jnana abhava or jnana viruddhi

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Does this prove that darkness is merely the absence of light, rather than something opposed to light? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-found-something-that-can-move-faster-than-light-the-darkness-inside-it

[putran M]

Does this prove that darkness is merely the absence of light, rather than something opposed to light? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-found-something-that-can-move-faster-than-light-the-darkness-inside-it

It suggests Light cannot be classified as particle or wave (like "neither sat nor asat"), and the vortex-appearance is attributable to some self-negating wave action of light.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFJM%3Dn09MeS-Go8RU_3aG8VnQGPcXA0rA2C8pi_QTwTpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7 is a list of entities in the cosmos who have a deity, with a body-mind complex, and who are impelled by Brahman, called Antaryāmī, who is taught in this section as the Self of all. In this list 3.7.13 is Tamas, called Darkness:

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

  13. He who inhabits darkness but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.  

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

  14. He who inhabits light but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.  

Shankara has already commented in detail for the first one in the list, Prithvi, and in the next mantra about Tejas, Light, summing up, Shankara says:

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 rest is to be similarly explained. He who inhabits water, fire, the sky, the air, heaven, the sun,  the quarters, the moon and stars, the ether, darkness -the external darkness which obstructs vision, and light, light in general, which is the opposite of dark- ness. This much with reference to the gods, that is, the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the gods. Now with reference to the beings, that is, the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the different grades of beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass.  

Thus the Upanishad and Shankara look upon Tamas, physical darkness, as a bhāvarupa, existent, ponderable, entity which is opposed to physical light.

Elsewhere, this Upanishad, 2.1.12 says:

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं छायामयः पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा मृत्युरिति वा अहमेतमुपास इति स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वं हैवास्मिंल्लोक आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालान्मृत्युरागच्छति ॥ १२ ॥

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

12. Gârgya said, 'This being who identifies himself with the shadow, I meditate upon Brahman.' Ajâtashatru said, said, 'Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as death.' He who meditates upon him as such attains his full term of life in this world, and death does not overtake him before the completion of that term. 

Shankara comments:

There is one god in the shadow or external darkness, internally in ignorance, which is a veil, and in the heart. His attribute is death. The result of the meditation is as before, the only difference being that in the absence of premature death he is free from suffering due to disease etc.  

Shankara again identifies this external darkness as signifying the internal ignorance in the jiva, as that which is enveloping, veiling, located in the heart (mind). This shows that for Shankara darkness is a positive entity in as much as the ignorance that does the function of veiling.  This alone is called mulavidya, which has its eidence in the Upanishads and Shankara.  

Sureshwara, in the Bhashya Vartika, too accepts tamas, equates with ajnana, ignorance, as a positive entity that causes effects too, which is dispelled by knowledge:

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

रज्जुज्ञानाद्धि सर्पादिप्रपञ्चविलयो यतः ।।सर्पाभासलयेऽपीयं रज्जुस्तमसि नेक्ष्यते ।। ३९२ ।।

अग्रे पठन्तु...

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

तमोविनाशनायैव प्रदीपोऽपीति चेन्मतम् ।। नष्टे तमसि कुम्भोऽपि स्वयमेवोपलभ्य़ते ।। ९९ ।।

अग्रे पठन्तु...

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

प्रतीच्येव यतोऽज्ञानमतस्तत्तत्त्वविद्यया ।।सकार्ये तमसि ध्वस्त आत्मैवैकोऽवशिष्यते ।। १३४२ ।।

अग्रे पठन्तु...

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

क्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरभेदेन संज्ञा नैवेह विद्यते ।।तद्धेतौ तमसि ध्वस्ते कुतः संज्ञाऽनिमित्ततः ।। ४४४ ।।

अग्रे पठन्तु...

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

ज्ञानाद्ध्वस्ते हि तमसि ध्वस्ते द्वैते सहेतुके || सर्वः कृत्स्नो भवेदात्मा मनोवाचामगोचरः || १२८३ ......

अग्रे पठन्तु...

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

यत्र त्वस्येत्यतः प्राह ध्वस्तात्मतमसि श्रुतिः || तत्केन कमितीत्यादि साक्षेपं वचनं स्वयम् || २७८ ||

warm regards

subbu

 

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 8:53 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does this prove that darkness is merely the absence of light, rather than something opposed to light? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-found-something-that-can-move-faster-than-light-the-darkness-inside-it

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Very well presented Subbu ji.

Actually dream-analogy makes everything clear hastAmalakavat. Let us take dream-darkness. Is it anyone's claim that dream-darkness is dream-prakAsha-abhAva?

That would be silly.

