Reality

[Ram]

I dont want to derail the other thread, so here goes:

And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.

Advaita's definitions regarding reality:
Real: One which has not been sublated.( defined in a neagtive sense actually)
Vishsitadvaitin's definition will look like:
Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality or having verifiable existence.
The problems regarding a negative defintion is that there is no frame of reference to know what is sublated or not, and not a particularly useful definition in a practical context.

I would think that the idea of different levels of reality are very reasonable. But I certainly disagree with the advatin idea of snake-rope type of reality.

My idea would be roughly like this:

All perception in the world have to be relative. For example, a blind man, a myope and a keen sighted individuals dont percieve the same thing. They might look at the same mango, but see different objects in their brain. The object was the same, but they saw it differently.

Secondly, mammals such as bat have a different sense perception than humans, which enable them to move at night. (infra red vision). So, the concept of relative perception is not exactly wrong. These are cases of relative truth, where the object itself is real, viz the mango. One might not see it ( because he is blind), one might see a blurred image( myopic) while one might see a clear mango there. Again, the mango seen under a microscope reveals more details than viewed with the naked eye. All these are examples of different types of perception where one does not sublate the other. In all these cases, the mango is real, but the problem of perception is with the viewer or his instrument.

In another example, the sky appears blue. Does it have an intrinsic blue color?


The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the air molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Thus there is really no blue color in the sky, and is only an optical phenomenon ( rather an illusion). Similarly, the sky appears black when viewed from the moon, because it has no atmsophere to scatter light.
Another example would be a mirage in the desert. These are examples where the false percpetion is sublated in the absence of the cause that produces the illusion. Can we classify the "blue sky" as unreal? What is that to be called as unreal - is it the "blueness"?

Proper definitions of real and unreal can be very tricky

Let us take the case of real and complex numbers.
Square-root of -1, also known as i, is called an unreal number because its value does not lie in the domain of real numbers, -inf to +inf.

An ordinary Euclidean space has the axes x,y and z,. This is considered to be the real space from our perspective, and forms the substate of the universe we percieve? Gnerally, time is taken to be a dimension, so we have a xyzt plane.

So what about astral beings? Do they live in this space? Are they real or unreal or sometimes real and sometimes unreal? By astral beings, I am referring to the spirits and ghosts that humans encounter occasionally.

This is my own theory:

The astral beings have a greater degree of freedom ( dimension essentially means a degree of freedom) than human beings, and live in a n-dimensional space, where n>4. Let us assume that astrals usually reside in the complex plane uvw where each axes is mutually perpendicular to the xyzt space.

Thus, we have two completely different spaces - xyzt and a high dimesnional space xyzuvwt, in which astral beings and devatas reside. Brahmanda, as we will see from the puranas has 7 worlds, my own view is , this is the xyzuvwt space, the 7 dimensional space. All these worlds are subject to Kala, the time, and hence the t there.

So when do human beings encounter devas and spirits? When these beings move on the real space that intersects our perception, in time and space co-ordinates in xyz.

From our perspective, the plane uvw is the complex space and can be described as unreal. But it can still be described by a mathematical model perfectly. Seen from the uvw space alone, a being will find xyz space as unreal.

So by this concept, the terms real and unreal are just relative.

Like this there are countless Brahmandas in the cosmic realm, each with its 7D space, and remaining mutually unreal to each other.

Bhagwan, is way beyond these descriptions of finite dimensions,and time. Does he see all these Brahmandas as real? Or lives in his own separate infinite dimensioned space? That should decide the million dollar question on what is real and what is not. If the Lord "sees" something as real, it is absolutely real. If the Lord does not, it is just relatively real.

If you get to Vaikunta, you should know the answer. Vaikunta in my view is an infinite dimensioned space( plus many things we cant imagine) outside the realm of these counless 7 dimensioned Brahmandas.