Introduction I believe wholeheartedly in modern science, yet I also accept ancient metaphysical beliefs that are often taken to be incompatible with science, such as a belief in something called 'God', or that some part of me will survive the death of the body. Of course, these ideas are vague and the terms must be defined, which I will do as the discussion proceeds. Such beliefs arise through my deep conviction that materialism — or the common modern philosophy that all of reality can be reduced to insentient 'matter' — is fundamentally flawed. Rather, simple and clear reflection on everyday experience strongly suggests, if it does not prove, that the fundamental reality is consciousness, which already brings us much closer to metaphysics. In philosophy, this view is called 'idealism'. Idealistic philosophies are varied, but the fundamental assumption is that mind or consciousness has, in some sense, priority over matter and the apparent external world of brute facts. To be sure, such a view cannot be verified in the same way that scientific truths are verified, i.e. through repeated experiment. Rather, idealism is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of experience, and hence of all facts, including scientific facts. It does not alter or deny them but rather subsumes them. In this sense, there can be no conflict between idealism and science.
Now right off, I have two problems with the word 'God'. The first is less important, namely, that it has acquired many pejorative connotations due to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. In non-Asian regions of the world, the word 'God' tends to suggest an arbitrary tyrant of some sort, who insists on blind belief and worship, and the corresponding religions have often been associated with intolerance and with political turmoil. This is unfortunate but of little concern to the true metaphysician. Nevertheless, since the word 'God' leaves a bad aftertaste, especially in our age of revived religious primitivity, I prefer the word 'divine', which has a pleasing connotation to my ears. The second and more serious problem is that fine religions, such as Buddhism, as well as many intelligent atheists and agnostics, seem not to believe in any notion of God. Am I to call them ignorant or deluded? Certainly not. I will argue on my webpages that Buddhism does have a refined notion of the divine, for those who wish it. At the same time, the sincere Buddhist may simply strive to purify or raise consciousness through meditation and insight, while leaving all metaphysical speculation aside, as the original Buddha is said to have done (though this is not quite correct). As for agnostics and atheists, it is preposterous to assume that their beliefs 'anger' the divine in any way. One should above all be honest to oneself, and I perfectly understand how convincing the materialistic viewpoint can seem to be. I hope that my discussion will at least jog their preconceptions a bit.
If any of the following seems hard to swallow, don't let that slow you down. Just skim through and get the 'spirit' of it. Also, in case I seem to be wantonly indulging myself in 'insane' metaphysics, let me say this. I do disagree with much of the 'metaphysics' that I have encountered, especially in European philosophy. In particular, although Plato and Hegel drew some correct spiritual conclusions, I cannot agree with much of their reasoning. So you see that I am at least selective in my thinking. The following is, in my opinion, at least a highly plausible way of arguing for what I consider the basic tenets of 'spirituality'. In fact, I think that the argument for subjective idealism is irrefutable, the argument for 'God' is convincing and quasi-irrefutable (whatever that means), and only the argument for the ultimate 'unity' of Reality requires more serious thought. This last point was suggested to me by my reading of the 'mystical' literature, whereas subjective idealism has made sense to me ever since college 20 years ago, when I was studying philosophy but before I became engrossed in the topic of mysticism.
Idealism In philosophy, the word Idealism has a different meaning than in ordinary usage. In its strongest form, namely Subjective Idealism, which I advocate, it is the belief that only mind really exists and that matter is an illusion. By mind I mean not just ideas (or thoughts) but any aspect of consciousness, namely, thoughts, feelings and perceptions (sight, sound, touch, taste and smell). By matter I mean the so-called substance that we commonly believe exists distinct from and 'external' to perception and which is taken to be the cause of perception. (This notion of matter would include both the 'mass' and 'energy' of physics.)
Note that I used the words 'aspect of consciousness' rather than the more common expression 'object of consciousness'. The use of the word 'object' is dangerous from a philosophical point of view, since it may suggest that the so-called 'object' is somehow distinct from the consciousness itself. This is emphatically not the case. By 'aspect of consciousness', I mean the awareness itself (of anything) and nothing else. Look at an apple but don't think about it. That is what I mean. And even when you must think about the apple, then view the thoughts as elements in your awareness in their own right, which refer to other perceptions called 'apples'. Do not confuse the two. (If any part of your 'thought' seems to overlap with the perception, then I call that overlap a 'perception' by definition.)