And even if it is accepted as abhAva, what gain the opponent has? PrakAsha-abhava is also bhAvAtmaka, as per the logic given in Brihadaranyak BhAshya.

Just as dream-prakAsha is avidyA-kArya, similarly dream-darkness is avidyA-kArya, even if it is prakAsha-abhAva.

Whatever is seen is avidyA-kArya/avidyA-prayukta.

So, claiming darkness as Prakasha-abhAva is not only unnecessary, it is also against common dream experience and of course, against explicit statements of bhAshya.

It is a useless exercise of those who don't understand vedAnta.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

If darkness were merely the absence of light, then it could not be distinguished from the experience that blind people have. For the experience of blind people is also absent light. 

But those who have been able to see and then later gone blind do not describe the experience of blindness as being like the experience of darkness. They say it's something more like the experience of trying to 'see' through your elbow. 

So there has to be something more to darkness than merely the absence of light. 

Akilesh Ayyar

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Maybe something to do with the ability of the brain to cope with becoming blind…

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsGt%3Dqj3T%2B6HG%3DYzFA2Mc25xQkRP9d1dFKeGhroXv4%3DKCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Akhilesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If darkness were merely the absence of light, then it could not be distinguished from the experience that blind people have. For the experience of blind people is also absent light. 

 

Ø     There are multiple sources of light to ‘see’ as per shruti itself (vide bruhadaaraNyaka-janaka-yAgnyAvalkya saMvAda)…even blind people are also having some source of light to ‘see’.  So I don’t think this is an ideal example to explain darkness is something other than the absence of light.

 

But those who have been able to see and then later gone blind do not describe the experience of blindness as being like the experience of darkness. They say it's something more like the experience of trying to 'see' through your elbow. 

 

Ø     Here tamas (darkness) is within the sphere of vidyA-avidyA vyavahAra is just absence of Viveka, agrahaNAtmaka (tattvAgrahaNena tamasA, anyathAgrahaNa beeja bhUtena is the bhAshya vAkya).  When light of Viveka is there it (tamas/darkness in the form of agrahaNa rUpa avidyA) will not be there. vivekaprakAshabhAve tadabhAvAt clarifies bhAshyakAra in geeta.  So there is no way to think darkness is something solid thing that is existing like chair or table in a room.

 

So there has to be something more to darkness than merely the absence of light. 

 

Ø     Again IMO this is not suited to prove there exists bhAva rUpa avidyA which is solid other than prakAsha abhAva atleast as per the context in which tamaH has been explained in PTB. 

 

• By the way, I am just wondering how some dry logicians here in this particular context of explaining darkness resorting to mere bhAshya / shruti to prove darkness is something other than absence of light and completely ignoring the logical explanation !!??  They are ready to sacrifice shruti / Ishwara / guru / bhAshnya everything if it is not in line with logic…but here they are simply hiding behind bhAshya to prove their pet theory mUlAvidyA which is as solid as big cot in a room😊  I am interested to see what is the logical explanation of ‘darkness’ from the desk of dry logicians.  Is it not mere absence of visible light or something of very low lighting?? Don’t they want to say from the logical point of view darkness is not a separate or an independent energy or substance that can be created and seen like a chair in a room ?? 

 

• And finally, if tamaH is something like solid no amount of light can remove it and at the best it can only illumine the darkness also like chair and table in the lit room.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Pranams Bhaskarji,

I take no position on the mulavidya question. 

That said, 

> There are multiple sources of light to ‘see’ as per shruti itself (vide bruhadaaraNyaka-janaka-yAgnyAvalkya saMvAda)…even blind people are also having some source of light to ‘see’. 

Well this is changing the argument. We are of course talking about visible light, not the 'light' of consciousness, for example.

> When light of Viveka is there it (tamas/darkness in the form of agrahaNa rUpa avidyA) will not be there.

When the light of Viveka is there, the very ideas of avidya and the light of viveka will themselves cease to be meaningful. But within the phenomenology of everyday experience, darkness seems to be as much of a "quality" as light.

If one wants to say that ignorance is nothing other than absence of knowledge, I am not weighing in on that question in either direction -- I am however pointing out the limitations of this particular metaphor of light/darkness to logically indicate that.

> And finally, if tamaH is something like solid no amount of light can remove it and at the best it can only illumine the darkness also like chair and table in the lit room.

Another interesting metaphorical question. If tamas is something solid, like dirt, why can't it be cleaned off, like dirt can be cleaned off? Or perhaps tamas is something like a misarranged jigsaw puzzle. Knowledge would be putting the pieces in the correct order. There too tamas would have a form which is more than "the absence of the correct order" -- because there are many possible wrong orders, each of which has their own quality.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252DDE126426E5E1AA2653845AA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.