not "absence of matter" , it is a material entity like a chair or table - vacuum is a throbbing ocean of transient particles.

An introduction to that idea of vacuum of space is not an abhAva , what to speak of darkness seen on earth....

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2016/11/17/the-uncanny-physics-of-empty-space

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdM2L8JrVQct4fyoL9A_EGkh9C80nNZEs3smQ%2B86d8jYDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् सुधांशु 

> Further, it does appear prima facie a bit hard to a modern educated person to accept that darkness is some material thing like table and chair. I also had struggled a lot with this concept.

एष निर्णयः भवता कुतः कृतः यत् तम इति अद्वैतसिद्धान्ते पार्थिवं वस्तु (material thing) वर्तते ?  

स्वस्तिरस्तु

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

हरि ॐ लोकेशवर्य,

तमसो भावरूपत्वमद्वैतवेदान्ते भाष्यवचनैः पुनश्च प्रमाणैरपि सुष्ठु प्रतिष्ठितं वर्तते। भाष्यवचनानि तु अत्रैव सुब्रह्मण्यमवर्यैः प्रथमसंदेशे प्रदत्तानि। प्रमाणानां जिज्ञासा यदि भवत्सु विद्यते तर्हि विवरणादयो ग्रन्था भवद्भिरवलोकनीयाः।    

अत्रेदं उल्लेखनीयं यत् न केवले अद्वैतवेदान्ते परं तु माध्वाचार्याणां रामानुजाचार्याणां चापि मते तमसो भावरूपत्वं स्वीकृतमेव वर्तते।  

सुधांशु 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f8663a2f-1266-430f-b510-4cb89b1f93c7n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[लोकेश]

श्रीमन् सुधांशुवर्य

भावत्वं तमस अवश्यं स्वीकृतं स्यात् । न तत्र आपत्तिं करोमि । किन्तु भवता उक्तं यत् तमः पार्थिवं वर्तते । एतस्य प्रमाणं न पश्यामि ।

यावत् मम अवगमनं वर्तते भावत्वं नाम पार्थिवं न । सुखमपि एक भावः । रागद्वेषोत्साहमानहर्षादि अपि भावत्वेन स्वीक्रीयते यद्यपि तानि पार्थिववस्तूनि न सन्ति ।

ॐ

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/Nh5bN-hr8XA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqxAWJDdjk3U3H5cx%2BjH7tyeA%3DrrBzM2Zc3ckr5g30-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lokesh Sharma]

श्रीमन् सुधांशुवर्य

भावत्वं तमस अवश्यं स्वीकृतं स्यात् । न तत्र आपत्तिं करोमि । किन्तु भवता उक्तं यत् तमः पार्थिवं वर्तते । एतस्य प्रमाणं न पश्यामि ।

यावत् मम अवगमनं वर्तते भावत्वं नाम पार्थिवं न । सुखमपि एक भावः । रागद्वेषोत्साहमानहर्षादि अपि भावत्वेन स्वीक्रीयते यद्यपि तानि पार्थिववस्तूनि न सन्ति ।

ॐ

[V Subrahmanian]

There is a interesting observation by the  Bhashyakara in this Brihadaranyaka  upanishad section:  1.4.2:

लोके हि नैमित्तिकानां कार्याणां निमित्तभेदोऽनेकधा विकल्प्यते । तथा निमित्तसमुच्चयः । तेषां च विकल्पितानां समुच्चितानां च पुनर्गुणवदगुणवत्त्वकृतो भेदो भवति । तद्यथा — रूपज्ञान एव तावन्नैमित्तिके कार्ये तमसि विनालोकेन चक्षूरूपसन्निकर्षो नक्तञ्चराणां रूपज्ञाने निमित्तं भवति ; मन एव केवलं रूपज्ञाननिमित्तं योगिनाम् ; अस्माकं तु सन्निकर्षालोकाभ्यां सह तथादित्यचन्द्राद्यालोकभेदैः समुच्चिता निमित्तभेदा भवन्ति ; तथालोकविशेषगुणवदगुणवत्त्वेन भेदाः स्युः ।

He says for the perception of tamas, darkness, the nocturnal beings like the owl are able to contact darkness by their eyes. For Yogis even the eye  is not necessary; just the mind can apprehend a formed object. For others, normal people, the organ contact, light are all required.  (This is especially interesting in the wake of Sri Chandramouli ji's observation.)

 

(I have not checked the Madhavananda translation).

