But how can we *ever* understand the Grand Mystery, asks the kindergartener...

(This is a continuation from this post.)

The thing also is, all of this still doesn't explain anything because there's nothing to explain... ?? It still comes down to an unfathomable mystery but the mystery is solved by "there is no answer" but that's not an answer.

 The mystery is just the natural result of thinking you are separate from conditions. Is pooping a mystery? It is if you are trying to know it down to the smallest detail (i.e. why does my poop look 1cm longer today than yesterday?). The most you could ever hope to know are the general physical, chemical, or biological laws that make pooping happen (plus incidental details like what you ate for breakfast). You'll never know how each piece of poop is formed exactly. But what if the one who is studying the problem realizes they are not separate from it? Then there is no more "wondering", no more wanting to know. There is just the natural functioning of everything as it is. No more mystery, no more known/unknown split. 

When asked the nature of reality, Buddha once replied, "When this arises, so does that. With the cessation of that, this also ceases." So that is the nature of reality in a nutshell. At a kindergarten level or maybe pre-school. He could have gone deeper and tried to explain how all appearances are self-seen without any central or background reference, and there is no awareness apart from appearances themselves. But who could understand that? It's too much all at once for most people to have any idea of the meaning of that, and still it doesn't "answer" the question of the origin of it all. In fact, as I said,  Buddha investigated without finding any origin whatsoever. 

To say that there is no origin could sound like it is an unsolved mystery, perhaps. But on the other hand, the idea that there must be an origin is inherently illogical, because if there is an origin, what is the origin of the origin? So the "mystery" is basically a product of our illogical conditioning. 

Another question people ask is "why is there something rather than nothing?" But again, the question itself is illogical, because if there were nothing, then the question wouldn't exist. So as a result of their being (appearing to be) something, the question itself arises automatically. 

One may wonder, why is it that there is this incredibly divine aspect to reality that mystics can perceive? Doesn't that indicate a creator or something truly divine, something beyond all comprehension of these puny minds we have? And the answer is, the divinity is simply the way that reality must be--all atoms function perfectly, and it couldn't be any other way or else the universe would be nothing but chaos with no order at all. It is only by identifying with one little tiny part of reality that reality can be perceived as imperfect.

Finally one may wonder how identification can happen in this perfect universe. There are many hypotheses about that. I might answer (to a kindergartener) that dust naturally lands upon all surfaces. Imagine that each "surface" is self-aware without identity, in perfect seeing, until dust alights upon it. Now, instead of pure outward awareness, the dust is reflecting the appearance to itself, albeit in a very gross kind of way. The appearance has never seen itself, and it never imagines that what is happening is merely the natural accumulation of dust on its seeing surface. It begins to think it is quite a grandiose thing, almost a perfect thing, and it rejoices in knowing itself finally. But after many eons, it no longer finds itself feeling quite so perfect, with mountains of dust covering its view of reality. But by now it is completely forgotten that self-view is merely a result of dusty vision. Dust is not seen as dust, but as self itself. Every particle of dust is clung to, and the greatest fear is that the dust will somehow be removed and the appearance will no longer know itself. "Mr. Clean" becomes the greatest villain.

I didn't make that hypothesis up entirely myself--Buddha taught something like that; I simply embellished it.

No way to know anything, so what's the point?

Q: There is no way to know anything in my opinion.

A: Well then you must be wrong about that... haha! Get it?

I have found that when people are challenged to rethink their opinions about the nature of reality, they often come up with this idea that "nothing can be known" and therefore they need not take the challenge into consideration. This happens to me all the time, but less now than it used to. 

In fact, to say that nothing can be known, aside from being an oxymoronic statement, means that there is no point in trying to liberate ourselves, since the path to freedom cannot be known. However, if we look at those who have attained the deathless, we see that most (all?) of them have used the mind to know the path out of mind (and thus out of suffering). 

Buddha said that all of the teachings must eventually be left, just as one who crosses onto shore leaves their raft on the beach, but if one leaves the raft of logic while still in the ocean, they are in for some trouble.

Here is a post regarding how to view the mind practically, in a middle-path kind of way.

And here's a useful snippet I snagged:

And as Kyle Dixon quoted,

"…The process of eradicating avidyā is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance."

Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103

This post is also very useful on the three modes of knowing reality.