Rejection of the false and living in the True are inseparable and concurrent || Acharya Prashant (2015)

Question: In the western philosophy, I have heard about ‘Nihilism’, which says, “Whatsoever is there right away, will always be there.” So, if I have to frame it in a way, I would say, “This is it. It will always be like this.” And that is also why philosophers in the west have committed suicide, saying that there is no worth in life.

I have also heard you say, “This is it.” So I would like to know how this is different from what they have said because your words are more life affirming.

Acharya Prashant: *Affirmation of the True and negation of the false are not two separate things.* In fact, one cannot happen without the other. How can someone talk of something being empty of substance, empty of meaning, just an illusion, without first having a pre-intuitive, experience-less understanding of the Truth?

If only false exists, and you are asserting that only the false exists, then ‘who’ is asserting that the false is there? Are we saying that the false is interested in declaring itself to be false?

Yes, it is a sign of your discernment that you come up and say that something is not real, that something is simply dualistic, having no independent existence of its own. Or you may talk of ‘impermanence’, like the Buddha did.

But can you talk of impermanence while being seated in impermanence? Will the dream declare itself to be a ‘dream’? Will lack of awareness show itself up, in its true colours, on its own? So, on one hand, it is obvious that what we call as ‘existence’ is meaningless, on the other hand, there is a point equally meaningless, yet not meaningless in the sense of being