[Advaita-l] mithyA from archives

prem d p prem_d_p at yahoo.co.in
Fri Nov 30 02:19:36 CST 2007

dear sri rameshji,
  i found the problem of fundamental particle vs. advaita 
as very intellectually stimulating. i think the problem 
is a litmus test of our understanding of advaita!
  while i am not proposing a solution outright, here is
what i think about it.
  if an indivisible fundamental particle is postulated,
then such a particle is completely described by its
behaviour in space-time in relation to others. 
  Any object, which is one in many, has to necessarily
exist in a FIELD. in other words field is the nature
of co-existence of many in space-time. this is what
physics requires. 
  but going far beyond this, our shastras
say that many can exist only in the 'FIELD of view' of
an observer or witness. while we consider the 
consciousness to be primary and 'causal' of anything 
else what so ever, modern physics considers the 
insentience as primary and consciousness just a product. 
  an interesting consequence of our position, as above, 
is that the physical laws governing the field are existent
really in the mind of the Observer of the Totality.
  Thus the externalities of the proposed fundamental 
particle completely defines it. Its interior, if considered, 
  is unknowable as are all interiors(strictly). 
  Knowledge, of course, can only be about the external. 
Panchikarana, interestingly,shows us how an external 
'reality' or if you will 'solidity' could be created as a 
process of continuous unravelling (division) of 'inner' 
externalities of the object. ie. how the interiors are created by the
very same stuff as that of the external characteristics or
the mind(indriya) stuff. thus any phenomenal object 
is nama-rupa inside out! Equivalence of mind stuff &
nama-rupa should be evident to us as all objects
find their expression in the perceiving mind.
  Again, the particle and the field are mutually 
complementary and are inseparable. thus field and 
particle are caused simultaneously, the cause of both 
being the subtle elements. so also the intruments of 
observation and its record of observations all exist 
in the world of subtle elements. thus they are all 
  the problem pointed out by sri ramesh is, i believe, 
that the fundamental particle not being a 'sanghata' 
can exist for itself. thus we have our self and its self, 
apparently compromising advaita.
  but the interior of the postulated fundamental particle
ie. the 'thing in itself' or noumenon, by virtue of being
non-differentiable from the Self, sruti declares
tat tvam asi. thus according to sruti the Self of the 
observer is non-different from the 'essence' of the object.
  looking at the semantics of the above, we find that Self 
has only one essence, one meaning ie. our'SELVES. A 
multitude of selves is semantically contradictory and absurd. 
thus advaita is self-established and incontrovertible.
  to elaborate, just as in the case of the sensory perceptions, 
where we intuitively know the existence of a knower who is 
conscious, so also we know the existence of an essence or a 
'thing in itself' on which is superimposed the observed 
nama-rupa which is inseparable from our mind. hence while
the instrument and and its percepts are insentient, the 
knower and known are existent (idealism refuted).
  as for the physics involved, i would like to guess that 
any limit of divisibility or for that matter all the great 
physical constants all point to the fact that all measurement 
is simply a measure of phenomena by phenomena or in other 
words a case of yardstick (necessarily physical)
coming face to face with itself!

Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks SrI Amuthan once again for your response. I appreciate it deeply.

If I may summarize your position (just for clarity):
The question of the status of the world (including fundamental
particles, if any) arises only in vyavahAra wherein pramAtRtva is
superimposed on the Atman and hence arises the trio of pramAtR,
prameya & pramANa.

I entirely agree with the above. No issues here whatsoever. But does
the story end here?

There must have been good reasons why many of our AcArya-s have
considered sAMkhya to be the closest among the darshana-s to
advaita-vedAnta. Let me reflect on this point a little more and get
back later if required.

In the meantime, lets see if any of our other list vidvAn-s have
anything to say about this.

Thanks once again for your patient replies

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

 Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list