Is there any type of concreteness in this world?

[Jedi]

What is the truth of this world? I mean really , when we think about it , what is it? Do we really see what is out there? I mean, really whatever we think is true could be all relative. From cosmology, biochemistry , to sleeping, eating and the most basic actions... all are relative and all are in the context of what our consciousness sees. As a student of biochemistry, I am going to be probably brainwashed in the future to think of all things in terms of molecules, but then again a physicist may explain everything in terms of physics, a religious figure may explain the reality in terms of his religion. A yogi may explain it differently, but what is the real truth? Is there such a thing? Do I even make sense? I feel like there is no concrete truth and even if there is such a thing can we possibly go beyond our senses to actually experience it?

[philuk]

can we possibly go beyond our senses to actually experience it?
As a normal man form my experience I would say not easily. But then again it's probably the fact we think we exist as normal men that stops us experiencing it.

The fact we think we exist is just a play of the brain I would guess.

All we think about ourselves has no basis in truth in my experience. When I search for myself it's nowhere to be found.

Beyond this I still relay on the teachings of those who have experienced it.

[BlackBillBlake]

An interesting question. By 'concrete' I assume you mean the opposite of 'ideal'.

The tendency is to think of the outer experiential world as concrete, and the realm of ideas, and that of the spirit as ideal - or as lacking in the percieved 'solid' substance of the world.
But what is concrete? Surely that all depends on our perception. To the materialist, the world is concrete. But if that materialist looks into even the truth of modern physics, it will soon be discovered that none of what seems so fixed and definite in the world of forms is so - 'concreteness' is reducible to either particles or energy waves.
To the mystic, spiritual realities may seem more concrete than the physical world. Sri Krishnaprem once described Krishna as 'the concrete of concretes' - the very essence of essential being.

So it seeme to me that one will identify as the real or concrete whatever one's consciousness is fixed on. There is, it seems, a 'concrete' at every level of perception. If we are seeing through the spiritual eye, then the spiritual will appear more real. If one is a cerebal, intellectual type, the world of ideas may seem more real than the surrounding reality. To the purely material, physical perception, the external world and the physical existence is the only real thing.

As to the question is there any concrete truth, and can we experience it - In this sense I suppose 'concrete truth' would indicate reality. So the question becomes 'can we experience reality'?
Once again, this depends on your definition, but since this is the Hinduism forum, let's say the Brahman is the true Reality - One without a second. So it's reasonably clear that to experience reality implies becoming that reality. Realizing that you are It. Tat Tvam Asi. It means going beyond not only the senses, or their domination, but also the mind and it's ideas and conceptions.
That is the version of the mystics anyway. In Buddhist terms - enlightenment or satori.
Are they right? It seems each one has to answer that for themselves!

[Jedi]

"Once again, this depends on your definition, but since this is the Hinduism forum,"


So truth in this case is relative and if you are a hindu, you have one truth and if you are a christian you have a completely different truth?

We say that truth is relative, then we are agreeing to the fact that the truth whatever that might be for one party, is a lie for the next party. Therefore, the "truth" that we see is not really the truth, but actually a lie.

One person A thinks that the sky is blue, Another B , thinks that the sky is black. Who is right if the truth is relative? None, so the truth is infact a lie. So, the relative truth is actually a lie.
Even if you say that they are both true, it could still be a lie to some one else.

So, I do not think there is a "truth" that can be justified as relative, it is just a lie, an illusion.


So there has to be some type of concreteness , but now my problem is this : "Can it be reached by going beyond our senses" , because the truth will be relative if we shall choose to remain with our senses. To go beyond them , is it truly possible?

And what would validate that after we go beyond our senses, we will see the real truth?

[BlackBillBlake]

=Jedi"Once again, this depends on your definition, but since this is the Hinduism forum,"
So truth in this case is relative and if you are a hindu, you have one truth and if you are a christian you have a completely different truth?


That is not at all what I intended - but the thing is that to use language means that we may have to use a term for that which is really beyond terms. There is no problem with that provided one doesn't make the mistake of confusing the term with the reality. Semantics.


We say that truth is relative, then we are agreeing to the fact that the truth whatever that might be for one party, is a lie for the next party. Therefore, the "truth" that we see is not really the truth, but actually a lie.

