You can define a concept any way you like; you can define it out of existence if doing so comforts you in some way. Doing so changes little; nothing in God’s world is dependent on your definition, or your use of reason.
Then look it up in either in dictionary or google it.
concept, New American Oxford Dictionary
noun
an abstract idea; a general notation
Then you might look up what abstract means:
abstract, New American Oxford Dictionary
adjective
existing in thought, or as idea but not having physical or concrete existing
relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effects with shapes, colors, and textures
Wikipedia described concept a lot more, explaining more in details, but the bottom lines are, it can be either
direct or indirect reality, or merely
mental representation.
Whether the concept is true or not, whether it is accurate representation, depends on how far a person would try to prove it logically or externally with physical evidence. Is purely imaginary or real, depends on the person using concept.
@Ben Dhyan, who I have been debating with, believe that mere meditation, concept are more than real, but I have yet to seen any past or present master yogi actually formulating science treatise on the cosmology of the universe with any accuracy that modern astronomers & astrophysicists have done so far.
For astronomy & astrophysics, it has been long, ongoing learning process, where there have been mistakes or false leads, but the great things about either sciences, that people can learn from their mistakes.
Most religions have only described the world they lived in, especially ancient religions, never knew much about how much larger the universe is. What astronomers saw before the invention of telescopes, was merely some planets, moons, and about 2000 to 3000 stars in their given location (so whether you live at the equator or near equator, or further south or further north, hemisphere-wise) and depending on how good & clear the eyesight, they would only see the tiniest of fraction of the Milky Way, closest to Earth.
For centuries after Galileo, but before Edwin Hubble in 1919 to 1929, astronomers thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy, that Andromeda and other galaxies were mistakenly as identified and cataloged as nebulas.
As Ben is a pantheist with leaning towards more more easterly dharma religions, like Hinduism & Buddhism, than with the Abrahamic religions, then you would have to ask yourself, just much did the ancient Hindu or Buddhist astronomers really know about the universe?
Without even basic telescopes, not much at all. Eastern and western astronomers in ancient times, knew very little.
Ben Dhyan like to pretend that people that have mastered the meditation of yoga would know more about the universe than today with current knowledge supported be technology, but this is all anachronistic.
I am saying ancient astronomers were ignorants and idiots…no, they were simply just limited by what they can learn from their own eyes, just like everyone else back then.
It took times, for ancient people to reason that the Earth was spherical in shape, not flat like a disk or cylinder, that the earth wasn’t the centre of the celestial planetary system (geocentric vs heliocentric). It was the same with those astronomy in ancient India as well as well for ancient Greek astronomy. Both sides of the world in ancient times, really didn’t know where all the light and heat come from the Sun, no idea about Stellar Nucleosynthesis, until mid-20th century.
Instead, the Sun was personified as various deities in ancient religions, like the Ra in Egypt, Shamash in Babylonia, Heilios in Greece, Surya in India, and so on.
Until the mid-19th century, astronomy was often entwined with astrology, including India.
my understanding of the word concept, lies pretty much with definitions given, and it is clear to me, that Ben has taken the word out-of-context, he wanted more than the what the actually means, then perhaps he should use a different word.
