Random Contemplations

What does it mean to be one? One, means to be undivided, to not have something before and after you, to be united in its completeness. It's one and therefore complete, because it cannot be divided into smaller. Something that is one can only be perceived from different angles, but that does not imply that those angles have separate and therefore divided ways of existence. 
What is suffering? Is suffering not getting what you want? Is it constantly having an absence of pleasure or the lack of misery. Something in that direction, yes. 
Can you use extreme suffering to cease your division. Is suffering the way to become one with whatever it is in this world in a metaphysical sense, that seems to be the underlying principles as to why things exist? 
Maybe yes. At least, from my attempt to understand the way of becoming free through a form of self-destructing manner. 
It appears that there is in the first place a form of indifference from the universe towards us. The world independent from us bases itself on the principles of either efficiency (evolutionary theory of reproduction) or indifference (lack of absolute morality/meaning etc.)
Standing in an open field, screaming at the sky for causing the difficulties you face in life, is an absurd scenario, yet interesting to investigate further. 
What is it that moves us to become angry at the world in the first place? A self-proclaimed sense of justice, that has not been met by the world? Famine, war and lack of equality, where there should be? And then anger towards the world and the universe for the injustice it lets happening?
I find that thought quite fascinating and amusing. It seems to be the root of morality, the seed of faith. To see injustice, where there should be none. To see the gateways open towards hypocrisy, misery and greed, when there should be none of that. There is a call for something. Something eternally true and one. 
It has to be there, yet if it’s not, maybe it’s us who’s not obeying its principles. Maybe there is something good out there, a higher form of justice, that we’re not noble enough to participate in. 
What seems to be the logical implication? That we are rotten creatures, who are soiling our paths towards nirvana? 
‘’Let us become free from these earthly chains by suffering. By becoming comfortably numb in our suffering, to be completely free from suffering. Only then, will we have transcended our earthly desires. Only then will we too be undivided and one.’’
I cannot recall which thinker it was, but I have to think of a saying he once quoted, that seems to reflect the human condition in these types of thoughts. 
‘’We naturally move away from chaos, towards that which is rational and in balance. Therefore, we have instinctive love for that which is rational and in balance.’’ Not meaning that humans have the same definition of rationality and balance, but that everyone shares the common instinct of wanting to be organized in a certain. To have himself and his life composed according to the symphony he wants to play to the world. 
I wonder what the drive is of wanting to be at peace with yourself and the universe. It at least carries the assumption that there is a possibility to connect mutually to the universe, meaning it has some form of existence or intellect that is adequate to that of a human. But besides that, even if the universe doesn’t respond or is indifferent to our existence, does that mean it’s impossible to connect to it?
I’ve experienced people who have failed to connect. It results in nihilism. A type of escapism. It’s screaming at the universe the first time to connect to it and when it fails, a second time to show your anger. If the universe is indifferent, then those who live their lives locked away at home in anger against the universe, are hilarious. What was there to expect? Do they not see that it doesn’t matter whether you get angry at it or not, it will continue ignoring you?
The second alternative is those who try to connect and think they’ve managed to do so. Are they running away from life? Do they dedicate themselves to a silent force, with the illusion of a connection being there? Is not like watching your own reflection in the see and then falling in love with who’s looking back? Adding something to the universe that’s not there, while it remains cold and indifferent? That too seems to be a type of escapism. 
And then there’s accepting that perhaps talking to the sky will give you cold silence back. Does that cease are drive towards wanting to be want? Liberating ourselves and being at an undivided peace?
Perhaps there’s an alternative that can be found. An alternative in which you reverse the roles. In which nor complete atheism, nor complete deism are the correct answer. In which you stop having a dialogue from your perspective and instead let the universe become a talking mirror. Staring into it, letting it give you the impressions it does, showing its perfect indifference when you are staring into the sunset, looking at the rotations the world makes, and experiencing how indifferent it is to your bad mood. Looking at the flowers and animals who seem to be endlessly reproducing, independently from what you think of it. 
Instead perhaps, that might cause a spark in which we should stop talking to the universe or about the universe and instead accept its stoic behavior. Its indifference is an open playing field in which we can create. Nothing has to be, many things can be. And then ask ourselves from the standpoint of the universe, what is it then that we are actually doing? And what does it mean to us? Instead of, what does it mean to the universe and therefore, ourselves? It keeps existing, it keeps carrying on and rotating. In its perfect nature, it keeps being. It's one, undivided in its existence and its indifference.
In the silence of mere impressions, perhaps eternity can be found.