One person A thinks that the sky is blue, Another B , thinks that the sky is black. Who is right if the truth is relative? None, so the truth is infact a lie. So, the relative truth is actually a lie.
Even if you say that they are both true, it could still be a lie to some one else.

So, I do not think there is a "truth" that can be justified as relative, it is just a lie, an illusion.

The problem here might be that you're not seeing that truth, and the mental or intellectual formulations of truth are different things. That is obvious even from the nature of language itself. The word 'red' would be used by an english person, 'rouge' by a frenchman. Both though refer to the same truth, or percieved truth.
All formulated notions of truth are relative. But nonetheless, there is a reality in which they exist, or seem to exist. And this can be truly called, to some degree, a 'consensus' reality. EG for this communication to take place, there have to be separate beings, who are capable of communication, have computers etc. Most of the experience of these separate beings is very similar, unless they have deficient senses, they will agree red is red, although of course, they may express it differently.


So there has to be some type of concreteness , but now my problem is this : "Can it be reached by going beyond our senses" , because the truth will be relative if we shall choose to remain with our senses. To go beyond them , is it truly possible?

And what would validate that after we go beyond our senses, we will see the real truth?

As to the last part of your question, the experience after going 'beyond the senses' would be self-validating. No intellectual or scientific 'proof' or validation would be feasible.

My own view is that it is the mind we have to go beyond if anything. The senses are simply supplying data to that mind, which is where everything is 'arranged' into the realities we percieve.
But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond the senses. Do you mean as in a kind of trance state? Where there is no sensory input?
But even if such a state could be achieved, the minds whole apparatus of thought, ie language, is wholly derived from the senses, or sensory experience.


Just one thing I'd like to quote here, from William Blake's 'There is No Natural Religion'

"Man's perceptions are not bounded by organs of perception; he percieves more then sense (tho' ever so acute) can discover.

Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more.

He who sees the infinite in all things sees God. He who sees the ratio only, sees himself only."

[philuk]

But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by going beyond the senses. Yeah thats the problem, even if you do go beyond the senses you still need to go through them to communicate the experience to others. And most spiritual texts says it's impossible to describe the experience in words.

What is the truth of this world?

I think the question isn't specific enough for us to answer. Seeing as Einstein couldnt create a theory of anything I very much doubt your get an answer on this thread.

All you will get at best is a Hindu interpretation of the truth.

[Jedi]

I think the question isn't specific enough for us to answer. Seeing as Einstein couldnt create a theory of anything I very much doubt your get an answer on this thread.

All you will get at best is a Hindu interpretation of the truth.Yea, I guess you are right... I was just curious into what other's might say, if I ask a question like this- commonly people start looking at me "wierd", but anyway... there are only 2 places one could ask this question - either in a religious environment, or in a Philosophical one, both are again constrained. The religious group will believe what it thinks is true, the philosophical belief is that it has to be somehow "logical"- whatever that means, but when some one stops and says "may be there is no truth to be found" , then he is thrown into a pit of restlessness.
There might be some concrete truth, but it is so hard to see what that truly is.

[BlackBillBlake]

Yea, I guess you are right... I was just curious into what other's might say, if I ask a question like this- commonly people start looking at me "wierd", but anyway... there are only 2 places one could ask this question - either in a religious environment, or in a Philosophical one, both are again constrained. The religious group will believe what it thinks is true, the philosophical belief is that it has to be somehow "logical"- whatever that means, but when some one stops and says "may be there is no truth to be found" , then he is thrown into a pit of restlessness.
There might be some concrete truth, but it is so hard to see what that truly is.
Reach down your hand and place it palm down on the earth's surface. There - concrete truth.

[Jedi]

Reach down your hand and place it palm down on the earth's surface. There - concrete truth.
:D lol

does getting hit by a truck count?

[Bhaskar]

Depends on whether or not you survive it.

[Jedi]

haha true! , if you survive it , then it is real ,
if you don't u say "gasp, what a strange dream"

[BlackBillBlake]

Assuming you did survive, the chances are you might be severely injured. Then, you might end up in a good hospital, and you'd soon see evidence of the concrete reality of compassion and care -

But let's hope none of us ever gets hit by a truck!

[philuk]

it's an interesting question Jedi.

i guess there is nothing more concrete than life itself.

concrete, compassion, love all ideas created by ourselves. Do they exist in reality ?

below is an interesting passage by Swami Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri

Abstract:
Kundalini Gnanam, the path of perfection by the Siddhars of
South India gives the way for perfection for the human being.
The practice of the Kundalini Gnanam makes the man, one with
the truth. He attains perfection. The omnipresent, omnipotent,
omniscient nature of the almighty is shared with the aspirant. He
becomes one with the divine God.

G: the *man* is never one *with* the truth ... the Perfection is
always the Core of Being ... it is simply that the illusional self
implodes into the Reality ... the nature isn't *shared* --- it is
non-dual IS ..... one rather transcends the image of duality and
finds what has always been ... the Essence of the universe is ONE ...
man doesn't become one with as that is again another hold of
duality....

* Meditating on the life force of the body, he extends his
awareness, consciousness to the universal consciousness.


By steadily meditating he acquires the divine nature.

G: one doesn't acquire it --- it is already present yet covered
over .....

* He finds, feels and meditates at the point where his life
energy center is .He attain Samadhi (oneness) at that communing
point.

G: when one fully opens the heart then a sarvikalpa samadhi may be
entered ..... in total surrender of the mental holding then a
Nirvikalpa Samadhi may be entered... IF Self Enquiry has been done
and a correct foundation is in place then a Nirvikalpa Sahaja
Samadhi may remain and the ego covering is disipated as dew on a hot
summer day ....

* Direct intuitive knowledge of truth is known by him. He
achieves mastery from minute matter to infinity. He feels, enjoys
the oneness with the universal truth, the God.

G: there is no me image that maintains a feeling of oneness *with*
there is at that point only That Eternal Divine IS ... there is no
self image or me that gets into that place that revels in this
knowledge.... simply that Essense remains and a 0 point balance
remains in place...

Thayumanavar, a siddhar says,
"If he becomes that, that he becomes,
That itself will reveal". {That means divine}

One doesn't *become* that --- one has always been That ... the
coverings of illusory separation as a form with birth and death
falls away ...

* When the aspirant becomes one with the universal consciousness,
all will be revealed by that as knowledge to him.

G: in one moment beyond time the consciosness is stripped of all
illusion and simply the Living Truth IS....

* He is freed from boundaries of space, time and matter. He is
freed of his imprints and he becomes the Creator from being a
creation.

G: Creator and creation are at an end as having any separation as
this or that.... there is only this Divine Essence that is the
foundation and Primal Pure Potential that makes possible through
movement or Shakti the Universal Fragrance...

* The holy, divine practice is taught by siddhars of the Holy
Tradition. It can be learned, perceived only by a Holy Godly Master
(Gurudev).

G: one can only point in the direction of ... it is not a subject
to be taught ... it is not a subject to be *learned* it is what IS
once the limitational journey is transcended and all the questions
fall away within that Perfect Knowledge and is the Great Unknown
beyond all *relational* knowledge....

[Jedi]

below is an interesting passage by Swami Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri
True, all this is an illusion, is maya, there is no concrete truth, it is one thing to say all this and an entirely different thing to experience it.

It is unimaginable how we could be without 'we', 'I', 'You'. Thank you for the post, it is something to think about.

[Bhaskar]

The reason why it is uniaginable is because it is a concept beynd the mind, one of transcending the mental equipment, therefore it is impossible to translate into words and thoughts. Words at bet can be the finger that points. If we look at the finger all the time, we miss out on the delightful scene being pointed out.

[BlackBillBlake]

Another interesting question is: is there any reality that is not concrete?

If so, what could it be?

[philuk]

how very true Bhaskar

I'm not sure BlackBillBlake, like Bhaskar indicated, the more we think about the true reality, the more we miss it. All that I see as concrete is the eternal moment of being, the minute we think about it we've lost it.

[BlackBillBlake]

True, all this is an illusion, is maya, there is no concrete truth, it is one thing to say all this and an entirely different thing to experience it.

.
I see major problems with this.
The opposite of concrete is 'ideal'. So if we say there is no concrete truth, we are implying that truth is only ideal, which further implies that it is less real than what is concrete.

[philuk]

True, all this is an illusion, is maya, there is no concrete truth, it is one thing to say all this and an entirely different thing to experience it.
Well to begin with it takes effort, it's takes a willingness to concentrate on the present moment in time. To ignore all past and future and internal chatter.

If successful I believe you will find the desire for truth is an illusion created by your brain. Whos desires the truth, find that and your'll find the truth.