How real is the world?

[Kapalika]

I kind of feel like because a lot of philosophical ground puts the world up as illusionary, people think that means they can change that illusion through supernatural means.

But that doesn't seem to be true. It seems to be that if we live in such a world that is wholly mental that it's much more robust and consistent when actually measured, and that it's our perception of these breaks in natural law that is the illusion. If you believe actual measurements and in the process of science, anyway.

But it is true that we have an interlocking set of illusions in how we see the world. Our personal experience, our senses, are not totally accurate and we need outside things to check for us and be consistent. Does this make the world more real? I think it does, in a sense. To me, the physical world is more real than say our dream world, which relies on the physical world to exist.

But that doesn't mean that the physical world is the most real thing, rather I think there is a core essence that makes up both physical and mental things that transcends both as the most "real" thing. And perhaps Moksha is breaking those illusions and seeing everything for what it really is and realizing your inseparable nature with that most real essence. And part of that is why I think that science is ultimately good, as it chips away at some of those illusions and makes it easier for people to see the consistent physical world for what it really is... which will help them reach better conclusions about that true reality (Brahman) that the physical world rests on.

If it wasn't for science a lot of the world would still think that the Earth was the center of the Universe in a small Solar System and not very old. But most of the world now knows that it's closer to what a lot of Dharmic-religions' texts have said and that it's at least billions of years old and insanely huge.

Just my opinion from a Jnana Yoga kind of perspective as I understand it. I just wanted to share and ask others their views on the matter to gain a wider perspective on others' thoughts

 

[Tumah]

The same amount of real as we are.

 

[George-ananda]

I just wanted to share and ask others their views on the matter to gain a wider perspective on others' thoughts

I think Brahman as you said is the only ultimate real. However all the many planes of nature are the reality for beings currently experiencing on those planes. Brahman's play of the universe is just that; the opportunity to experience finiteness in relative realities.

By the way: Why call your religion 'atheistic mysticism' when you believe in Brahman? I think I understand why, but on a forum centered around western people the term 'atheistic' I think gives the wrong impression.

 

[Valjean]

When I sleep I dream. The dreams are my reality -- while dreaming. I don't notice limitations or inconsistencies.
Real? Illusion? Both?

When I wake, the reality/illusion disappears, replaced by a new, more persistent reality/illusion. This dream is more developed and orderly. Limitations and inconsistencies can be discerned, though, if you look closely.

But, according to Hinduism, this 'third-state' reality is no less an illusion (maya) than second-state dreaming. neither confers full awareness of the quantum-relativistic Reality described by theoretical physics.

The ultimate goal, in Hinduism, is a sort of super awakening; a massive sensory and mental expansion in which the whole of Reality is directly perceived. Over the centuries many techniques -- Yogas -- have been developed to induce such a cosmic psychosis.

 

[Kapalika]

I think Brahman as you said is the only ultimate real. However all the many planes of nature are the reality for beings currently experiencing on those planes. Brahman's play of the universe is just that; the opportunity to experience finiteness in relative realities.

By the way: Why call your religion 'atheistic mysticism' when you believe in Brahman? I think I understand why, but on a forum centered around western people the term 'atheistic' I think gives the wrong impression.

I don't wish to imply that I have any kind of supernaturalistic interpretation. Pantheist may be more fitting, but that doesn't have the connotation of my extreme skepticism towards supernaturalistic claims. I used to believe in that stuff and was a pantheist then too, so it's an important distinction to me to establish myself as aligned with skepticism as I am spirituality.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't wish to imply that I have any kind of supernaturalistic interpretation. Pantheist may be more fitting,

Pantheist would be supernatural in my and conventional understanding.

What is this Brahman and Moksha you mentioned without the so-called supernatural?

Without the so-called supernatural isn't the physical the only 'real'?

What does Jnana Yoga teach us but that our consciousness is One/Brahman? Isn't that supernatural?

 

[Kapalika]

Pantheist would be supernatural in my and conventional understanding.

I know those who would disagree; many mean it in a more naturalist sense of the word. Some have even described it as "sexed up atheism". But I think that is somewhat misrepresentation of what it's really about and ignoring it's roots in theism.

What is this Brahman and Moksha you mentioned without the so-called supernatural?

Why do they *need* to be supernatural? The idea of the supernatural is inherently self contradictory, in my opinion. Rather Brahman is the truest nature that resides in all things, not something transcendent of nature, but simply transcendent of the illusion of nature we create.

Without the so-called supernatural isn't the physical the only 'real'?

Only if you are a materialist, which isn't necessarily naturalistic. Although it almost always is these days.

What does Jnana Yoga teach us but that our consciousness is One/Brahman? Isn't that supernatural?

I would use the same reason as i said to answer about supernaturalism before. Revelation and learning isn't a supernatural process. A point in my original post was essentially saying that proper science is a non-personal parallel to Jnana Yoga in my opinion. There doesn't have to be anything supernatural going on for me to sit down, meditate, and realize some deeper aspect about the world around me and my connection to it. Moksha simply takes that type of thing further to the most extreme logical conclusion possible. In my opinion, any attempt at Moksha without some form of authentic understanding will create as many illusions as it does true revelations. And that's the trap many fall into, either thinking they themselves or others have reached that end when really it's more *like* an infinite path.

 

[George-ananda]

I know those who would disagree; many mean it in a more naturalist sense of the word. Some have even described it as "sexed up atheism". But I think that is somewhat misrepresentation of what it's really about and ignoring it's roots in theism.




Why do they *need* to be supernatural? The idea of the supernatural is inherently self contradictory, in my opinion. Rather Brahman is the truest nature that resides in all things, not something transcendent of nature, but simply transcendent of the illusion of nature we create.



Only if you are a materialist, which isn't necessarily naturalistic. Although it almost always is these days.



I would use the same reason as i said to answer about supernaturalism before. Revelation and learning isn't a supernatural process. A point in my original post was essentially saying that proper science is a non-personal parallel to Jnana Yoga in my opinion. There doesn't have to be anything supernatural going on for me to sit down, meditate, and realize some deeper aspect about the world around me and my connection to it. Moksha simply takes that type of thing further to the most extreme logical conclusion possible. In my opinion, any attempt at Moksha without some form of authentic understanding will create as many illusions as it does true revelations. And that's the trap many fall into, either thinking they themselves or others have reached that end when really it's more *like* an infinite path.

We probably pretty much agree. Our difference might be our understanding of the word 'supernatural'. Ultimately, if it's real it is 'natural', I think we would both agree. I am seeing the term supernatural as meaning beyond the physical; but natural. This term is in opposition to the position of 'materialism'.

 

[Kapalika]

We probably pretty much agree. Our difference might be our understanding of the word 'supernatural'. Ultimately, if it's real it is 'natural', I think we would both agree. I an seeing the term supernatural as meaning beyond the physical; but natural. This term is in opposition to the position of 'materialism'.

I'd hold that anything nonphysical (like wealth, love, platonic objects, numbers) are "real" but not supernatural. Same as "spirits" for a lack of better words which I'd essentially put into the same category ontologically as the other examples I gave.

I'm a neutral monist, and a lot of those nonphysical things depend on physicality to exist and so not all of them can be attributed to a supernatural nature because it can't be transcendent of it.

In my belief Brahman may be supernatural in this sense, but it doesn't really matter if it is since that would then make the essence of everything else supernatural, and make any distinction between the two pointless. Supernaturalism normally implies that it can somehow "defy" the natural laws. On the contrary I believe that natural laws are the consequence of Brahman itself and wholly consistent.

Saying I believe in supernaturalism leads to a bunch of connotations and assumptions about belief in supernatural-phenomena I *don't* believe in. Rather I think that kind of alleged phenomena is just an illusion of human perception.

However the use of that perception (false or not) as a tool can be useful for a deeper appreciation and understanding of nature, since it *is* a consequence of that physical reality that it rests on, which in theory can then chain back to understanding Brahman on-top of which our material world exists. Likewise learning about physical reality through science is a useful way to infer things about the nature of Brahman, who is neither material neither abstract, but just
"is".

Where would this agree with you or disagree with you? Thank you for your responses thus far

 

[Aupmanyav]

You see, Mandi, Brahman being the sole constituent of the universe, all things are real only. But the form that we perceive them in is not real, and is liable to change with time. So there are two realities, the perceived reality in our day-to-day life and a reality where only the unchanging exists. None of the realities can be disregarded and both have to be addressed suitably. That means, do whatever is required for 'Vyavaharika' (the perceived reality) and at the same time, do not forget the 'Parmarthika' (the absolute reality).

 

[George-ananda]

I'd hold that anything nonphysical (like wealth, love, platonic objects, numbers) are "real" but not supernatural.

Agree!

Same as "spirits" for a lack of better words which I'd essentially put into the same category ontologically as the other examples I gave.

Here I am not clear. 'Spirits' I believe are real but not part of the physical world as it is typically understood. That is where I use the word 'supernatural'. Would you?

 

[StarryNightshade]

*Mod Post*

Thread moved to Philosophy sub-forum ​

 

[That one dude...]

The world is incredibly real. If there's a scale or different grades of reality, the world is the most real that is possible.
Complications arise when you account for the fact that people have different worldviews (perceptions of reality).
For example, is climate change real? How old is the world? How did it get here?
There may be different answers to these questions because people's perceptions differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the world is real.

 

[Matthew Jordan]

 

[Valjean]

The world is incredibly real. If there's a scale or different grades of reality, the world is the most real that is possible.
Complications arise when you account for the fact that people have different worldviews (perceptions of reality).
For example, is climate change real? How old is the world? How did it get here?
There may be different answers to these questions because people's perceptions differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the world is real.

Eh... not so Real.

Weltansicht, climate change, teakettles...the world itself -- all part of a subjective reality, all part of a virtual reality program we're currently running.
No the world is not Objectively Real. It is an abstraction; a simulation created in the brain from sensory inputs; a neurological artifact.. The simulation lets us navigate an imaginary world well enough to survive and continue the game, but it has no resemblance to the Reality described by physics or mysticism.

 

[That one dude...]

Eh... not so Real.

Weltansicht, climate change, teakettles...the world itself -- all part of a subjective reality, all part of a virtual reality program we're currently running.
No the world is not Objectively Real. It is an abstraction; a simulation created in the brain from sensory inputs; a neurological artifact.. The simulation lets us navigate an imaginary world well enough to survive and continue the game, but it has no resemblance to the Reality described by physics or mysticism.

How does one go about proving such a reality? Or disproving the world?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Moksha simply takes that type of thing further to the most extreme logical conclusion possible. In my opinion, any attempt at Moksha without some form of authentic understanding will create as many illusions as it does true revelations.

Could you say what you mean by "authentic understanding" here? Do you mean insight as opposed to belief?

 

[Banjankri]

How real is the world?

Depends on the definition of reality and the world.