FmAm

I (me) am the bearer of the problems. Sometimes the bearer is the beloved (there's a nuance of mysticism in that word, and it draws away attention from the relevant), sometimes he is hated. The relevant part is that I can either pack my problems in a heavy backpack (out of sight) or just watch how they travel beside me through this life. Problems come and go, the bearer changes, and yet it's me who bears all the problems. Some of the problems are willing to hug me before they go, some aren't. Those not willing to hug me continue their "being" in other people and in me one way or another.

This is the thing I've tried to disclose: confusion is in the second part of that Zen proverb. Confusion is in the metaphysics, it's in the imaginary hierarchy of the existence. Confusion is in the metaphysical "why - because". There is no confusion in this world perceived as such. (It's a bit difficult for me to express my thoughts thoroughly because English isn't my native language. But of course language is just a part of the problem. The real problem is that there is no problem and I'm still writing about the problem.)

An old and famous Zen proverb goes like this (quote from the internet): Before a person studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are not waters; after enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters. After becoming aware of the reality, it's possible for a wise man to act in the world seeing things as they are. A wise man can recycle anger into peace.

I agree. It doesn't matter whether this world exists absolutely or relatively. Speculations on Oneness, on Consciousness or on the freedom of the will are totally irrelevant. I can see and feel how my interaction with this world has an impact on everything. I am a link in an indivisible chain of interaction. What matters is how I "recycle" everything I see and feel. If I'm wise enough it's possible for me to transform bad input into good output (practical buddhist aspect on oneness). (I hope everyone remembers this while reading my poor speculations.)

I enjoy guessing and fishing (nobody knows what I'll enjoy tomorrow). I have never found myself so how could I have lost myself? I have always been my (continuously changing) thoughts and feelings. I've never been good at believing. And I'm not waiting for anything to happen. What happens, happens - including my thoughts and actions.

There is no answer, no matter if there's mind or not. And on the other hand, there are at least as many answers as questions. There are unlimited possibilities everywhere (in addition to karma yoga). I'd recommend fishing. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows. But I'd guess there isn't anything prior to experience of separation. Nothing is this something. Without nothing there would'nt be something, and without something there wouldn't be nothing. Absolute is relative and relative is absolute. Separation is oneness and oneness is separation.There's no difference and there's no hierarchy (and no order either). There's no "because". Why would I chase no-ego? If it happens, it happens (and most probably it will happen when I die). Who knows. This is all there is for me right now.

I have read and read again. No text, no talk nor silence can solve the problem. Talk or thought don't necessarily differ from silence. Even the noblest experiences of no-ego and oneness are experienced as an ego. What if we are distracted by our perception of causation? There doesn't have to be something (e.g. unity of Consciousness) that causes this experience of reality. There doesn't have to be "The Cause" or any kind of "underlying reality". Maybe this "infinitesimal infinity" is just another unnecessary presumption too.

Well, there isn't such talk (including silence) that could be walked. ---- Let's turn the situation the other way around: what about Advaita vs. Academic scepticism? Is the "existence" of Consciousness (Absolute, Tao, Source, etc.) or even nonduality too much assumed?

How would it be possible to know if Consciousness was substantial? It might be eternal or temporary (the ultimate Source or created Source - where's the difference?), but it doesn't solve the paradox. "Infinitesimal infinity" can neither be temporary nor eternal, because it just isn't. Yet it produces "pure being" or Consciousness.

I value both Advaita and Buddhism and I think they are just different approaches. Advaita at its best is the theoretical core of non-dualistic metaphysics. Sometimes it may be a bit nihilistic, but it helps to remember that no one is in charge of ones "own" life and decisions. Its a spring cleaning of mind: nothing can really be understood and nothing that's said is true. Buddhism at its best offers beautiful and practical translations and perspectives from non-dualistic reality to everyday-dualism. My english may be a little poor. Sorry!

I'm a former materialist, whose worldview changed because of the mathematics (although I wasn't seeking change). Later on I found out that eastern religions are trying to deal with similar "infinite nothingness" that I had stumbled upon. So that's why I'm here. English is my weak point, therefore I'm probably going to concentrate on reading.