In Br.Up. Bhashyam 2.1.12 yet another interesting observation:

छायायां बाह्ये तमसि अध्यात्मं च आवरणात्मकेऽज्ञाने हृदि च एका देवता, तस्या विशेषणम् — मृत्युः ; फलं सर्वं पूर्ववत् , मृत्योरनागमनेन रोगादिपीडाभावो विशेषः ॥

Baahya tamas is darkness.  And in the Ajnana, that is deluding/enveloping, in the mind, there is one Devataa.   Shankara is accepting Ajnana too to be a physical entity that has the mind for its locus.  The Bh.Gita 13th chapter holds iccha, dvesha, sukham, duhkham, etc. to be kshetram, prakriti.  Thus the contents of the mind, though not contactable by the organs, but admitted to be sakshi vedyam, are also treated as kshetram, product of prakriti.  The antahkaranam is admitted to be a product of the pancha bhutas, apanchikrita, sattvamsha samashthi.  There is the famous Br.Up. 1.5.3 mantra: कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतत्सर्वं मन एव - all contents of the mind are grouped as manas itself.  Vritti-Vrittimatorabhedah. 

In this Bhashya (that I had cited already in the first post of this thread) Br.Up. 3.7.12:

समानमन्यत् । योऽप्सु तिष्ठन् , अग्नौ, अन्तरिक्षे, वायौ, दिवि, आदित्ये, दिक्षु, चन्द्रतारके, आकाशे, यस्तमस्यावरणात्मके बाह्ये तमसि, तेजसि तद्विपरीते प्रकाशसामान्ये — इत्येवमधिदैवतम् अन्तर्यामिविषयं दर्शनं देवतासु । अथ अधिभूतं भूतेषु ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु अन्तर्यामिदर्शनमधिभूतम् ॥   

The Upanishad and the Bhashya group all the entities stated above - agni, antariksa, vaayu, .....tamas and its opposite, tejas - as Adhidaivam - Cosmos.  

Monier Williams 1872 

अधिदैव अधि-दैव or अधि-दैवत, अम्, n,

a presiding or tutelary deity/the supreme deity/the divine agent operating in material objects.

 Thus we see that tamas, darkness, is grouped under material objects. 

(Just to keep all interested in the thread, I am avoiding reply in Sanskrit).

warm regards

subbu 

>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f8663a2f-1266-430f-b510-4cb89b1f93c7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
>> Pune
>>
>> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/Nh5bN-hr8XA/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqxAWJDdjk3U3H5cx%2BjH7tyeA%3DrrBzM2Zc3ckr5g30-g%40mail.gmail.com

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqxAWJDdjk3U3H5cx%2BjH7tyeA%3DrrBzM2Zc3ckr5g30-g%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:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[putran M]

Namaskaram Kalyan-ji,

How does this correlate with our common observation (and also Science) that darkness is just absence of light?

Just a thought in connection with this example: The Light, the Self, is constant and unchanging, and is satya even when outward consciousness is not manifest (as in sleep). So no question of turning off the light. It is a matter of explaining the cognitions of variation, change and limits that appear in the Light; and the explanation is that something else (i.e. darkness) is obstructing and causing the appearance of duality in that non-dual Light. This explanation is valid in the very standpoint in which the cognized effects are posited. However while the Light is affirmed as the adhishtanam Sat in all standpoints of knowledge, this darkness is asat in the standpoint of pure Light, hence the darkness and its projected effect, the differentiated world, are posited only as mithya, appearance, superimposition.

As another practical analogy:  imagine a tiger chasing and you running in fear. However, all you are seeing are vrittis in the mind. Here the mind is the causal substrate - the darkness or prism that obstructs and causes projection of unreal tiger. It must be affirmed as the intermediary linking you the pure Consciousness to the tiger duality.

Thus Self is divided into seer, the intermediate darkness or seeing-power, and seen; but this division is itself mithya imagination, negated in the absolute standpoint of You - and hence the components of this divided standpoint of knowledge are also mithya - not asat for they are present objects of knowledge and not sat either for they are absent in the standpoint of Sat.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Chandramouli ji. Subbu ji.

//Because, for sense of sight to be functional, presence of light is compulsory.//

The issue as to whether darkness is pramAtri-gamya or sAkshi-bhAsya is dependent on whether the rUpa-jnAna of darkness is indriya-sannikarsha-janya or not. If it is indriya-sannikarsha-janya, then darkness should be accepted to be pramAtri-gamya.

I checked ChitsukhI and VivaraNa-upanyAsa.

ChitsukhI 

रूपत्वे रूपवत्त्वे वा आलोकानपेक्षचक्षुजन्यज्ञानविषयत्वासंभवो वाधक इति चेत्, मैवम्, आलोकविरोधिनस्तमसश्चालोकाभावव्यञ्जनीयतया तन्निरपेक्षचक्षुर्विषयत्वोपपत्तेः

Pl see at https://archive.org/details/chitsukhiyogindrananda/page/n93/mode/1up

The opponent argues that rUpa or rUpa-vat-vastu cannot have chakshu-vishayavtva without prakAsha. And hence darkness cannot be stated to have rUpa.

SiddhAnti answers that the abhivyakti of darkness, which is prakAsha-virodhI, is contingent on prakAsha-abhAva and hence the chakshu-vishayatva of darkness is not dependent on presence of prakAsha.

So, the rule that chakshu-vishayatva necessarily requires prakAsha is accepted to be violated in case of darkness.

