Darkness as bhAvarUpa – References

1.Sidhanta Bindu - Sidhanta Bindu translated and edited by Chandrashekhar Divanji

Sanskrit Text - Book page 54, PDF page 229

English Text - Book Page 163, PDF page 430

2.Extracts from Advaita Epistemology with Special Reference to Ista Sidhi, PK Sundaram, Book
page310/311, PDF page 337/339.

The known negations of knowledge, it can be shown, cannot be nescience.The mutual non-existence,
iterEtrAbhAva, has thus the object for its substrate while nescience has the Self for the substrate. As for
posterior non-existence, pradhvamsAbhAva, origin is accepted, while for ajnAna, only beginninglessness
has been declared. And, while nescience is removable, pradhvamsa is not. Even when one says “
Knowledge is destroyed”, or “ Again I do not know” it does not denote the beginning of nescience
because of the non-apprehension of its antecedent non-existence. Only the antecedent non-existence,
prAgabhAva, of knowledge, and not of nescience also, appears.Thirdly, as for the antecedent non-
existence, being non-existence, it does not appear in immediate experience as nescience does. If it is
said that since antecedent non-existence of knowledge is removed by knowledge, by this fact of this
removal it alone is nescience, it is replied that when knowledge arises, something other than its own
antecedent non-existence is removed.

When light dawns, for example, it is not the absence of light that is removed. Darkness that is removed
is not the antecedent non-existence of light .It is a positive entity. Otherwise, it will be difficult to
explain how a lamp taken from one place to another dispels darkness there. It cannot be said that the
flames of the light are momentary and that it is intelligible that the antecedent non-existence alone is
removed, for , if the above argument were true, then, for the light which stands in the same place for a
long time, there being no darkness in the second and subsequent moments, there is the contingence of
the extinction of the stream of light even in the presence of oil, wick etc., and the flame not being
produced at all, like the hare’s horn.

If darkness is not, as it has been demonstrated, the antecedent non-existence of light, it is not its
posterior non-existence also, because the destruction, pradhvamsa, of the momentary flames takes
place even in the absence of darkness. And in the instance of the gem, sun, etc., which are effulgent
always and which move from place to place, it cannot be said that the darkness in the place which they
reach is the anterior non-existence of the light they shed or that the darkness in the place which they
have left is the posterior non-existence of light, for the reason that they are always self-effulgent.

If darkness cannot be the prAgabhAva and pradhvamsAbhAva of light, it cannot be the mutual non-
existence of light also. If darkness is said to be the mutual non-existence of light existing in a non-
luminous object, it is asked : by this kind of non-existence, is the non-existence of all lights meant or of
only one light? If the first, this darkness will never be removed unless all lights are there at once. Thus,
even when the sun is there, darkness will not be removed. If the second, then, darkness will not be
removed by the presence of lights other than the one of which it is the mutual non-exiatence or the
counter-correlate. Moreover, if one light dispels its own negation, there will be innumerable other
darknesses left untouched, Consequently, nothing will ever be illumined because of the manfold
obscurities.

For these reasons it is certain that nescience is not merely negation or anterior non-existence of
knowledge, but a positive fact, is indeterminable and is removable by knowledge. It is called ajnAna,
either because of its conflict with knowledge or because of its being other than knowledge.

3.Ista Sidhi edited by Hiriyanna, Sanskrit, Ista Sidhi, Book page 67…., PDF page 103…..

Sanskrit, Ista Sidhi Vivaranam of Jnanottama, PDF page 473…….

Also see Notes at PDF page 674

PramANa for Darkness being a dravya

( Note :: While denying dravyatva for Brahman, the following is stated. The same applies to Darkness
(andhakAra) also as per my understanding ) .

Advaita Sidhi, Hindi, Part 1, PDF page 107, Book Page 79.

<<  ’अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घ’मिति श्रुत्या चतुर्विधपरिमाणनिषेधेन द्रव्यत्वप्रतिषेधात ्  >>

Sidhanta Bindu, Same as above cited , Sanskrit, PDF page 225, Book Page 50,

Notes, PDF Page 415, Book Page 148.

Translation, PDF Page 519, Book Page 252.

Vivarana prameya samgraha, MDS ;; VPS-02, 2-45-00 onwards, VPS Hindi Commentary Book page 30
PDF page 59 onwards. MDS mentions that in Sidhanta darkness/tamas is accepted as a bhava padartha.

BUB 3-7-13 and 3-7-14 << ………चन्द्रतारके, आकाशे, यस्तमस्यावरणात्मके बाह्ये तमसि, तेजसि तद्विपरीते
प्रकाशसामान्ये — इत्येवमधिदै वतम ् अन्तर्यामिविषयं दर्शनं दे वतासु । अथ अधिभत
ू ं भत
ू ेषु
ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु अन्तर्यामिदर्शनमधिभूतम ् ॥ >>, Since antaryAmi is mentioned for tamas, it is a
bhava padartha.