Q: Is objective reality an illusion?
There is no such thing as an objective reality, unless it’s defined by God.
It is only an absolute, almighty being that can establish reality as it is. It is not possible for conditioned living entities, like you and I, to discern reality as it is. As the subjective beings we are, the only thing we can do is have an opinion as to how and why reality came about. Thus, everyone, except God, is subjective. Only God is objective, for only He knows past, present, and future.
Objectivity doesn't come about by vote. Modern science, for instance, cannot be objective because it is being conducted by subjective beings, who evaluate everything with their subjective minds. How does objectivity enter the equation?
Someone may object (pun intended), that I know two plus two is four. That's objective. Everyone knows the numbers. We learned about it in school.
The thing is, though, that the only reason we know 2+2=4, is because someone taught us. And who taught us? Someone who was taught by someone and he was taught by someone who was taught by someone and so on. It is an indisputable fact that the only reason we know two plus two equals four, is because someone has informed us about it.
Imagine having grown up without any human stimuli. No one had ever talked to you. What would you know? You would know next to nothing. The only reason we know anything at all, is because we were taught by someone.
So then the question is, who was the first one? Who said it the first time?
For instance, in the theory of evolution according to Darwin, and here it is important to note that this explanation is being propagated, for the last five decades or so, as a completely sane, rational, scientific explanation of reality. It is what is being taught in all educational institutions of the world.
Of course, in public education, they never spell out the specifics of evolution. Evolution, by now, has just become a magical word, no need of any details. Just accept it on faith.
But lets take a look at the obvious ramifications of evolution - first there were some chemicals. Then, by the interaction of those chemicals over long, long time, an amoeba-like creature was formed. Then this amoeba gradually grew legs and learned to talk.
-- but, but, but it happened over millions and billions of years and went through millions of transitions. It's not exactly like an amoeba growing legs. That came much later. You see, first the amoeba became a fish, then the fish became a plant, the plant became an insect and the insect became a reptile. Then the reptile became a bird, the bird became an animal and finally the animal became a human. Somehow, a bunch of chemicals managed through millions of intermediate species, to transform itself into a human being. And then the human being learned to talk and figure out that 2 plus 2 is 4.
So how did these first humans learn to talk? Remember, the first human who popped out of evolution was completely alone. No one to tell him anything. See, how ridiculous that explanation is? How did the first human, who had just evolved through millions of transformations in different species, how did this being acquire the ability to talk, when there was nobody to teach him?
--but, but, it happened by the law of necessity. There was a necessity, survival of the fittest, and that's how the first human learned to formulate himself rationally.
And who determines that necessity? The Chemicals? Besides, animals survive fine without knowing English. In fact, nobody is better survivor than a cock-roach.
But this is what they want us to believe - originally there were only chemicals, and then these chemicals over vast spans of time transformed into a human being. It doesn't matter how many transformations this human had to evolve through, the question still remains - how did the first human learn to talk? By necessity - the necessity of knowing that two plus two equals four?. Is that the first thing you would think of if you had just emerged out of the wheel of evolution?
The first human is just an animal. No precognition, no recollection, no memory of past experience. You start completely from scratch.
Note, in contrast, the logical, coherent and authentic explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - time is eternal. And the first human was taught by the Supreme, and that human in turn told his fellow humans. At least that explanation makes sense.
The modern explanation of creation is not only improbable and highly speculative, it is also subjective. Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective, scientific fact. It is considered rational and highly probable. See the fun?
"The probability that life arose by a coincidence can be likened to the probability that a voluminous encyclopedia be the result of an explosion in a print shop." - Biologist Edwin Conklin
This is what modern, so-called education does to the population. It makes it mindless and non-thinking. The vast majority of the population only think and believe what they are being told by society and media. In fact, modern mainstream people don’t have so much as one single independent thought in their brains. If they didn’t have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe, they’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Also, the modern linear conception of time makes no sense. The Vedic Version - a cyclic concept of time, that things have always been going on, makes so much more sense according to observable reality. It is a more intelligent and perceptive explanation.
Where is the proof that science can raise a subjective being to objectivity? Surely. by the aid of technology the human race has produced so many wonderful objects, but the ones observing and evaluating these objects are still subjective beings. The human race has not become more wise, existentially, now, than they were in the stone-ages. Nobody has understood why or how we exist, better now than, say, since the stone-ages.
Nothing indicates that modern man is more sane, peaceful, content, satisfied and balanced than those who came before him. Rather to the contrary. It’s a statistic fact, that the general mass of people are more disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the biggest health problem facing the modern world is that more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the symptoms of a healthy, enlightened civilization?
Krishna offers a process by which He can be realized and He has made that process of knowledge available to all. Of course, He establishes some conditions. One condition is that to realize the truth about God, one cannot be envious of Him. Another condition is that one cannot know God on the basis of an atheistic mindset. It's all thoroughly explained in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna says:
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (Bg. 11.54)
If one insists that God should be available on his or her own conditions, one will never understand God. Is that God's fault? Nope. Krishna has already explained the process by which to contact Him, so it's up to oneself to take advantage of that and engage in the process. That's the truth, and anyone who is truthful will accept it. It’s like, if you want to become a professor in mathematics you have to approach an authorized professor and study under him.
There is no go reason to think that all religions are false and without evidence. Granted, most religions have been subjected to distortions over time, but the purpose of all religions are the same - to unite a people through a common adherence to a superior set of principles of life.
Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one can still be possessed by an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we put on ourselves, that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.
There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged by its result.
Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits. So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their effects and influence.
Krishna says:
I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down. (Bg. 9.24)
Comments