Western philosophy on Idealism & Realism topics

April 13, 2001

Brilliant, Greg! I really appreciate this. It may be that Nanda Chandran is

not specifically interested in any beliefs for his discussion but I have

always wanted to get these various -isms clear in my mind. Your explanations

are exceptionally clear and straightforward - just what I was hoping for.

Several points I am still confused about: -

Firstly, in the case of Absolute Idealism, isn't this saying that we, too,

are only ideas in the mind of the Absolute? In which case, what do the

writers who have "different takes on the relation between ... absolute

consciousness and the consciousness of the individual ego" have to consider?

What, indeed, does 'consciousness of the individual ego' mean to them? If

they are saying that there is only one consciousness, how can they then talk

about separate consciousnesses?

Secondly, what is the effective difference between Absolute Idealism and

Monism? Surely, if there is only one thing, there is only one thing?

Thirdly, how do these two differ from Advaita?

Thanks again, Greg, and I hope no one feels these discussions are off-topic

and should be relegated to a Philosophy group. I feel it is extremely

valuable to see how the West came to similar conclusions as Advaita but

through purely intellectual considerations rather than revealed truth. Or,

if they did not, in which aspects did they fall short? Such awareness is

surely of relevance to the likes of ourselves, some of whom may be hoping to

reach towards moksha through discussions on Advaitin elist and subsequent

reflection - those of us who believe there are such things as spiritual

paths and someone who could become enlightened, of course! :-)

Dennis

April 13, 2001

Namaste,

Congratulations and countless thanks to Greg-ji on the summary!

In his book, "Vedanta, The Culmination of Indian Thought", [publ.

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1st ed. 1970], Prof. R.D.Ranade -1887-1957,

who taught Philosophy from 1917-1947, and in S. Radhakrishnan's

words "lived philosophy", wrote:

"A philosophy, if it is to be followed, must be flawless in all its

aspects. There may be one which has reached the giddy heights of

specualation in metaphysocs, but lacks the moral fervor, or the

psychological insight, or the spiritual enlightenment. Another may be

very strong in putting forth the moral standard of conduct, but weak

in metaphysics. A third may be spiritual, but apologetic and non-

logical in character. The epistemology of one may be in direct

conflict with its metaphysics. The Vedanta philosophy which we are

trying to present in the following pages will be, so to say, a joint

communique of the philosopher and the mystic. With God-realisation as

the be-all and end-all of human endeavor and as the central theme of

Vedanta, we shall find in the sequel that all the problems of

Philosophy fall in their proper order."

The Chapter headings are as follows:

1. The cosmological Problem

2. The Metaphysical Problem.

3. The Problem of Logic.

4. The Epistemological Problem.

5. The Problem of God.

6. The Relation of God to the World.

7. Causality and Appearance.

8. The Problem of Self.

9. The Ethical Problem.

10.The Summum Bonum.

Advaita is a 'revealed' truth only to the extent that it is

a 'realised' or 'lived' and confirmed/validated truth by seekers

irrespective of time or place.

Regards,

s.

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Brilliant, Greg! I really appreciate this. various -isms clear in

my mind. Your explanations

> are exceptionally clear and straightforward - just what I was

hoping for.

>

> Several points I am still confused about: -

what is the effective difference between Absolute Idealism and

> Monism? Surely, if there is only one thing, there is only one thing?

>

> Thirdly, how do these two differ from Advaita?

>

> Thanks again, Greg, and I hope no one feels these discussions are

off-topic

> and should be relegated to a Philosophy group. I feel it is

extremely

> valuable to see how the West came to similar conclusions as Advaita

but

> through purely intellectual considerations rather than revealed

truth. Or,

> if they did not, in which aspects did they fall short? Such

awareness is

> surely of relevance to the likes of ourselves, some of whom may be

hoping to

> reach towards moksha through discussions on Advaitin elist and

subsequent

> reflection - those of us who believe there are such things as

spiritual

> paths and someone who could become enlightened, of course! :-)

>

> Dennis

April 13, 2001

Hi Dennis,

In case this thread is found to be off-topic, I'll try to keep it short

(oops, didn't happen), and we can continue off-line, or else someone can

start a philosophy list!