  

This clearly proves that darkness is chakshu-vishaya and consequently pramAtri-gamya and not sAkshi-bhAsya.

VivaraNa-upanyAsa

The anumAna presented there is: तमः शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः, स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।

If you see here, tamas is presented as an object of pratyaksha like a ghaTa. Since ghaTa is pramAtri-vedya and not sAkshi-bhAsya, we need to accept darkness as pramAtri-vedya as well because only then it can be stated to be pratyaksha ghaTa-vat.

Please present your views in this regard.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // If you see here, tamas is presented as an object of pratyaksha like a ghaTa //,

All it means is that cognizance of tamas comes under the category of pratyaksha, just like with ghaTa. But nothing more need be read into the similarity cited.

Reg  // This clearly proves that darkness is chakshu-vishaya and consequently pramAtri-gamya and not sAkshi-bhAsya// ,

No no. In the case of rope-snake illustration, both chakshu-vishayatva (pramAtri-gamyatva)  AND sAkshi-bhAsya are relevant. Location is pramAtri-gamya and *object* is sAkshi-bhAsya. Same is the case with cognition of darkness. Darkness needs chakshu sannikarsha.That is not denied.

In all cases, what is produced by avidyA directly is sAkshi bhAsya. Be it the object *rope-snake* or *darkness* which is produced directly by avidyA and not through pancha bhUtAs.

Regards

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDKfofP2dzgxhpMcZqRn0OGVickHmVaDwT8cwGEKWsE-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

No no. In the case of rope-snake illustration, both chakshu-vishayatva (pramAtri-gamyatva)  AND sAkshi-bhAsya are relevant. Location is pramAtri-gamya and *object* is sAkshi-bhAsya. Same is the case with cognition of darkness. Darkness needs chakshu sannikarsha.That is not denied.

Darkness needs chakshu-saanikarsha with what? Which is the entity which is chakshu-vishaya? ChitsukhI is clearly saying that darkness is chakshu-vishaya.

The case of illusory snake is tUlAvidyA-kAtya. Darkness is mUlAvidyA-kArya.

In all cases, what is produced by avidyA directly is sAkshi bhAsya. Be it the object *rope-snake* or *darkness* which is produced directly by avidyA and not through pancha bhUtAs.

It not the blue-rUpa of darkness a product of avidyA directly? Is not the blue-rUpa chakshu-vishaya?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Darkness needs chakshu-saanikarsha with what? //,

I meant cognition of darkness needs chakshu-saanikarsha of location of darkness. When it is said **there is darkness**, chakshu-saanikarsha is needed for the cognition **there is**. This part is pramAtri-gamya. However *darkness* itself is sAkshi-bhAsya.

Reg  // The case of illusory snake is tUlAvidyA-kAtya. Darkness is mUlAvidyA-kArya //,

Both views are prevalent depending upon commentators. PanchapAdikA holds illusory snake also to be mUlAvidyA-kArya  while others hold it to be tUlAvidyA-kArya.

Reg  // Is not the blue-rUpa chakshu-vishaya? //,

If it is cognized as *blue-rUpa*, as for example in respect of a flower having blue-rUpa, then it is pramAtri-gamya. But in respect of *darkness* as an object, the cognition is of a different nature. Well, cognition is of *darkness*, not * blue-rUpa*.

Regards 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAyJJZLbstB_qAKPYW_Pu%2BKzSqtabwpbEkSDXakG9sRHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

> I meant cognition of darkness needs chakshu-saanikarsha of location of darkness. When it is said **there is darkness**, chakshu-saanikarsha is needed for the cognition **there is**. This part is pramAtri-gamya. However *darkness* itself is sAkshi-bhAsya.

In case of rope-snake adhyAsa, there is chakshu-sannikarsha with the avachchhedaka of substratum of the illusory snake, which is idam. The substaraum is idam-avachchhinna-chaitanya. In case of darkness, which is mUlAvidyA-kArya, the substratum is shuddha chaitanya. There cannot be chakshu-sannikarsha with shuddha chaitanya.

>PanchapAdikA holds illusory snake also to be mUlAvidyA-kArya  while others hold it to be tUlAvidyA-kArya.

That is not damaging to the fact that darkness has shuddha chaitanya as substratum whereas illusory snake has idam-avachchhinna-chaitanya as the substratum. While chakshu-sannikarsha with avachhcedaka-of-substratum is possible in case of the illusory snake, it is not possible in case of darkness.

> If it is cognized as *blue-rUpa*, as for example in respect of a flower having blue-rUpa, then it is pramAtri-gamya. But in respect of *darkness* as an object, the cognition is of a different nature. Well, cognition is of *darkness*, not * blue-rUpa*.

Cognition is of blue(black)-rUpa-vat-tamas "अस्ति हि तमस्तमालश्यामलमिति प्रतीतिः". Thus, tamas is accepted as rUpa-vat-dravya.

I would request the views of other learned members on this issue.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.