This denial of matter may seem incredible to most people. But in fact, it is totally reasonable, whereas the hypothesis of a material world external to consciousness is what requires a leap of faith. We have not experienced and cannot experience this supposed external material world. We can only postulate it as the source of perception. We believe it exists because we all experience the same perceptions, more or less, when we are in (what we think of as) the same place, so that we feel that there must be something else distinct from perception, some one thing that is the common source of all the similar perceptions that we have. However, it is much simpler and far more justified to simply say that we each have our own perceptions which are coordinated to produce the illusion of a common world. In this sense, reality is but a dream, albeit one that we share in common. This dream is quite vivid, continuous and sustained (while we are awake), and it obeys the laws of physics. It is this behavior that makes us think that the world is external to our consciousness.
Far from being 'metaphysical' or 'mystical', the denial of matter is really a logical application of Occam's razor, the philosophical guiding principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. Only the simplest adequate explanation should be retained, out of a variety of alternatives. Since the existence of matter is utterly unverifiable (as it can never be directly apprehended but only inferred from perception), and since it is utterly useless (as it adds nothing to the realization that our perceptions are coordinated by the laws of physics), then it should be discarded. Notice that nothing in our experience has changed. The sun is still hot, and we still cannot walk through brick walls. The only new thing is the realization that everything in the previous sentence refers to perception and nothing else.
So far, the doctrine of Subjective Idealism is spiritually neutral, in that in neither affirms nor denies anything about Divinity, spirit or the purpose of existence. However, with the addition of a few more ideas, a new view of reality is obtained which can utterly transform our spiritual life, especially if coupled with serious and sustained meditation.
The Source of Being The next important idea is the realization that this consciousness could not simply happen by itself. This is where the notion of 'Divinity' as the source of being is introduced. (Since the existence of matter has been denied, it follows that the only kind of 'being' that remains is consciousness itself. Henceforth, the two terms — being and consciousness — are considered to be interchangeable.) In other words, existence itself is manifestly miraculous, and this forces upon us the realization that there must be a Source that is 'divine' in some sense. Clearly, by 'divine' I mean 'source of its own being', though it may have other properties as well.
To be precise, we should say that our consciousness could not 'happen by itself' if it is conceived of as something other than the Divine. This is how we may originally conceive of it, since we do not know any better. However, if we can demonstrate an identity between our consciousness and this divine source, then one can say that it does 'happen by itself'. So our initial view of consciousness (e.g. that it could not happen by itself) will be modified later in retrospect, as our ideas develop.
Now many philosophers, including those sympathetic to subjective idealism, might say that they see no reason why consciousness could not simply exist. It is just there and that is all that there is to it. All that we can do, and are rationally allowed to do, they would argue, is to realize that this consciousness exists. Any hypothesis for the source of this consciousness, in something other than the immediate consciousness itself, is as unfounded as the material substance that was just denied, and for the same reason: it can never be an object (oops...aspect) of consciousness!
But note that once we realize that all consciousness is divine, then the skeptic and mystic are actually saying the same thing: the source of reality is itself! To the skeptic, this may seem like a vacuous statement, but not to the mystic, since he has experienced the infinity and bliss of consciousness at a deep level. Even those who have not may still feel an appreciation for the mystery and miraculous nature of consciousness/existence, which the skeptic unfortunately lacks.
To respond to the skeptic, I am content to appeal to the intuition that nothing simply happens. The reality of my consciousness, and that of others, seems like nothing short of a miracle to me, which cries out for something of a divine nature as the source of its being. It is simply inconceivable to me that this consciousness simply happens all by itself. At the risk of sounding dogmatic, I must insist that this 'naked intuition' is my ultimate 'reason', and I think that any explanation based on logic for the existence of the Divine Source is ultimately doomed.
Without digressing, let me point out that this kind of thinking is not the answer to a question such as, 'What caused the big bang?' Although there is a superficial resemblance to the classical argument from a 'first cause', in which the existence of God is asserted as necessary to 'set the universe in motion', my argument is fundamentally different. My appeal is to the Divine as the eternal sustainer of all being (i.e. of all consciousness). In other words, the miracle of existence is a continuous and never ending process. All that exists that is other than this Source would vanish in an instant if the sustaining power of the Source were withdrawn. The entire universe hangs forever on less that a spider's thread. The permanent self-sustaining appearance of, say, a stone, is merely an illusion based on its 'hardness' (a mere perception in consciousness) as well as a habit of mind induced by our experience of stones as relatively 'stable' (again a mere sequence of perceptions in consciousness and hence no more 'substantial' than a dream).Furthermore, my notion of the Divine is rather different from the Judaeo-Christian notion of a 'creator'. The Judaeo-Christian (and Islamic) God is an 'infinite entity' of some kind that is distinct from the universe (conceived in a materialistic sense) and that manufactured it, we might say. As the discussion continues, it will become clear that I do identify all consciousness with the Divine Source.
