In the West we are captive to the assumption that what it real is what is obvious or measurable. This attitude causes us to dismiss many things as unreal.

In spite of this biased assumption, reality is not always what it appears to be.

Things Are Not Always What They Seem

In observing those who have been outstandingly successful, we are inclined to assume that wealth and renown bring happiness. Many who have taken that route have discovered that the happiness they sought by pursuing these objectives has been illusive, or hollow.

It is clear that our perceptions of situations are deeply influenced by personal experience, cultural understandings, and our reluctance to face our inadequacies, our true feelings, and our demons.

Our view of ourselves also suffers distortion. Because of the need for psychological equilibrium, we repress what threatens to diminish our self-esteem. If we are able to face ourselves, we discover that who we are is more faithfully represented by our spontaneous reactions, than by our elaborate makeovers. [137]

We sometimes confuse our descriptions of reality with reality itself. We do not appreciate the degree to which language constructs our world. This is not to say that reality is no more than linguistic fabrication.

Our personal perceptions of physical reality, and our attempts at analyzing what we see, can also be challenged. What appears to be bedrock reality is not always so.

The major challenges to the notion of the solidity of matter have come from two quarters--the New Physics and Eastern philosophy.

Quantum Physics, which deals with the smallest packets of matter, with wave functions, and with assumptions regarding space-time, has alerted us to the fact that there is a dimension of physical reality that is not obvious to our senses, whose characteristics defy common sense.

Paramahansa Yogananda expressed the essence of the Easter perspective, when he argued that creation is nothing more than a vast motion picture, beyond which lies reality.⁴⁰ Alan Watts, explaining this insight from a Buddhist perspective, suggested that our deeds, feelings, thoughts, and sensations happen of themselves, like falling rain. We are neither passive, helpless witnesses, nor are we the source of these phenomena. The "I", which we identify as ourselves, is no more than a thought among other thoughts. This thought creates the illusion that we are an entity separate from nature. But there is no separation. Inside and outside is a single stream flowing along of itself.⁴¹

The belief that the real world is not the physical universe, but a causal, spiritual world that lies behind the phenomenological universe, is not a belief confined to Eastern sages. This is evident in the comment of the plant [138] biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, who argued that this vision of a changeless reality, for those who have experienced it, is so powerful, so self-evidently true, that the changing world of everyday experience is the less real world.⁴²

What We See and What We Don't See

We need to attend to what we observe, to what we take to be reality.

Our attending demands rigorous mental discipline.

Cognitive mapping, piecing together the elements of the observable world, and testing our rough hypotheses for consistency and reliability, is important to our mental and psychological health. This cognitive mapping helps orient us, and gives us sufficient security to attend to life's challenges with clarity and optimism.

While we need to take note of what we observe, and to structure our observations, it is also important to challenge the assumption that what we see represents the totality of what is before us.

So few of us do this. As Krishnamurti argued, we are second-hand people, governed by the opinions of others, by our inclinations and tendencies, and by circumstances and our environment. There is nothing new in us, no original, pristine, clear intuition.⁴³ He argued that it is our conditioning, particularly our cultural conditioning, that prevents us from perceiving reality.⁴⁴ [139]

The Larger Question

Having come to understand that our perceptions may be in error, and that we may not be seeing all there is to see, we need to move into the larger question of the nature of reality.

Either-Or Thinking

In looking at ways in which this question has been addressed, it is hard to avoid noticing that those suggesting answers set up dichotomies, and then argue for the truth of one side of the dichotomy.

Particulars and Universals

One area in debate between Plato, and his pupil Aristotle, concerned the question of whether particulars, particular instances of physical entities or intellectual virtues, or universals, the forms or concepts these particular instances embody, represent the foundational reality.

In this debate, between particulars and universals, Plato argued that universals, rather than particular instances of these universals, represented bedrock reality. He contended that reality was rooted in the world of universals--Forms or Ideas--of which particular instances of these things were pale reflections. According to Plato, the archetypal world of Ideas, which lay beyond the phenomena we observe, was the real world.

Aristotle, on the other hand, concerned with logic and scientific inquiry, contended that universals were of secondary importance, and that it was particulars that were important. Universals were merely intellectual constructs resulting from our encountering many instances of the same things. He argued that we build up the concept of "tree", or of beauty, love, or wisdom, through observing many trees, and many expressions of beauty, love, or wisdom. [140]

The debate between Plato and Aristotle set up a dichotomy between particulars and universals, in which master and student championed opposing positions.

