People often say to those who seem to have many requirements to accept someone as a partner that, thinking this way, they will never find anyone. But I wonder… what are we supposed to do? Accept compromises just to pair up and obtain a sense of security, even though deep down, from the very beginning, we feel we won’t be able to endure them for long? Have we stopped believing in love… possibly because we are no longer capable of loving someone that isn't our ego or its projected expression? Or the expectation of love in this paired form, while being almost taken for granted with all its complexities, is just a narrow viewpoint of our true feelings? If our feelings of wild romance collide with feelings of order and diligence: what ethical stance is right to have? Is there a right-choice? Are our partners our property? Are we entitled to deny them to love someone else in such a way that one feels due to boycott any contradictory feeling arising or loving is letting the other have freedom of choice regardless of the choice he makes? Is jealousy an indication of sound concern or just an uncontrolled demand for attention? Is love something you can crystallize forever with an oath or a whim of the moment? But most importantly: are we giving our partner what we demand from them? I don't have an answer, just a personal way of threading between the poles, and the certainty of pissing off somebodies and the certainty of moving some others towards me, inevitably, exchangeably, with each decision. Ohhh... by the Mo'Jaal's filthy bowels! I pray for the Balance! What is your take on this?

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. 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. This is where the initial statement becomes clearer. If reality is one and undivided, then the idea of a God outside of oneself becomes problematic. As long as God is imagined as something external, something to be reached, approached, or addressed, separation is already assumed. Prayer, devotion, worship, and the hope for grace may offer emotional comfort or structure, but they operate entirely within this framework of division.