... is one's perspective of the world a illusion or is it a delusion?

A perspective, no matter how deep or how shallow, how profound or how profane.......
....is a painted picture on a finite piece of a canvas....... of the blue sky.

A bounded picture of what is an infinite expanse, a static depiction of what is throbbing with life.....
...is also not apart from that which is being depicted.

(Where else could it come to exist?)

To mistake the painted canvas for the blue sky is the delusion.

And to mistake that there is somebody or something which can be deluded..is the bigger delusion.

For even a delusion, a mistake cannot exist......anywhere apart.

Hence the concept........the play of divinity, a "Leeela". 



Are we seeing what is and that is an illusion, or are we misperceiving  reality,

Both.

The seen is a co-creation along with the seer.

One cannot appear to exist.... with out the appearance of the existence of the other.

Further, the "seen" is a "fashioned seen".......

.....fashioned by the prevailing conditioning of the biological object through which

the instance of seeing is happening.


Or to put it in another way.........both the "seer" and the "seen", along with the conditioning
which fashions both the sense of a "seer" and a sense of the "seen" .....

are notional aspects of the seeing. 



 and reality just is? My question means is there an objective  reality to be seen 
or is there only illusion and nothing exists?

Who or what would be separate or apart from that objective reality .......

.......for objective realty to exist?

Who or what is apart or separate............such that it can aver that this is reality and hence this exists.

Or that this is an illusion and nothing exists.


For that-which-is(to use a mere term for this dialogue)..........is there anything as reality.

For that-which-is.........is there anything as an illusion?

For that-which-is..........is there anything as "something"?

For that-which-is..........is there anything as "nothing"?


Reality, illusion, something, nothing are all defining terms.

Defining of something which is believed to have been objectivised.

For that-which-is........can there be ever any need to define, in the absence of the very possibility
of objectivization?



If the very possibility of objectivization  is  absent......

.....then what is this phenomenality in which  these squiggly signs got constructed on one PC screen and gets transmitted to another PC screen;

While Obama orders the closure of Guantanamo Bay  ;

And  people  wonder just exactly to whom did Hank Paulson dole out the first tranche of
USD 350 Billion out of the Bailout package.....

.....or whether the US Dollar 750 Billion Congress approved bail-out is another giant "Maddoff-Ponzi";

While couple of quasars with the brilliance of a billion suns ...birthed;

And 2 Dark Holes crunched up half a dozen galaxies.



The entirety of phenomenality, which includes multiple Universes floating in and out like motes of dust
in a sun-beam.....


.....a display ......

.......of what would it have been like.......


.... if something could have been.