"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep." –-Ralph Waldo Emerson
A distinction is often drawn between the natural and the artificial. Can such a distinction be justified? One approach is to exclude mind from the realm of the natural; another is to exclude not only mind, but also humans and their influence. In either case, the boundary between the natural and the artificial is a difficult one to draw. Some people believe that the problem is best avoided by saying that everything is natural, but that does little to clarify the concept of the artificial. In any event, ambiguities about the distinction between the natural and the artificial. We only see the Maya, the illusions, but underneath there is something greater to be seen. If we can see into the greater essence we can achieve Moksha and release are selves from Samsara. The layout of a land area, particularly with respect to its appearance, a landscape includes such elements as landforms, bodies of water, plants, animals, lighting, and weather conditions, as well as human presence and human-built elements. But encompasses are the ideas of a state of 'skewed perspective' that we have obtained over the years. It is the illusion of a limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled, a veiling of the true, unitary Self. This parallels Plato’s "Parable of the Cave".