So which point of view is "true"?

Is physical reality fundamental, with awareness arising from it as an epiphenomenon?

Or is Cartesian dualism, with its equal but separate physical and mental realms how things "really" are?

Or is awareness fundamental, with apparent physical reality appearing within awareness?

Our training in science and logic tends to make us think that one of these points of view must be "true" while the others must be "wrong".

However, there are plenty of areas of life in which different "truths" are operative in different contexts. Merchants in the US generally won't accept Indonesian currency in a financial transaction. Merchants in Indonesia generally want Indonesian currency. Indonesian currency is "true" in Indonesia while US currency is "true" in the US.

In the US, "truth" is that traffic moves on the right side of the road. In Britain, "truth" is that traffic moves on the left side of the road.

In designing and conducting scientific experiments, reductionism is useful in isolating variables so they can be manipulated and studied individually. In nutrition, reductionism doesn't seem to work -- vitamin supplements have been shown to be much less effective than whole, unrefined plant foods.

Similarly, the different philosophical perspectives are useful in different contexts for different purposes. The physical assumption is useful for understanding how physical reality behaves (science). The Cartesian duality assumption can be useful in understanding psychological and religious concepts. The non-duality assumption is useful for cultivating peace of mind.

Our mental habits encourage us to see a conflict among the different perspectives. Seeing through those habits can help us see how each perspective can be useful in different contexts.

#1 #2 #3 #4