Idealism and realism

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael, Chittaranjan and Greg,

 

Michael wrote: "As someone persuaded of the validity of realism I see

idealism as something that can only be stated on the basis of a

pre-existent world which is then de-constructed."

 

I'd agree that idealism can only be stated by de-constructing a

preconceived world that has already been conceived as constructed from

objects. But does this mean that the preconception is correct and that

the constructed world is truly pre-existent? In fact, precisely what

idealism does is to question whether and how this preconceived world

is real.

 

And what's thereby shown is that the preconception is mistaken. Or, in

other words, the objective world as preconceived is unreal. This is

not to deny any true existence or true reality, but only to question

our materialistic preconceptions of it. Thus, through such

questioning, idealism leads eventually to a more profound realism that

is quite independent of both world and mind. For, when matter is

completely removed from mind, what remains is just pure consciousness,

where there is no duality between knower and known.

 

The central question here is what is meant by realism. Does it mean

something objective as opposed to subjective, as our materialistic

preconceptions assume? If it does, then the real is identified with

the externally material, and there is clearly an essential opposition

between idealism and realism. And it's only then that the two are

opposed. The opposition melts away completely when a reality is found

utterly unmixed with external matter and thus fully independent of any

material qualities or conditioning. Such is the non-dual reality of

pure consciousness, where knowing and being are one and the same

thing.

 

Unfortunately, modern university philosophy is quite stuck on the

false opposition between realism and idealism and thus tends to make

nonsense of non-dualistic philosophy, both eastern and western. As I

see it, such a non-dualistic philosophy is at the root of both eastern

and western traditions.

 

In ancient Greek philosophy, Parmenides and Socrates and Plotinus are

clearly extreme realists, but the reality they describe is utterly

immaterial and thus can be approached through an idealistic route.

Similarly, at the foundations of modern science, Newton and Einstein

are extreme realists, but again of the immaterial sort that our

current university training tends to find quite incomprehensible and

even reprehensible.

 

And in India, of course, advaita philosophy has long combined an

extreme realism with an equally extreme spirituality. And the approach

has of course been through inward-turning mind that proceeds through

reflective ideas. Thus there is no real objection to idealism as an

approach. The objection only comes in when the idealistic approach is

not taken far enough, when it stops with ideas that still have a taint

of conditioned matter in them.

 

So I see no reason to oppose an idealistic enquiry, so long as it is a

genuine enquiry into truth and not a grandiose or (still more

dangerous) a subtle attempt to construct some imposing or persuasive

system of ideas in mind.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

We're all very glad you have returned. I must say that I completely

agree with this message of yours, where you said, among other things,

that:

 

"The central question here is what is meant by realism. Does it mean

something objective as opposed to subjective, as our materialistic

preconceptions assume? If it does, then the real is identified with

the externally material, and there is clearly an essential opposition

between idealism and realism. And it's only then that the two are

opposed. The opposition melts away completely when a reality is found

utterly unmixed with external matter and thus fully independent of any

material qualities or conditioning. Such is the non-dual reality of

pure consciousness, where knowing and being are one and the same

thing."

 

 

I finally understand what you meant before about transcending the

realism/idealism dichotomy. I was confused, because it seemed to me

that one must choose logically one or the other. Now I can see in

what sense you think that idealism as a worldview dissolves in tandem

with the elimination of matter.

 

There seems to be a strong parallel with the disappearance of the

seer with the seen, something my Swamiji often emphasizes. In

dualism, there seems to be a seer and a seen. When the seen is

realized to be unreal, i.e. as not distinct from the seer, then BOTH

seer and seen dissolve into pure consciousness. As Ramana (and no

doubt Atmananda) would say, 'Who is left to see what?' Of course,

this goes way back to Yajnavalkya in the famous passage in

Briharadaryaka II.4.14.

 

So if your definition of 'idealism' is the view that only the seer is

real, and of 'materialism' that only the seen is real, then I quite

agree that both of these views are incomplete. However, idealism is

closer to the truth, as you say, for the same reason that Ramana asks

us to dwell is the seer rather than the seen, as preparation for the

nondual experience. One must first retreat from our obsession with

objects.

 

I might add that my definition of idealism was precisely that unitary

state in which both seer and seen are transcended. This seems to be

the source of whatever confusion there may have been on this topic.

 

It is truly remarkable how this emphasis on nonduality arises in

spiritual traditions throughout the world. That is the main reason I

believe in it, since I have not actually had the experience, except

perhaps for the faintest flashes of insight. And those apparent

flashes of insight mostly occur when I am reading the likes of Ramana

or Atmananda! Some of the stories I've read about totally

'underserving' people suddenly becoming realized suggests to me that

it is ultimately a matter of grace, but that the chances of grace can

be increased though sincere inquiry.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin