Platonism and Mental Constructions

April 30, 2023

Platonism and Mental Constructions

Recently I’ve been reading a book that is focused on the history and practice of Saivism.  Saivism is a Dharmic tradition and I have posted before about how Platonism, in some aspects, is comparable to Dharmic traditions in ways that help illuminate what Platonism is about.  But that isn’t always the case.

The book, particularly when it focuses on the history of Saivism, notes that there are dual and non-dual interpretations of Saivism.  The author is relentlessly of the view that the non-dual interpretations are superior to the dualistic interpretations.  This is a very widespread belief in the West among those who think of themselves as teaching from a Dharmic tradition’s perspective; for example this is true of Western Vedanta and Western Mahayana Buddhism.  Among Western teachers and adherents of these traditions it is taken for granted that non-dualism is superior to dualism.

(As an aside, I suspect that his elevation of non-dualism above dualism replicates Western supersessionism, also known as ‘replacement theology.’  Supersessionism is the view that one tradition’s teaching is more complete than a previous tradition.  For example, Christianity supersedes, or replaces, Judaism.  Islam supersedes Christianity.  And Bahai supersedes Islam.  The supersessionism of Christianity also applies to Western philosophy wherein Christianity interprets its teachings as ‘completing’ the teachings of philosophy, particularly Platonism.  My view is that non-dualism in the West is a teaching that has some of the features of Western supersessionism in that non-dualism considers itself more complete than dualistic teachings.)

Reading this book on Saivism got me to thinking of how to place Platonism in the dualist/non-dualist debate.  Is Platonism dualistic or is it a non-dualist tradition?  I don’t think it is an easy call to come down on one side or the other.  In a sense Platonism can be understood as dualistic because the One is ultimate otherness and utterly unlike material, sensory, experience and objects.  Looked at from another perspective, you could say that Platonism is a non-dual teaching because the One is the only truly real ‘thing;’ everything else is deficient in unity, in goodness, in manifesting eternity. 

Thinking about this, I tentatively came to the conclusion that Platonism doesn’t really fit into this discussion regarding dual and non-dual teachings.  I think that makes sense because the dual/non-dual divide emerged in India and was a specific concern of Indian spiritual and religious culture.  Outside of India this discussion does not seem to have appeared; for example, in China I don’t see the Taoists and Confucians arguing along lines that can be mapped on to dualism vs. non-dualism.  Similarly, in the West, in the Classical period, I don’t think this issue was of concern and I don’t think it is touched on in a way that we can recognize or map onto Indian systems.  In contrast, the question of free will is of major concern for Western philosophy and religion, but it is not a major focus outside of the West.

I sometimes find Western teachers of non-dualism frustrating.  The presentation of Western non-dualism seems to be merged with Western psychology, taken as a kind of therapy, and lacking in the foundational commitments that were, and are, of great importance to Indian non-dual teachings.  In addition, Western non-dualism often seems to me to be used to support the West’s hyper-individualism; e.g. ‘you are perfect just as you are.’

My own view is that dualism and non-dualism are metaphysical tools.  Dualism has explanatory value in certain contexts as does non-dualism; but I don’t think it is accurate to see one of these as superior to the other; that would be like saying a screw driver is superior to a hammer. 

These kinds of teachings, really methods of analysis, are mental fabrications.  That doesn’t mean they are useless, but it does mean that understanding these systems is not the goal of spiritual practice.  The goal of spiritual practice in Platonism is beyond affirmation or negation; it is the One that is beyond name and form.  It is arrived at through contemplation.

More important than these analytical approaches, like dualism and non-dualism, are the spiritual practices and exercises that constitute the means whereby purification takes place.  An analogy might help:  We can analyze a sonnet taking an historical approach or a grammatical approach.  Neither of these approaches will teach you how to write a sonnet; you need to internalize the rules of the form so that you become a vessel for the writing of a sonnet.  In a similar way, the basic teachings of asceticism in Platonism, found prominently in Phaedo, but scattered throughout the Dialogues of Plato and the Enneads of Plotinus, and many other Platonist writers, are the means whereby the practitioner internalizes the truth of the Platonic path.  It is the spiritual practices of purification, such as non-harming, sexual restraint, abstaining from alcohol, and abstaining from killing animals either for food or for the purposes of religious sacrifice (and therefore a vegetarian/vegan approach to life), that transform the practitioner of Platonism into a Sage; it is the practices of purification that lead, step by step, to that which transcends the material realm; it is the practices of purification that align the soul of the practitioner with the Good, the One, the Beautiful, and with that which is Eternal.