However, there is something else that we can say about the Source, in my opinion. It must be, in some sense, an infinite consciousness, in contrast to our own (seemingly) finite consciousness. What does this mean? For one thing, it seems inconceivable to me that it might be some unconscious principle that blindly sustains the universe. Surely the source of the miracle of consciousness must be an immeasurably vast and intelligent consciousness. In fact, how can we possibly set a limit on this inconceivable 'power'? Just stop to think for a moment what it means to be the 'source of existence'. It is mind-boggling. It would be totally arbitrary to set any kind of limit on this consciousness and this power. So we must call it 'infinite', even though we do not fully understand what the word means.
One might be tempted to ask, 'But what created the Source?' The whole point is that the only possible answer is that the Source is, by definition, the eternal source of its own being, which was never 'created' at some moment of time. We now reach the limits of the conceivable. Clearly, it is a mistake to think that at first there was infinite black space and then the Source somehow 'turned itself on'. Indeed, there was neither 'space' nor 'time' before there was the Source (i.e. before there was consciousness). Space and time are intrinsic to consciousness, just as matter is; there is nothing 'external' to consciousness. Hence, the words 'before the Divine existed' are in fact meaningless. We must accept that it is eternal, which means beyond space and time.
Of course, one always wonders, 'How could an infinitely powerful (and presumably well-intentioned) Conscious Divine Source allow suffering?' That is a thorny and difficult question that I will simply sidestep for now. I will only say that the existence of suffering does not necessarily invalidate anything that has been said so far. How do we know what is possible in the realm of consciousness? How do we know what our 'reality' would be like if the Source simply controlled us like puppets? We might no longer be conscious beings, for reasons that we cannot now fully fathom, but that we might one day understand when we have a deeper insight into the nature of consciousness. (After all, puppets are unconscious.)
Now I would like to discuss the relevance of this to Buddhism. I consider Buddhism, along with Advaita Vedanta, to be the deepest spiritual traditions of mankind. However, I cannot accept those interpretations of Buddhism that insist on atheism, nor do I think that any Buddhist is required to be an atheist. Based on the preceding discussion, I feel that I must believe in some kind of 'Divinity' in the sense of a 'self-created and infinitely conscious source of the miracle of being', much like the Brahman of Hinduism and Advaita. Unless this notion can be shown to be strictly incompatible with Mahayana metaphysics, then I must be allowed to retain it while simultaneously considering Buddhism a window on the truth to which I am very sympathetic. Anyone who says that I must reject all notions of Divinity if I wish to call myself a Buddhist (or a believer in Buddhism among other things) is being too harsh, despite the fact that the word 'God' as such does not appear in the Mahayana literature. Indeed, there are many concepts regarding 'Buddha Nature' that are compatible with this notion of Divinity, though they tend to be far more subtle than the common conception of God.
Note: The ideas discussed so far can be found in 'classical' metaphysics (i.e. before the 20th century). For example, subjective idealism can be found in the writings of the 18th century Irish philosopher Bishop Berkeley, as well as in certain Eastern philosophies, such as the Yogacara school of Buddhism. The argument for God as a sustaining cause can be found in Medieval European philosophy.Notice that none of the foregoing is incompatible with science. Science, properly speaking, simply correlates observed phenomena. All ontology is extraneous to science itself. For example, the supposed 'material' world 'external' to perception of classical physics was a convenient device, in that it was in accord with our common intuition and enabled us to think easily about macroscopic physics problems. It was a natural way to correlate certain regularities in observed phenomena. However, classical physics can be explained in idealistic terms. Euclidean geometry, the foundation of classical Newtonian physics, can be considered as a certain kind of illusion, one that behaves in a certain way, namely, according to the laws of Euclidean geometry. It all has to do with what happens when we make measurements with supposedly 'rigid' rulers. The rulers and the measuring process are all in perception. All observations are by definition acts of perception.
Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, may not be compatible with the notion of a 'materialistic' or 'objective' world 'external' to perception. Many well-known paradoxes are difficult to explain in these terms. There is plenty of literature on this subject.
At any rate, both classical and quantum physics must be compatible with idealism, since all observation occurs in consciousness. All that really exists is consciousness, and any non-idealistic mental constructions, such as that of an 'objective' world 'external' to consciousness, can at best be convenient devices for thinking about problems. (Indeed, I would go so far as to say that even such 'realists' are implicit idealists. Whenever they think of 'external' bodies moving in 'space', they are really always thinking of processes in perception — only they do not realize it. See my Philosophy Page.)
