It looks like you’re diving into some heavy Advaita Vedanta philosophy! Based on the text provided, here is a summary and breakdown of the author's argument regarding non-realism in the context of Advaitic thought.
Core Summary: Non-Realism vs. Idealism
The author distinguishes "non-realism" from both traditional realism and idealism (like the Vivarana school). While idealists might say the world is a mental construct of consciousness (brahman), the non-realist approach is more subtle:
Acceptance of the Physical: Non-realism doesn't try to "reduce" physical objects into mental states. It accepts the physical description of the world as it is.
The "Non-Realist Sting": The pivot is that while the world appears independent of consciousness, the very notion of such a world is actually dependent on consciousness.
Assumption vs. Fact: We must assume a world of objects to make sense of our daily experience, but the author argues we cannot philosophically establish that such a world exists independently.
Key Distinctions
| Feature | Realism | Idealism (Advaitin) | Non-Realism (The Author's View) |
| Status of Objects | Irreducible constituents of reality. | Metaphysically dependent on cognitive construction. | Physically acceptable, but not "elementary" to reality. |
| Role of Consciousness | The world is independent of it. | The world is a product of it. | The notion of the world depends on it. |
| The World's "Truth" | It is an ultimate fact. | It is a mental assimilation into brahman. | It is a necessary assumption for experience, but unprovable. |
The Role of Philosophy (Soteriology)
The author suggests that philosophy cannot "prove" the ineffable nature of brahman or liberation. Instead, philosophy serves two specific functions:
Negatively: To debunk other philosophical systems that contradict the Upanishadic vision.
Positively: To create a logical space (a "possibility") where the realization of that reality can occur.
"All that can be done in philosophy is... to present a philosophical system that opens up the possibility of realising that reality."
Would you like me to transcribe a specific section of this text for you, or perhaps help you compare this "non-realist" view with a specific philosopher like Śaṅkara mentioned in the text?
No comments:
Post a Comment