Permanence and Flux

A second dichotomy, between permanence and flux, pitted Parmenides against Heraclitus.

Parmenides argued that the universe was a single, unchanging entity. It was indestructible, indivisible, and immobile. Appearances to the contrary were the result of the senses deluding us.

Heraclitus, on the other hand, contended that the universe was in a state of continual flux. He argued that it was made up of pairs of opposites, like plenty and hunger, sickness and health, life and death, and hot and cold. According to Heraclitus, reality was in a continual a state of flux. This did not mean, however, that the universe was totally disordered. The flux was not random, but governed by an underlying order, a type of natural law. He also contended that each element of a dichotomy contained its opposite.

The Old and the New Physics

Early in the twentieth century, it began to be realized that physical reality was not altogether what it appeared to be. The New Physics, particularly quantum mechanics, indicated that there was another dimension of reality, which appeared to contradict the evidence of our senses.

In this quantum dimension, empty space is not empty space, but is filled with interlocking wave functions. At this level of reality, the observer helps construct what they observe. The [141] stuff of the universe is mind stuff. This quantum dimension is non-temporal and non-spatial. It is not imprisoned in chronological time, or subject to restrictions imposed by space.

The development of the New Physics saw the emergence of a new dichotomy, where common sense conclusions, based on observation, were pitted against the insights of quantum mechanics.

East and West

During the later half of last century, when many in the West were beginning to be fascinated by Eastern philosophy, it became obvious that there was a difference between East and West on the question of Reality.

The West, schooled in Aristotelian logic, and proud of its scientific achievements, was only prepared to accept what could be verified by logic or scientific experimentation, usually a combination of both. As Sogyal Rinpoche commented, confined to a narrow, dark cage of our own making, which we took for the whole universe, few were able to imagine another dimension of reality.⁴⁵

The East, on the other hand, without denying the physicality of the universe, argued that what we observe with our senses, while real, is not the fundamental Reality. This Reality is a spiritual essence, or energy, that is responsible for structuring physical reality in such a way that it can be perceived by our senses.

For the Easterner, this deep Reality is spiritually intuited. It is engaged through a process of awareness. If we lack this capacity for awareness, however much knowledge we may have acquired, we will be considered to be in a state of [142] ignorance. As Sangharakshita argued, ignorance is not a lack of intellectual knowledge, but a lack of awareness, a refusal to see things as they really are.⁴⁶ Awareness is a process that allows us to grasp, or be grasped by Reality. As David Steindl-Rast argued, reality reveals, unveils itself, in a revelation that is available to everybody. It gives itself to us, showering us with gifts.⁴⁷

This foundational Reality is discerned, it breaks in upon us, not in bits and pieces, but in its completeness. We become one with that which we are experiencing.

It is through meditation that awareness is fostered. This meditation may take the form of traditional techniques, or focussed attention. Many find traditional techniques helpful. Krishnamurti, on the other hand, argued that formal techniques, by constraining us, work against the development of the awareness they were designed to induce. The approach we take is a matter of personal preference. Alan Watts, summing up the effectiveness of a simple mantra, contended that the power of something so seemingly absurd is that it fosters a relaxed concentration on pure sound--as distinct from words, ideas, or abstractions--thus bringing our attention to reality itself.⁴⁸

According to most Eastern traditions, with the notable exception of Theravadan Buddhism, which has been described as atheistic, this foundational Reality, lying behind physical phenomena, is divine. For the Easterner, the universe is ultimately a spiritual reality; it is a manifestation of Brahman. This Brahmanic essence is discerned, first hand, in our Buddha nature, in the experience of mindfulness. [143]

Ambiguity

It is because we find it difficult to live with ambiguity, particularly with perceptions that appear to be contradictory, that we seek to avoid the resulting tension by championing one interpretation and neglecting others.

The Embracing of Opposites

However, in spite of the tendency to overcome ambiguity by favouring one position, it is only by honouring the valid claims of opposing positions that we can embrace the reality that underlies both.

Particulars and universal are both important. The stuff of the universe is both permanent and in a state of flux. The universe is marked by order and disorder. We need to deal in our day-to-day lives with a stable physical environment. At the same time, it is important that we recognize that we are living in a quantum universe. It is also important for us to recognize the limits of logic and science, and refrain from peremptorily dismissing the possibility of a spiritual dimension.