Regarding your three questions:

1. Q: In Absolute Idealism, aren't we ourselves also

appearances/excrescences/emanations of the Absolute?

Then how could there be different approaches, or

individual consciousnesses?

A: Several responses.

(i) This is kind of subtle, and that is that Western philosophers don't

usually emphasize the relation of "me, the writer of this book, this

theory" to the overall idea. They could do this, if pressed, but they

usually don't. This kind of reflection, looping back on the self, is

something that Western philosophers are *extremely* capable of doing, in a

technical sense, and in a technical sense primarily. After all, this is

the same self-reflective dialectical "move" that is made in proofs of

completeness and consistency of logical systems. It is also a well-known

move in modern science, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Many grad

students must come up with these same kinds of formal proofs when going for

a degree in philosophy. But does this kind of thing help in any

transcendent way, does it make anyone happier, calmer, more loving, more

able to see the cockroach in the gutter as the same Absolute as the

Transcendent Idea itself? Not that I've ever seen from my professional

colleagues (though there were 2 people who philosophy really seemed to have

a deep and positive effect on, and one was a Berkeleyan!)

(ii) That being said -- Western philosophers write books, and some of the

books are about the Absolute. And the books say different things. The

fact that these particular books say different things about the Absolute is

not taken to be any different than the fact that there are, say, Steven

King novels and Harry Potter novels.

2. Q: What is the difference between Absolute Idealism and monism?

A: Most Absolute Idealists are probably monists, but not all monists are

Absolute Idealists. Both say that there is only one thing, but what kind

of thing?? Thales said it is water. Anaximander said it is the

Boundless. Anaximines said it is vapor. Western philosophers have been

writing on this for thousands of years.

3. Q: How do Absolute Idealism and monism differ from Advaita?

A: Hah!! Before I try to answer this, let me make a side comment. I

think it's much more effective to not attempt to see Advaita Vedanta

through the filter of Western thought. I think that careful and serious

and deep Western investigation can be used *on its own* to do much of the

same kind of thing (e.g., disidentification with the koshas) that can be

done with careful advaita investigation. But I wouldn't say that one could

ever "do" advaita by doing Western philosophy. I think you are familiar

with this Dennis-ji, but for anyone else interested in a Western approach

that is largely but not exclusively intellectual, there are some pointers

on my web pages on non-dualism and Western philosophy:

http://www.nonduality.com/western.htm

So what's the difference? Advaita wouldn't be monism, because it is very

careful not to treat Brahman as a "thing" or a "kind of thing." Advaita

wouldn't be Absolute Idealism, because Consciousness/Nirguna Brahman is not

an idea or an ideational substance. It is That to which ideas and

substance appear. Ideas are just vijnanamayakosha stuff.

There are a few Western Absolute idealist writers who come close to

treating the Absolute as not a thing, not an idea. You might find Francis

Herbert Bradley (1846-1924) interesting. He wrote _Appearance_and_Reality_

(1893) and _Essays_on_Truth_and_Reality (1914). The former is at Amazon.

Another would be Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), who wrote Foundations

of the Science of Knowledge (1794-95). You might like him Denni-ji - he

was accused of atheism :-), and in 18th century Germany, this was not a

popular thing!! Another interesting one was Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677),

who wrote a 5-volume series on _Ethics_ and in book 1 tried to prove the

necessary existence of a single substance that comprises all reality.

There are a few Western philosophers, perhaps Spinoza, who are thought to

have been influenced by Eastern ideas. This sounds fascinating, but I

haven't researched the topic too much.

You can do much more browsing of ideologies and writers by going to Garth

Kemerling's excellent resource, his Philosophy Pages site:

http://www.philosophypages.com/index.htm

Sorry, and I tried to make this short!!

OM!

--Greg

At 10:05 AM 4/13/01 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>>>>