|
I have been asked to kindly pass this message on. It's 4am here and I was just woken up from a very deep sleep.
Those who do not belong to the Hindu religion will be the very first not to understand it and label it as being 'contradictory' in the attempt to dissuade others from gaining a much deeper insight, thus furthering their own religious agenda.
The analogy can be made to a person, blind since birth, trying to understand the colour 'red'.
Another may hold up an apple and say; "red is the colour of this apple I hold" and the blind person may say; "I have heard that apples can also be green, so how do I know you are not lying to me and holding up a green apple trying to trick me into believing that it is red?"
The person holding the apple will simply say "you are blind dear sir, so does that really matter when you do not know what red or green looks like to start with?"
Just because the "illusion" may be an "illusion" does not make it "real" by default.
The conundrum and inconsistency arises from the duality of human nature and conditioning which posits: "just because something does not exist as being 'this' means that it must exist as being the exact opposite"...for example "just because 'happy' does not exist, it must be 'sad'...just because 'good' does not exist, it must be 'evil"....unfortunately, these humans have never heard about the 'null hypothesis' before.
If the illusion is an illusion, it is still an illusion by the very definition of it being thus or else it would cease to be an illusion and become 'perceptually real' to those who believe it IS real and yet, it is that which defines it as being an 'illusion' at the outset. The apparent contradiction is only superficial to the language used to describe it and not to the actual premise behind it...but of course, only a Vedantin would understand this.
Good day to you all - Mahadev.
|