The fact that many professional scientists may still have a personal preference for materialism or realism is irrelevant. The reason that my kind of metaphysics is no longer popular is not because of science. It is because people have become 'metaphysically dense'! (I'd like to blame it on television, but it started long before that!)
Pantheism Pantheism is the idea that the Divine and the universe are the same. This notion may seem startling and even shocking at first, but it becomes far more plausible once the basic doctrine of Idealism is accepted. As we have seen, Idealism asserts that we and the universe are nothing but consciousness. Idealistic Pantheism goes further and asserts that this consciousness is identical to the infinite consciousness that is the Source. Although I am not as certain of this as I am of subjective idealism, I currently accept this idea. My basic reason can perhaps best be illustrated in terms of a simile that frequently appears in Eastern religious thought. If the Divine is 'infinite consciousness', like an infinite ocean, and if our mind is 'finite consciousness', like a drop of water, and if the immediate presence of the Source is necessary to sustain the existence of all finite conscious 'beings', then it seems to me inevitable that the drop is swallowed up by the ocean.
Why must the sustaining presence of the Source be 'immediate' and in the same 'location' as my consciousness? The answer is perhaps a bit technical. Suffice it to say that, on my philosophy page, I argue that space is within consciousness, so that there is no kind of space outside of consciousness, in which consciousness might be 'contained'. Indeed, everything is within consciousness, since external space is banished for the same reason as matter. Therefore, we must not think of the Divine Consciousness as being 'over here' and the consciousnesses of finite beings as being 'over there'. Everything occurs 'within' Consciousness, including space and time, so that the sustaining presence of the Source must also be conceived as within my consciousness and yours. (Even the word 'within' is misleading in that it implies an 'outside'. Here, 'within' simply means 'the same as'.)Along these lines, let me quote from the great Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki on his concept of God: "If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in the world and the world in God." (D. T. Suzuki, The Field of Zen, p. 16.)
You may object that we should then share all of the attributes of the Divine and therefore be entirely identical to it, enjoying unlimited bliss and no suffering, and so on. Clearly that has not happened, at least not yet. I believe that the answer is that the presence of the Divine is hidden within our own consciousness like some brilliant effulgence that is covered by the clouds of ignorance. Aha! Those who are already familiar with Buddhism can see intimations of the Buddha Nature, which we will get to shortly.
However, it is in a way misleading to say that our true divine nature is hidden by the clouds of ignorance. It suggests a separation between our consciousness and that of the Divine. In fact, I believe that the immediate underlying 'substance' of our own consciousness is none other than this divine consciousness, just as the drop is not distinct from the ocean. This immediate underlying substance of our consciousness is simply awareness itself, which is our essential 'being' or 'nature' (and that is why I call it 'substance'). What makes us imperfect or unenlightened is that this awareness has taken on a certain 'form' or 'quality' which is undesirable. Just as gold can be shaped into all kinds of jewelry, so can consciousness take on any shape, any color, any feeling and any idea. (The analogy to gold is taken from the Vedanta but is also found in Hua Yen Buddhism.)
Our purpose here in this life is to develop and 'educate' our consciousness towards a desirable goal, and this desirable goal is none other than enlightenment or mystical realization of our intrinsic divinity. It is a paradox that we were never distinct in substance but only in the manifestation of this substance, which arises from ignorance. Why does the ignorance exist? I do not know, but I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the Divine is trying to 'reproduce' itself, which is a mathematical impossibility. Hence, suffering was the price to pay for the mathematical impossibility. That is the best I can offer; I do not have all the answers. Anyhow, as Buddha said, we should not spend too much time wondering why we are pierced by the arrow of ignorance and who or what did it, but instead we should concentrate on removing the arrow and furthering our spiritual development.
Specifically, I can think of at least two ways in which our present manifestation of consciousness is imperfect. First, when we are angry or full of hate, then a demon has grabbed us by the throat and poison fills our blood. This occurs when certain negative ideas channel the energy of consciousness into a chaotic and destructive configuration. We do not hate until we first form the idea of an adversary, which in turn is dependent on the idea of a self. Even if we are engaged in legitimate self-defense, the concept of an injured ego greatly inflames our feelings and leads to cruel and violent thoughts and actions far beyond what is necessary.Second, even when we are not poisoned by such emotions, our consciousness might still be in a desensitized state, in which we fail to see the beauty and feel the joy of life. We might then try to find satisfaction from various forms of sense gratification, which while not inherently 'bad', nevertheless fall far short of the inspiration and bliss of angels. (An 'angel' is just any spiritually developed being, but why not bring a little imagination into this?) It is my belief that anyone who experiences true inspiration will agree that it is a 'higher' state of consciousness and preferable to any limited form of hedonism. We 'approach' our intrinsic divinity as the quality and intensity of this inspiration and bliss rise to infinity. There are states of consciousness far beyond anything that we can now imagine. Indeed, there may be no limit to what consciousness can experience.
