Space and Time

May 31, 2004

Hi Dennis,

I downloaded Appearance and Reality from your

site

To read such a lot on screen is to invite eye strain so

what I quoted was from a chapter on his thinking.

With something as vast as that you need a topographical

introduction or a map to orient one. What he has to

say about the 'real' is objected to by White in Methods

of Metaphysics. As the same stricture might be applied

to Advaita I offer it for your consideration.

"Thinking, he says (Bradley), means the acceptance of a

certain standard, and that standard, in any case , is

an assumption as to the character of reality (135, 434

A&R) Ultimate reality is such that it does not

contradict itself; here is an absolute criterion. And

it is proved absolute by the fact that , either in

endevouring to deny it, or even in attempting to doubt

it, we tacitly assume its validity" Its great virtue

is that it 'satisfies the intellect.

Do absolutist definitions of reality have to be

justified i.e. changeless and one without a second.

Ought we add a superscript (m) or (v) to show that we

are using 'real(m)' or 'real(v)' in a metaphysical or

vedic sense. It would save falling into an illusionist

interpretation when we are led by the nose into a sense

of the mundane as unreal. It seems unfair that the

word which is after all drawn from one's normal usage

is used to dismiss its origins and it is interesting

that Bradley insisted that calling the world unreal did

not mean that it did not exist. Will the etymology of

'maya' reveal nuances that reflect a complex

understanding?

Best Wishes, Michael.

Recommended Posts