There is no doubt. The problem about existence or the problem of origin of everything can be clamped down into one of the simplest questions of all time: which one came first, chicken or egg?
Stalemate is the current status of the matter . The unyielding egg camp is yet to yield to the equally unyielding chicken camp. And with the rate by which the intellectual battle goes on, it is sad to say that the future of the discourse is a dead end. The fate of the case in hand will be sealed without satisfaction.
But there is a way out: Question the question. Doubt the question. Away from the usual expectation that an answer can be found to satisfy every question, or every question is expected to yield an answer, a new approach must be introduced if men are that sincere to find the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of existence. The E-question, or existence question, must be dealt with not in a manner like when one needs trivial answers to trivial questions.
As said, there is a way out. The way out is to find the way in. Is it not true that a rewarding way to find a possession lost along the way is to walk back to where one had already been? Most likely that lost stuff can never be found on paths that is not yet taken because, obviously, that lost thing can only be dropped or lost on places where one had already been. Much like the same, one needs not to venture further along untouched places to satisfy the E-question. One only needs to walk back and trace the very path that brought him to his current longing for an answer.
The E-question is a man's question who he really is. The question where one came from is a seeker's question who he really is. The question about the origin of everything is a man's question who he really is. In short, answering the E-question is no more than a man's way of self-remembering. Losing a possession along the way is like a man forgetting who he really is. Along the way he thought he lost it. One way to find it back is to walk back for it.
But intellectually, how is walking back carried out? The visualization of a man physically tracing back his path to find his lost stuff is easy to do. Applying the same strategy for the mind seems laborious to do so. There is a point in time that the mind starts getting exhausted dealing so much with the E-question and the suggestion that it needs to trace back itself will only add more burden to itself. It adds more confusion than answers. Or does it? Well, if seen that way, there is a reason to be glad because in truth that is partially the point. At least one is starting to get it.
Tracing the "way in" simply means to question the nature of the mind. This time, to have real answers, cease desiring for answers as if answers are like tangible objects that can be measured. what needed to be done is to question the very question. Or more precisely, question the QUESTIONER! Aha!
The great Hindu Sage Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi often used the same strategy when seekers came to him for answers and enlightenment. He introduced the strategy with his infamous question: WHO AM I? "Who am I?" is not to be taken as a mantra rather a way for the mind to trace back its way in. It is to veer the mind unto itself. When one asks about who he really is, "Who Am I?" is a question needs to be invoked to question who or what is the one questioning.
So, if one still itches with the question, which one came first, chicken or egg, he needs to be clear who is the one asking and fuck it.