There is some deep and mysterious reason why the Source must temporarily 'allow' our consciousness to be finite and imperfect, not to mention cruel and perverted. I think that it must be closely related to the fact that we are under the illusion that we are distinct beings, which leads to egoism until we develop wisdom. This illusion exists so that the Divine can 'multiply' its joy in being, but the illusion also behaves according to cause and effect, which explains why our personality develops as it does. (We should want it to behave according to cause and effect, because the alternative is chaos.) The whole purpose of life is to properly 'educate' this illusion, by somehow eradicating destructive causes and tendencies and 'planting' good ones.
No one can deny this illusion, and do we not usually cling to our 'life' no matter what happens to us? So there exists, at least at a 'phenomenological' level, countless conscious beings who are glad to be alive, or who will be once they achieve enlightenment. The Divine is trying to 'multiply' its joy in its own existence by creating a vast spectacle called the 'universe' where countless 'children' are created from its own flesh (i.e. consciousness) to enjoy the dream called life. This must surely be the reason that we exist, but evidently it required a period of formation and spiritual evolution, during which we did very nasty things to each other while we were learning to be nice.
We cannot be truly distinct beings, if the same Universal Consciousness underlies and sustains our own apparent being. However, it is undeniable that we seem to be different beings — different consciousnesses — each enjoying and suffering our own separate life. So I must rest my case with this apparent paradox. Perhaps someone wiser than I knows the answer.
Monism Finally, I will discuss Monism — the belief that 'All is One' in some sense. Now everybody's mind has just been reduced to the Divine Consciousness. This includes the 'external universe', which according to Idealism is no more than our consciousness of it, matter having been banished from existence. So only the Divine Consciousness truly exists, the rest being mere appearance. If this Divine Consciousness can be shown to be fundamentally a Unity, in some sense, then it follows that All is One.
My ideas regarding Monism are still under development. Although I have believed in Idealism ever since I was a philosophy student in college, I never felt particularly attracted to the concept of Monism until more recently, when I started studying the mystical literature of the world (including Buddhism and Vedanta). There is a very noticeable tendency for mystical writings to take a monistic (as well an idealistic) slant. In fact, Monism is at the core of the Advaita Vedanta, but it is also at least implicit in much of Mahayana. Having reflected on it for a while, I can begin to see reasons why this might be true. I can only sketch a few of these reasons.
To begin with, I will never accept a philosophy that simply denies that I perceive a multitude of shapes and colors when I open my eyes. This much is self-evident, and no reasonable philosophy or religion asks us to be irrational. (Zen may come close, but this is not to deny but rather to transcend ordinary discriminative thinking in order to reach a 'higher state of consciousness'. We will discuss something similar to this when we get to Emptiness.)
Now how might consciousness, with all its multitudinous shapes and colors, be a Unity? Well, for the shapes and colors to be truly distinct, they would have to be in some kind of space, just like the 'external space' of materialism, would they not? And has not this external space been refuted, according to the fundamental principle of idealism? This is not to deny that the shapes and colors appear distinct. But this may just be an illusion in the same sense as external space itself is an illusion.
Furthermore, I have always been intrigued by the fact that consciousness can see many things (or 'pixels') all at once — in an instantaneous 'snapshot' we might say — and form all the details of perception into a single whole. We take this for granted, but upon closer reflection, this aspect of consciousness is not so trivial and is even a bit miraculous. Why don't the 'pixels' of consciousness simply disintegrate into infinitesimal atoms of consciousness? What holds it all together? I can intuitively sense that there is indeed a mysterious essential unity to consciousness, but I cannot yet put my finger on it.
I think that 'mystics' are far more sensitive to this unity of consciousness than ordinary people. In fact, the crystallization of consciousness into a diamond-like unity may be the salient characteristic of the mystical experience. (Actually, this cute metaphor may be quite misleading in some ways. Please take it with a considerable grain of salt.) At some time, I hope to develop these suggestive notions into a more detailed and coherent philosophy.