But How?

How are we to embrace opposites?

How do we integrate the two poles of the most critical of all dichotomies, the question of whether Reality is ultimately physical or spiritual?

David Bohm

One approach to this question draws on the insights of David Bohm, Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College in the University of London. [144]

Bohm argues that an implicate order of existence, the hidden dimension of quantum phenomena, is enfolded within the explicate order, or the world as we observe it.

There are those who have sought to use Bohm's model of quantum reality, of an implicate order enfolded in an explicate order, to argue for the existence of a spiritual realm, beyond the physical.

Ken Wilber rightly contends that it is illegitimate to jump from Bohm's concept of an implicate order, in the realm of quanta and wave functions, to a spiritual order. He is not denying the existence of a spiritual realm, or of a connection between a spiritual realm and the material universe. He is merely suggesting that the use of Bohm's paradigm is an inappropriate way of making this connection. Without further argument, one cannot equate Bohm's implicate order of physical reality with spiritual reality.⁴⁹

What About Us?

Confused by differing interpretations of the real world, we are equally uncertain about how we should regard ourselves. How real are we?

Westerners generally conclude that their bodies and egos are real. Easterners, while comfortable with their bodies, argue that the ego is insubstantial, an impermanent overlay of impressions and memories. According to Watts, Buddhism contends that the ego is not a spiritual, psychological, or biological reality, but a social institution, like the human family, the calendar, the clock, the metric system, and the agreement to drive on the right or left side of the road.⁵⁰ He went on to explain that most forms of Indian philosophy, whether Hindu or Buddhist, view the individual self as, in some sense, an illusion. The Hindus, particularly the [145] Vidantists, argue that the only real self is Brahman, the Self of the Universe. However, as Brahman is beyond conception, their view does not differ significantly from that of the Buddhists, who make no positive statement about the reality behind the illusion of the individual self.⁵¹

Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber seeks to overcome the opposition between East and West by marrying Freud and the Buddha. It is his contention that, while the West has attended to the early stages of human development, the East has concentrated on higher levels of consciousness. Furthermore, he argues that transition through the stages alters our perception of ourselves and what we conceive of as reality. It is not that one perspective is accurate and others inaccurate. What makes the difference is the position we have taken up. Likening our development to climbing a ladder, he argues that the view changes every time we step up another rung.

In more recent years, Wilber has refined his model, arguing that human development does not proceed as a single movement. He contends that there are many different lines of development, explored by a range of researchers. He has identified twenty-seven such lines.⁵² This means that we are on different rungs on different ladders, and that our overall development, represented by the self-system, is loosely located where the developmental indices cluster.

The Quest

Our exploration of reality, however, will never be complete. This should not discourage us from pursuing the quest. As Westerners, this will involve us in exploring what Wilber calls the subtle and causal realms. [146]

As Westerners, unacquainted with higher levels of awareness, we will find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. Nevertheless, our journey can be sustained by meditation.

Meditation is the royal route to awareness, meditation as practiced by the world's major religions, or simpler forms of meditation, like that advocated by Krishnamurti, which involves the bringing of one's total being into focus in the development of the capacity for awareness.⁵³ To enable those listening to him to understand what he meant by "awareness", Krishnamurti described a state of heightened intensity, where the mind, drained of all thought, was completely awake. This awareness could be described as a light in which there was no shadow. In this awareness there is no watcher, though the mind was aware of the timeless intensity. It was itself the flame--clear, intense, innocent.⁵⁴

The consistent experience of contemplatives of all traditions suggests that, in committing ourselves to transpersonal development, we will be drawn into a powerful engagement with a Spiritual Presence, whose energy created and sustains the multiple levels of Reality we are attempting to identify.

The fact that some have never discerned such a Presence should not be off-putting. As Radhakrishnan argued, the reality of spirit is not to be dismissed simply because it is seen only by those who are pure in heart.⁵⁵ Ultimately, as Paramahansa Yogananda commented, the truth is not to be discovered in theory, speculative philosophy, or intellectual insight, but in exact correspondence with reality. It is the unshakable knowledge of our true nature. He went on to argue that Jesus proved that he was aware of the truth of his being, and thus could say, with simple finality, "Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice."⁵⁶ [147]

[ROI 137-147]