[Advaita-l] mithyA from archives

Ramesh Krishnamurthy rkmurthy at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 02:48:47 CST 2007


Thanks Sri Amuthan for your response, but it only leads to more questions.

On 24/11/2007, Amuthan <aparyap at gmail.com> wrote:
> though the mithyAtva of jagat can be appreciated by reflecting on
> Sruti-s like 'vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mRttiketyeva satyam',
> the primary concern of advaita vedAnta is not to establish the
> mithyAtva of the dRSya, but rather to establish the satyatva of the
> dRk. the mithyAtva of dRshya follows naturally as a consequence of
> that; NOT the other way about.

It is not clear why the mithyAtva of the dRShya should follow
naturally as a consequence of the satyatva of the dRk. The other way
round seems more obvious to me.

The rest of your mail seems to go on an unrelated track. It does
appear to me that the shUnya of the mAdhyamika-s is very similar, if
not the same, to what we call mithyA. Beyond that, I am also able to
appreciate the need for a satya for the mithyA to be superimposed on.
It is only the non-dualistic nature of this satya that I feel might be
compromised if science can establish the existence of fundamental

As far as Sruti pramANa is concerned, we need to be clear first that
the Sruti only reveals brahman by removing avidyA. If brahman itself
were to be established by the Sruti, then brahman won't be satya.
Sruti does not create something anew. Ultimately, the Sruti pramANa
must result in mukti, which can only be the realization of the truth
as it is and not the creation of something new.

Let us again go back to the definition of satya itself. satya is that
which cannot be contradicted. Does this definition require a
non-dualistic satya? If there are fundamental particles that are
indivisible (and hence indestructible), they would not be
contradictable. Would non-duality not be compromised then? Please note
that the existence of fundamental particles does not contradict the
satyatva of the dRk. It only seems to imply that satya is not

Note that the sAMkhyan-s, pAta~njala yogin-s and probably the
theravAdin-s don't seem to be affected by the above. It is only the
advaitin-s and mAdhyamika-s with their mithyA/shUnya constructs who
seem to be affected.

Perhaps I am mistaken somewhere but I would very much appreciate a
clear analysis of this matter.

On 24/11/2007, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The creation is just naama and ruupa is the scriptural
> statement.  From Science point we have not established
> yet what are the fundamental constituent particles
> that form the world.  The conscious observer seems to
> be only permanent in trying to determine the observed
> in terms of particles.  Ultimately the very
> observation itself affects the observed and therefore
> never one can establish in finality what are the
> fundamental particles.

Pl see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

I am not a physicist, but clearly the search for fundamental particles
is an important aspect of modern physics. Your point about
"observation affecting the observed" seems to be related to the
probabilistic nature of any system (quantum indeterminacy). I would be
highly obliged if someone with a good understanding of this point
could explain it in the context of advaita-vedAnta. I have a feeling
it might hold the answer to my basic question about whether
fundamental particles affect the mithyAtva of objects/causality.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list