The materialist’s viewpoint is that the universe is mechanical, that there is no consciousness in it. The religious person’s view is that the universe is not mechanical, that what appears to be mechanical is only an outer covering; the consciousness that is hidden in it is invisible.
How can the existence of the invisible be proved? How to experience the invisible? How to accept the existence of the invisible? How can you feel a trust and a reverence for it? Up to now, it has not happened through logic. Religious people have given many arguments, but they have all proved to be futile. Religious people have given much evidence, but it is all childish; they have not been able to prove it through logic. The logic of the materialists is very deep, very significant. And if a decision has to be made based only on logic, then the materialists will win. If logic alone is to decide, the materialist will win. The religious person cannot win through his logic. Yet in the long run, it is the religious person who wins – and the reason for it is not because of logic. The reason is in another dimension: the dimension of experience.
There are some things in life which can be known only through experience. Much in life can only be experienced. And the more true and real it is, the more beautiful it is, the more profound it is – the more difficult it is to achieve, the more mysterious it is, the more the only path to it will be experience.
There is no way to explain to a blind man through logic that light exists. Or do you think that there is some logic that can convince a blind man that there is light? So far, no logic has ever been able to convince him – what to say about light? You cannot even convince a blind man about the existence of darkness! Ordinarily, you think that a blind man must be seeing darkness, but this is not true: the blind man does not see even the darkness. Even to see darkness, eyes are needed. So don’t think that a blind man lives in darkness: to see darkness you must have eyes. Light and darkness are both the experience of the eyes.
So you cannot say to a blind man that light is the opposite of darkness. You cannot even say this to him, because he has no experience of darkness either. He has no experience at all in the dimension of seeing. For him, neither light nor darkness exist. He has received no information whatsoever inside him about light and darkness. So no matter how many logical arguments we may present, it will all be meaningless because it will make no sense to him. No trust can arise in the blind man based on this logic. The reality is that whosoever uses logic to prove the existence of light to a blind man, is a fool. The blind man is simply blind, but the one who is using logic is a fool. He is a fool because he does not understand that there is only one logical argument about light, and that is to have eyes. Likewise if someone has no ears, then there is no way in existence for him ever to know that there is such a thing as sound.
About this, there is something very profound that is worth noting. It will be a little difficult to understand, but lately science has also been leaning towards this more and more.