[Advaita-l] mithyA from archives

[Amuthan]

namo nArAyaNAya!

On 11/23/07, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, if science were to establish such a thing as a fundamental
> indivisible particle, would not the absence of svarUpa lakShaNa for
> objects be compromised? How important is the absence of svarUpa
> lakShaNa for objects in establishing the mithyatva of causality and
> hence the truth of advaita?

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 also for a similar reason that we
disagree with mAdhyamikAs who assert the mithyAtva of both the dRk and
the dRSya based on exactly the same argument. and it is precisely at
this point that the role of Sruti as the _only_ means to Atmaj~nAna
becomes clear.

just to set things in the proper context, unlike mAdhyamikAs who
maintain that everything is niHsvabhAva, we maintain that that the
svabhAva of everthing is brahman. the attribution of a particular nAma
and rUpa as the svabhAva of a particular object is mithyA and this
happens at a cognitive level which 'precedes' that which we use while
doing scientific enquiry or any other vyavahAra. to make my point
clear, science can come into picture only when duality is perceived
and perception of duality cannot happen without adhyAsa; once the
fundamental adhyAsa of pramAtRtva and the consequent adhyAsa-s of the
prameya-s are made, all vyavahAra-s including scientific enquiry are
possible. since duality is presupposed in all these activities, it is
not reasonable to suppose that establishing the existence of
fundamental indivisible particles or any other substratum as forming
the basis of the world we perceive would contradict the mithyAtva of
jagat.

an immediate consequence of the above view is that the conclusions of
vedAnta are independent of the conclusions of science. hence as SrI
vidyASaMkar pointed out, one can endorse modern theories of creation
and causation if they are more helpful in quieting the mind and
turning it back to our own Self. let me also reiterate that without
the help of Sruti, we can cannot selectively conclude that only the
dRSya is niHsvabhAva and that the dRk has as a svabhAva.

vAsudevaH sarvaM,
aparyAptAmRtaH.