Metaphysics

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michael and Shri Sadananda,

 

With reference to Shri Michael's post and Shri Sadananda's posts #44632 and

#44633 of Wed Apr 15 (Re: Sacred texts - 1. Impersonal authority), it may help

to try explaining how the word 'metaphysical' has come to be used in Western

philosophy today.

 

This word comes from the classical Greek 'phuo', meaning to 'grow'. The growth

thus described applies in particular to the development of plants and other

living things. From this verb 'phuo' comes the Greek 'phusis', meaning 'nature'.

Used thus, the Greek 'phusis' refers to a realm of living activity that came to

be called 'natura' in Latin. From 'natura' comes our English word 'nature'.

 

Thus, the Greek 'phusis', the Latin 'natura' and the English 'nature' have

essentially the same meaning as the Sanskrit 'prakriti'. Here, nature is

described as that realm of experience which consists of all changing activities.

And these activities are essentially alive. They essentially express a pure

consciousness, whose actionless illumination inspires them to perform their

changing actions.

 

Our experience is thus conceived as divided into two aspects, called 'nature'

and 'consciousness'. The conception is essentially the same as the Sanskrit

distinction of 'prakriti' and 'purusha'. In ancient Greece, Aristotle says that

nature acts for love of an unmoved mover which in itself is pure consciousness,

remaining always unmoved and unchanged. In the Sanskrit tradition, the changing

acts of prakriti or nature are described as 'purushArtha'. They are

spontaneously inspired to be done 'for the sake of purusha'. And 'purusha' is

that actionless and unchanging illumination that is found in every personality.

 

From 'phusis' thus meaning 'nature', the Greek 'phusikos' means 'natural'. As

Aristotle's works were being edited, one of the books was called 'ta phusika' or

'the natural things'. The following book was then called 'meta ta phusika'

meaning 'after the natural things'. It referred to those underlying principles

of existence that are shown in common by various different things that nature so

changingly manifests. (The Greek 'meta' means 'after' or 'beyond'.)

 

From the Greek 'phusikos' comes the Latin 'physica' and hence the English word

'physical'. The ancient Greek 'meta ta phusika' ('after the natural things')

thus came to be described in medieval Latin as 'metaphysica': referring

specifically to Aristotle's book after his treatment of the natural things, and

more generally to the study of underlying principles that are differently

manifested by nature's changing phenomena. From the medieval Latin 'metaphysica'

comes the English 'metaphysics', used both for one of Aristotle's books and for

the study of underlying principles that get to be so differently shown by

nature's changing variety.

 

To this already tortuous history of the word 'metaphysics', another twist has

come to be added in relatively modern times. And this modern twist has

multiplied a cumulative growth of confusion and disenchantment on the part of

modern academics, with any search for basic principles that have come to be

called 'metaphysical'. In recent times, this word has all too often been

negatively used, as a term of abuse.

 

This modern twist is a confusing restriction in the meaning of the words

'nature' and 'physical'. These words are now taken to describe an external world

outside our thinking and our feeling minds. Reflection back into our minds is

thus unthinkingly assumed to be essentially unnatural.

 

Such inner reflection is no longer understood as a natural way of discovering

nature's underlying principles. Instead, it is considered as an artificial

cleverness, in formulating hypotheses from which useful predictions and results

may be calculated mechanically.

 

The artificial cleverness is valued, for the external results that it narrowly

and partially achieves. The inward reflection is devalued, and its intuitive

enquiry is dismissed as founded on nothing more than personal and cultural

belief.

 

To make things clearer, let me try to sum up this modern use of the word

'metaphysical'. From its Greek roots, it implies a sense of something that

transcends ('meta') the natural ('phusikos'). But, in modern times, the word

'nature' has been confusingly restricted in its meaning to an external world, so

that the word 'metaphysical' has come to convey a sense of some supernatural

artifice.

 

It's thus that this word 'metaphysical' has come to be used pejoratively. It

here refers to dogmatic statements of underlying principle, in which we

personally and culturally believe, without having examined them properly. Such

statements must of course create trouble and confusion in our pictures of the

world.

 

But I would suggest that it may be more helpful to use this word 'metaphysical'

in its older and truer sense. It there refers to an investigation of nature's

underlying principles, beneath the variety of their superficial appearances.

 

Thus, 'metaphysics' can be used to refer to the study of 'sat' or 'being'. But

that study must go along with 'epistemology', which investigates the 'jnyana' or

'knowledge' aspect of how being is rightly known. And in their turn, both

metaphysics and epistemology must go finally along with 'ethics', which is

motivated by the 'ananda' or 'happiness' aspect of discerning what is true and

right from what is false and wrong.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda-ji,

 

Brilliant elucidation of the origins of the word! You said: " In recent

times, this word has all too often been negatively used, as a term of

abuse. " and that it " has come to convey a sense of some supernatural

artifice. "

 

This is exemplified by the quotation from Bowen of Colwood, who gives the

definition of a metaphysician as: " A man who goes into a dark cellar at

midnight without a light looking for a black cat that is not there. " (But

you have to laugh!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Ananda-ji,

>

> Brilliant elucidation of the origins of the word!

 

Namaste,

 

How much more unambiguous are the upanishad phrases - 'parA' and 'aparA

vidyA'!

 

For more elucidation on these, please see:

 

http://www.vmission.org.in/vedanta/articles/parapara.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder