Webster defines something real as something that is "not imaginary." Imaginary being only those things that exist in the imagination. Is this a good definition? Doesn't what is "imaginary" depend on your point of view? Suppose, for example, I lived in a tribe cut-off from civilization and then some snooping anthropologist discovered me and my tribe. This anthropologist brings stories of skyscrapers, telephones, television, microwaves and the like. Wouldn't I think he was making things up? Wouldn't those items be purely "imaginary" to me? They are imaginary because at this point in time, they are not part of my present reality. So, we come back to the idea that to define something as being imaginary one must decide whether it is part of our present reality or not. This is not a good definition because what is real is dependent on what we percieve to be imaginary, and vice-versa. Thus, we automatically limit ourselves by defining what is real and what is not. Better to just say, it's up to your point of view to decide what's imaginary and what's real.

Another case in point: modern day physics. Aren't we now taught that all matter is made of atoms made of electrons, protons and neutrons? Aren't these electrons whirling around in mostly empty space? It is common physics that suggests that all physicality is mostly made up of empty space. However, we don't percieve things are being vaporous, do we? No, we do not. Imagine for an instant that you were small enough to see an atom for what it is, wouldn't your view of reality change drastically? Modern day physics also teaches us that matter is energy and vice-versa. Einstein's famous theorem not only relates to bombs but to all physical mass. Supposing there was an equally important "law of nature" that related our light of consciousness (energy) to our physical mass? As new theorems come along the definition of our universe and present reality changes along with them. Even now, it has become pretty common to quote superstring theory as proof that at least 10 dimensions within our own exist as separate realities. Read this Scientific American article for a layman's view on alternate realities.

As an interesting side note, subjects under hypnosis can imagine all sorts of things and experience them as real. Why? Under hypnotic suggestion they had been led to adopt a different framework or a different point of view (consciousness) that now skews what they believe is real and what is imaginary.

So, what's the true definition of real anyway? Is real only what two people observe to be true? Is reality really as objective as we'd like to believe or does it depend on the consensus of the observers? There are many spiritual traditions that teach us that maybe what we think is real is really a dream, and we are too caught up in our own imaginations that we fail to see the truth of what real life is. Life is an infinite world of dimensions available to anyone with the consciousness to access these worlds.

The Answer

A reality is a specific dimension accessed by a particular individual's consciousness and is only a concrete existence to the entity involved within that dimension. When we ponder what came first: the chicken or the egg? It becomes apparent they had to both exist in order for this dimension to actualize. The perceiver is just as much a factor in the creation of the dimension as the matrix that holds those perceptions. They are inter-related. This does not make outside dimensions which are imperceptible to most people, unreal. It merely makes them hidden dimensions. All grids that define rules by which a reality exists can be viewed as dreams, or dimensions, in another type of terminology. It is only by shining the light of consciousness through the matrix that we are able to distinguish "the resonant code" that has entrapped us, thus allowing us the opportunity to escape from one dimension into a higher one.