The Jaina View on Darkness
By Himanshu Shekhar Acharaya
Summary
Himanshu Shekhar Acharya examines the status of darkness (tamas) within the Jain classification of reality. In Jain ontology, pudgala (matter) is one of the five non‑soul substances (ajīvadravyas) and exists in two forms: atoms (aṇu) and aggregates (skandha). Acharya notes that darkness is treated not merely as the absence of light but as a positive mode (paryāya) of pudgala. Drawing on Umāsvāti’s Tattvārthādhigama‑sūtra and its commentaries, the author explains that transformations of pudgala yield ten modes; among them are darkness, shade, heat and lustre. Scholars like Vijayavallabha Sūri, Hemacandra Sūri, Bhavasena and Bhadrabāhu argued that light and darkness are transformations of the same material substance: when the luminosity of light‑bearing pudgalas is removed, darkness results, with their substance remaining constant. The paper contrasts the Jain view with that of Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya schools, which tend to regard darkness as the mere absence of light or as a quality (guṇa) inhering in matter. Jain authors reject this privative view and instead hold that darkness is a real entity that can obstruct visual perception. Acharya cites Vijayavallabha’s interpretation of Syādvāda that pudgalas transform into light and darkness while retaining their substantiality. The article also discusses the concept of chāyā (shadow) in Jainism and Nyāya. In Jain texts, chāyā is considered a form of reflected light and is distinguished from tamas; two varieties are identified—shadow as an envelope of light and shadow as an image (pratibimba). In Nyāya, shadow and darkness are treated synonymously. Acharya concludes by noting that, for Jains, tamas is a substance because a paryāya is not different from its underlying dravya, whereas Nyāya philosophers regard darkness and shadow as non‑substantial. An appendix lists abbreviations and bibliographic references used in the study.
Conclusion
Acharya’s analysis highlights the distinctive way Jains conceptualise darkness. Rather than viewing it as a mere absence, they treat tamas as a positive modification of matter that arises through transformation. This perspective allows Jain philosophers to explain phenomena like the obstruction of vision while maintaining the principle that substances persist through change. By comparing Jain views with those of other schools, the article underscores the diversity of Indian metaphysical thought and demonstrates how nuanced interpretations of seemingly simple phenomena can inform broader ontological debates.