Hey guys! I am interested to hear your thoughts on something. In Buddhism (at least the areas I am familiar with) it seems to be understood that when one is suffering - triggered by something or someone outside of themself, it is not that the thing or person is negative but rather one’s reaction to that stimuli. This had me thinking about boundaries (which by the way I am not great at). I was on the phone with someone and they said and I am paraphrasing “if you set a boundary and the person does not respect your boundary, you simply find someone who does”. This may sound trivial or immature but this is where I am at. Part of me wants to weather through storms and another part of me wants to leave the area where storms happen so much. It feels like too, there is a part of me that feels attached to the storm, so I try to tell the storm to calm down or just try to change the storm or convince it to be more gentle… if you catch my drift. I have also been pondering about the idea in Buddhism that reflects on suffering, the cause of suffering and the cessation of suffering. It didn’t necessarily say to leave the storm as far as I can tell but it does suggest accepting the storm and not wanting or desiring of it - as a result, suffering is reduced. That felt like a bunch of thought sprung together. I feel a bit scattered this morning but yesterday I meditated and went to my temple (I am an omnist of sorts though btw). After not sleeping for months, I slept away from my boyfriend and having meditated, I actually slept. I am continuing on to work on boundaries or understanding these things so I can stay on a balanced path. Much love

As long as one assumes that God is something separate, something “out there”, one remains within separation. Prayer, devotion, asking for help or grace all presuppose this division. This statement is a worldview articulated centuries ago by Prakashananda Saraswati, an Indian philosopher and teacher who most likely lived in the 15th or early 16th century. I recently came across his perspective and spent some time engaging with it more deeply. What struck me was how clear, uncompromising, and strangely familiar it felt. I want to share a short overview here as a possible point of reflection. Prakashananda belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Unlike devotional or religious movements, this tradition is not concerned with belief systems, rituals, or the worship of a personal God. Its focus lies elsewhere, on the question of what is ultimately real. According to Prakashananda, there is only one reality. This reality is not a being, not a creator figure, not a higher entity standing apart from the world. In Indian philosophy it is often called Brahman, but the name is secondary. It can just as well be described as fundamental being, absolute consciousness, or the underlying principle from which everything arises. What matters is this: it is not separate from us. From this perspective, everything we normally call “the world” has no independent existence of its own. Bodies, thoughts, emotions, objects, nature, time and space all exist and function, but they do not stand on their own. They are appearances, expressions, or objectifications of this one underlying reality. The same applies to the human being. What we usually experience as “I”, personality, biography, thoughts, emotions, belongs to the level of appearance. The true self, according to Prakashananda, is not individual. It is identical with the reality that underlies everything. In classical terms this is expressed as Atman is Brahman. In simple language: what you are at your core is not separate from the foundation of the world.