Is there a reality?

Akila Weerasekera

Is there a reality? Is there an ultimate truth? If so what is reality, what is the ultimate truth? Can we know about this reality? Is logical positivism (Logical empiricism) a way of understanding or explaining that reality or the truth? Can there be a reality according to Buddhism? These are some of the philosophical questions humans pondered for ages. When I was young I had a pre-conceived idea that ultimately modern science would be able to explain everything in the universes. At a certain time logical positivism seemed to explain a lot of questions I had. So it is inevitable to think that it would explain the ultimate. As time went by, a drastic change in my life and in my ideas occurred as a result of a single book, which now has become my "bible". The book is called "Mage Lokaya" (My World) by Professor Nalin de Silva.

Recently the staunch dialectic materialist, Vickramabahu Karunaratne seems to have undertaken the nugatory attempt of critiquing Professor Nalin de Silva's 'Mage Lokaya', the book which is the first step towards a new philosophy (paticasampuppadin). According to this confused Marxist/Materialist and his so-called Buddhist-idealist scholars, Professor Nalin's "Mage Lokaya" is nothing more than an idealistic point of view (vinnanavadi) of the world. Also, they attempt to show how Professor Nalin's philosophy is against the contemporary Buddhist ideology and question its epistemological validity. But they never have or will not be able to give a translucent explanation or a proof from where they stand in their beliefs.

In one of his recent article Vikramabahu Karunaratne says that he had already answered (interpreted) Professor Nalin's "Mage Lokaya". The truth of the matter is that the idealists and the materialists have yet to answer any of the questions Professor Nalin has put forward in a lucid form. If there is a reality apart from the mind, how can one show that it exists apart from the mind? Did Buddha ever mention attaining Nibbana is the realization of an ultimate truth (ultimate happiness is different from an ultimate truth)? According to Abhidhamma Supra-mundane Nibbana is the only absolute reality. How ever it does not mean the understanding of a absolute reality or an objective reality. How can one say that with the help of science we are getting closer to the truth while we don't even know what that truth is? These are some of the basic questions which the materialists and idealists have yet to comment on.

Anyone who reads the book with a rational mind can understand that Professor Nalin's new philosophy is neither idealistic nor materialistic. Furthermore, the primary goal of the book is to deny any sort of an idealism or materialism.

The materialists from the west and the east attempted to reduce all phenomena to a materialist base. On the other hand, Buddhist idealists and the western (Greeks) idealists wanted to show that the so-called material world is a creation of the mind. In "Mage Lokaya" Professor Nalin presents a different approach to both idealists and materialists point of views. This approach is being called the constructive relativism (CR) (nirmanathmaka sapekshythawadaya). This ideology (chinthanaya) goes parallel with the Theravada view of the "world" is due to anicca (impermanence), dukka (suffering), anatma (soullessness) and sunya (nothing: not to be confused with the Madhyamika concept of nothingness, sunyatawa). So in constructive relativism, what the world as an observer "sees" is solely created by the observer due to the ignorance (avidya) of anicca, dukka and anatma. Also, according to constructive relativism, anicca, dukka, anatma, shunya and Nibbana are not concepts. In a nutshell, according to constructive relativism nothing is "real", even the so-called mind does not exist. What does it mean anicca, dukka, anatma are not concepts? It means that they cannot be grasped by the so-called mind either in terms of other concepts or as an image. I think it is clear to everyone how the materialist point of view differs from constructive relativism. Now, how is the idealist point of view differs from constructive relativism? According to CR, the mind is also a creation of the mind. Then the view of mind being supreme or the mind creates everything could not be right. The denial of the mind comes at the very end of non-conceptual realization of anicca, dukka and anatma. Until that the term mind is being used to present the flux or the stream of 'cittas'. In this view the mind is not an absolute and does not have an independent existence.

Constructive relativism states that the world is nothing but a creation of the observer, and that the world is same as the knowledge of the world. In this approach it is not assumed that a world exist independent of the observer who attempts to gather "information" of an already existing world. The observer creates the knowledge of the world, and hence the world is relative to the culture, sense organs and the mind of the observer. The world is a conceptual creation of the observer.

Then the non-conceptual understanding of anicca, dukka and anatma leads to supreme bliss or in other words attaining Nibbana. At this point the mind is also considered to be non-existing (also at this point there is no "person"). In that view Professor Nalin describes attaining Nibbana as knowing the non-existing mind is a non-existing mind by the non-existing mind. It is hard for us lay people to grasp this idea since it transcends the limits of thought. Also the cyclic nature and the use of four fold logic makes this new philosophy a unique philosophy which in accord with early Buddhism. Until we destroy the I(ness), mamatvaya, we will have difficulty of fully understanding or comprehending this new philosophy. At a time where some people dreams of attaining Nibbana using Marxism and at a time science is looking for a new paradigm, Professor Nalin de Silva gets our genuine appreciation for the unique interpretation of Theravada Abhidhamma, and the creation of constructive relativism.