The Inevitable Simplicity of Metaphysics
The Perennial philosophy states that the ultimate nature of reality is too simple to think. In this case, why does metaphysics seem so complicated?
Is it that all the world’s great mystics, sages, meditators and gurus have been and still are fraudsters, all telling the same lie? Or is it is because we are misunderstanding something?
It seems more likely that we are misunderstanding something. But what? Whatever it is, it must be something that almost all philosophers have misunderstood. Most philosophers in the mainstream Western tradition have not studied the Perennial philosophy, even as a formal metaphysical theory. Is this a coincidence or a vital clue?
For the Perennial philosophy metaphysics, at the level of principles, is a quite straightforward affair, just as we would expect given the simplicity of reality. This is because the philosophical foundation of this ancient philosophy is a metaphysical theory that may be modelled as a formal axiomatic system. From its simple axioms the rest of the theory follows ineluctably as a matter of logic. Once we understand the axioms we can confidently deal with the details without becoming overwhelmed by their complexity, for our understanding of the axioms allows us to simplify and manage them.
In order to acquire a simple view of metaphysics all we need to do is assume the Perennial philosophy is true. Then our first axiom is the unity of reality. This is the idea that the basis of reality lies beyond the divisions and distinctions that are the categories of thought. We cannot think what lies beyond the categories of thought, or, as Nicola de Cusa puts it in his Vision of God, ‘beyond the coincidence of contradictories’, but from this inconceivable ultimate we can derive the principle of non-duality. Once we have a philosophical grasp of this principle and see the trick of how to apply it, we have a subtle knife that allows us to cut through the complexities of metaphysics and derive answers for all its questions and solutions for all its problems.
If the Perennial philosophy is true then this would easily explain the inability of Western philosophers from the time of Thales of Miletus up until today to identify a fundamental theory that works. This tradition of thought studies only theories that do not work, and as everybody knows they do not work metaphysics becomes a pointless and immensely complicated battle between a large collection of indefensible ideas. Kant saw this, and in his Critique of Pure Reason likens Western metaphysics to an arena for mock fights in which none of the combatants can gain an inch of ground to call their own. Much clever sophistry is required to maintain these mock fights, and because they cannot be won they are interminable. This would explain why university metaphysics is so complicated, and why it seems a pointless discipline to most people and even to most philosophers.
If we assume the Perennial philosophy is true then we have escaped from the arena and can move on. We have no need to get involved in all the clever sophistry. We are no longer fighting for ideas that do not work and can massively simplify the issues.
An understanding of metaphysics is now within our grasp. Our understanding may be extensive or slight, but it will be better than that of philosophers, however clever and studious they are, who have not studied the Perennial philosophy. This is not to say that the issues now become easy. If the Perennial philosophy is true then an understanding of metaphysics requires some grasp of the principle of nonduality, and while this principle is easy to apply as a theoretical tool only those with a significant level of realisation can understand its real meaning.
Fortunately, however, for metaphysics we do not need such a realisation. Physicists are able to make good use of quantum theory while having little understanding of what their mathematical symbols and equations are describing. Metaphysics can proceed in the same way. Even if we have no real understanding of what the theory is describing it allows us to work out that the Perennial philosophy is the only plausible theory of everything, and is therefore the only rational philosophy and the only one we need study. This is just as well, since this is the only fundamental philosophy that is sufficiently simple that most people could hope to understand it, and the only one not rendered incomprehensible by dilemmas, antinomies and paradoxes.
It all comes down to this. Kant observes that all polarised, extreme or selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. This is because all such this or that conclusions fail under critical analysis. That they do fail is demonstrated by the Buddhist master Nagarjuna in the second century in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. By proving that all extreme metaphysical positions are logically absurd he largely disposes of Western philosophy. The only global theory that survives analysis is the Perennial philosophy. The history of Western philosophical may be seen as the evidence of this.
If we know this much, then we know there would be little point in reading a thousand books by authors who do not know it, or spending a lifetime arguing back and forth with them in Kant’s arena. All we need to do is study the only theory that works. If we adopt this approach we have already massively simplified metaphysics. We may not understand it as yet but we know at least how to go about acquiring an understanding, and even this is more than most scientists and philosophers know at this time.
