the so-called "double-truth"

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>Is this not a confusing of two different types of "two-truth theories"?
>In the case of Newton and Einstein, the later theory includes the
>earlier without declaring the earlier theory false. (This is rather

I don't mean to say that relativity vs. Newtonian physics
corresponds to absolute vs. relative truth in philosophy.
I just pointed out that this is *a* kind of two-truth view,
in a body of knowledge that developed independently of old
schools of philosophy, and that was uninterested in textual
exegesis. Still, Newtonian theory would not be considered
true when you have a situation where velocity nears that of
light. There are different takes on the hierarchy implied
in this. As Gupta pointed out, relativity is, in its turn,
really an approximation of a higher-level theory. Whether
one sees syAdvAda/anekAntavAda or mAyAvAda/advaitavAda in
this is a function of one's own original philosophical
inclinations. See for example, Nancy Cartwright's "How the
Laws of Physics Lie" 1983, NY: OUP.

L. Cousins did mention Kundakunda once, but the point that
most still seems to miss is that the paramAttha-sammuti
distinction in madhyamaka is quite different from the
advaita distinction between paramArtha and vyavahAra. It
is not clear to me on what basis one can classify "double-
truth" theories into types, and say that this type is
different from that one. Each such theory presents its own
unique features.

Best,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.