Origins of the "double-truth"

[R Srinivasan]

The secret of double-truth lies yes and no, not yes or no, no "versus".
Ramanuja's VisishtAdvaita addresses this beautifully.

-----Original Message-----
From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK]On Behalf Of Ferenc
Ruzsa
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:26 PM
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Origins of the "double-truth"


Friends,

On pre-buddhist veritas duplex in Greece:
Parmenides himself uses some theory of double truth. His terminology
(aletheia
versus doxa, i.e. [absolute] truth vs. [general] opinion) resembles closely
the early buddhist opposition of paramattha - sammuti [paramArtha - sammati,
the latter wrongly interpreted as saMvRti]. He lived probably half a century
before the Buddha.
Of course Parmenides might have got some of his ideas from India; in fact in
my M.A. thesis I tried to prove his indebtedness to the sadvidyA (chAndogya
upaniSad VI). There the relevant opposition is satya - nAmadheya.

On the independent origin of theories of double truth:
In the exegesis of conflicting religious texts usually there are, I think,
other possibilities: different peoples, classes, areas or ages might be
meant
by the different texts. On the other hand, as soon as we start talking about
philosophy the contrast of appearance - deeper reality seems difficult to
avoid. What is not necessary, however, is to call this a theory of double
*truth*, a rather shocking way of putting it.

On Einstein and Newton:
This is no case of double truth; if the theory of relativity is true, then
Newtonian mechanics is not - it is only a good approximation. As the
statement
"pi = 3.14" is not true, although it is an often useful approximation.

Yours,
Ferenc
--------------------------------------------------------
Ferenc Ruzsa, PhD
associate professor of philosophy
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
e-mail: f_ruzsa at ludens.elte.hu