For those who wish to pursue this line of thinking the first milestone would be arriving at the conclusion that all polarised this or that answers for metaphysical questions do not work. For someone starting from scratch I would recommend trying to decide whether the universe begins with, or arises from, something or nothing. We will immediately see the problem. We face a choice between two ideas that do not work. The next step would be to see that all fundamental questions take the same form and present the same difficulty. From there it is a short step to the rejection of all these polarised answers. The nondual doctrine of the Upanishads is the only fundamental theory left standing by this process of reductio ad absurdum.
The idea that reality is a unity simplifies metaphysics, but this is not to say it is an easy idea. In fact it is not easy or difficult, since unity is an idea we cannot have. Any concept, thought or image will be a false idol, perhaps not always as clumsy as the Biblical golden calf but in every case misleading and inadequate. We cannot think beyond the categories of thought. Even so, we can talk about it.
The English philosopher Francis Bradley is another, with Kant and Nagarjuna, who shows that all extreme or positive metaphysical positions do not work. This leaves him having to explain the only position that does, and to make some attempt to speak about the implied unity of all.
“Reality is one. It must be single, because plurality, taken as real, contradicts itself. Plurality implies relations, and, through its relations, it unwillingly asserts always a superior unity. To suppose the universe plural is therefore to contradict oneself and, after all, to suppose that it is one. Add one world to another, and forthwith both worlds have become relative, each the finite appearance of a higher and single Reality. And plurality as appearances (we have seen) must fall within, must belong to, must qualify the unity.
We have an idea of this unity which, to some extent, is positive. It is true that how in detail the plurality comes together we do not know. And it is true again that unity, in its more proper sense, is known only as contra-distinguished from plurality. Unity therefore, as an aspect over against and defined by another aspect, is itself but appearance. And in this sense the Real, it is clear, cannot be properly called one. It is possible, however, to use unity with a different meaning.”
Francis H. Bradley, Appearance and Reality (1893)
Whenever we come across statements to the effect that reality is one we must keep in mind that this is not a simple monism. The One of Bradley, Plotinus and the mystics is not a numerical quantity but a ‘One without a Second’. It is a complete transcendence of number and form and as such is inconceivable. This the ‘eternal Tao’ of Lao Tzu that cannot be spoken. Even the term ‘unity’ as a descriptor is inadequate without a lengthy, careful and mostly negative definition.
Yet taken as an axiom it allows us to explain metaphysics within a systematic theory. It gives rise to an extended explanatory theory just as an acorn does to an oak, and just as the inconceivable Origin and Source gives rise to the complexity of the manifest world of appearances we call the space-time universe.
What about the Problems of Philosophy?
The answer the Perennial philosophy gives for metaphysical questions is easy to remember because it is the same in each case. Wherever we encounter what seems to be an antinomy or dilemma, a choice between (what seem to be) a contradictory pair of extreme metaphysical positions, we must reject both of them for the truth. This is the ‘Middle Way’ philosophy.
If we take this approach to the something-nothing problem and see how it might work, then we can see how it might work for all metaphysical problems. For the Perennial philosophy there are no problems of philosophy other than the difficulty of understanding it, and while this is a considerable difficulty it is not insurmountable. If all we want from metaphysics is to know what logic and reason tell us about the answer for a particular metaphysical question, then we already know this. Whenever we ask whether this as opposed to that selective conclusion about the world-as-a-whole is correct, the answer will be ‘no’. Logic and reason tell us that when we ask whether the world begins with something or nothing, whether it does or does-not have a beginning, whether we have or do-not have freewill, whether we do or do-not exist or any other metaphysical question that presents us with a this or that choice, the only answer that survives critical analysis is the one we have not mentioned in the question.
If we follow the implications of this answer we are led seamlessly from metaphysics into mysticism. This is the reason why so many philosophers cannot, or sometime perhaps will not, go any further than this. The only way forward from here is the Perennial philosophy, but rather than go on this adventure most philosophers prefer to assume metaphysics is so complicated it is incomprehensible. This approach, which requires that we ignore or reject the perennial explanation of metaphysics, is often called ‘Rational’ philosophy, believe it or not.