The reject first pattern – active vs passive approach

The active approach (in second person narration):
Whenever you want, you create/resurrect the relation,
Whenever you want, you terminate it.
You want the power to control/direct/create/destroy/determine relationships.
So that you are never in that position again,
Where you land up with rejection from the other side,
Without any power to make them want or desire you,
Where you are fully open, yet abandoned, 
Like what happened in childhood.
Because you were perceived to be unlikeable/unlovable/ugly/unworthy/disappointing?
So that you are never abandoned again without your control,
You do the reject-first strategy and do the abandonment preemptively by yourself.
In a way, you inflict the same punishment onto the other (and to yourself) that you felt was inflicted on you.
The reasoning is:
“If I expect that you will reject me, I’d rather reject first,
So that what is anyways inevitable is something I perform consciously,
Rather than it coming and hitting me from behind unexpectedly and shockingly out of the blue.
If I consciously expect it, and preemptively inflict it on myself and the other,
Then I will not get hurt again like that, and it’ll therefore be much less painful.”

So the guiding force of this behavior is a certainty wrt. the expectation of rejection/abandonment.
That is, of people ultimately being disappointed/angry/frustrated with you and leaving/abandoning you.

All of the above is the active approach.
But there is also a passive approach.
There are 2 strategies to deal with rejection, forming a polarity:
Passive —– Active
The active one seeks to start and end relations as per their own whim – seduce/idealize then devalue/abandon.
The passive one lives alone in receptivity, and let what comes come, and let what goes go.
He does not seek what he needs/desires/wants, but lets everything come to him by the other’s seeking of their needs/desires/wants.

It is like:
# The Bee —–vs—– the Flower.
# Power —–vs—- Receptivity.
# Male (or rejected female) —–vs—– Female (or male with suppressed/inhibited will)
# Outward looking eyes —–vs—– Inward looking eyes
# Extroverted consciousness —-vs—– Introverted consciousness
# Things will come to you if you seek for it —-vs—- Things will come to you by what you are.
# Projection —-vs—- Introjection (of the same essential rejection theme)
# I will use everything (appearance of selfishness)  —-vs—- I will get used by everything (appearance of selflessness)
# I am perfect, others must change —-vs—- I must change, others are perfect.
# Change the environment to suit you —vs—- Change the self to suit the environment.
# Inner rigidity, Outer mobility —-vs—– Inner mobility, Outer rigidity
# Borderline —-vs—— Narcissist
# Unconscious of self, Conscious of others —-vs—– Conscious of self, Unconscious of others.
# Controlling others, leaving self uninhibited —-vs—- Controlling one’s own desires, self inhibited.

Both are narcissistic wounds in essence and reactions to the same root condition:
# I will be what I am, not change anything, and rather search for the one who will love me unconditionally —-vs—- I am not good enough, and must make myself worthy, so that then everyone will come to me.
Both of these are opposite polarizations of the same theme, and therefore will tend to get attracted to each other and play out the dance.
The attraction is because of the same root similarity and resonance of the theme of rejection. 
They are just the 2 opposing ways of dealing with the same dilemma,
From the same magnet with its 2 opposite poles.

Big and small is from relativity in a frame of reference

There is no absolute big or small,
Except in relativity,
That is set by a frame of reference.

Changing the frame can change what is big and small.
Big or small is a comparative and relative statement,
That is applicable only within a certain defined boundaried frame.

…Small ———– Big…
The dotted lines indicate infinity, towards that direction.
So its nature becomes fractal.
In a fractal, there is an unbounded frame of reference.
The higher truth transcends the usual logical rules we use.
For instance, in a circle of infinite radius, every point is its center.
So you are neither big nor small, and you are also the biggest and smallest.
You can be the same fish, but a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond.
It all depends on the perspective/frame of reference and the dimension being looked at.

Every lifetime is like a skydive

Birth is like the start of a skydive,
The jumping off the plane.
Imagine there are some clouds that you first pass through.
Then just after that, one is overwhelmed, mesmerized, and stunned,
As the stunning vista becomes visible.

There is the feeling of falling at warp speed,
But the visuals look like everything is almost still,
With the earth inching towards you ever so slowly.
This is the time of great splendor of vision,
Where you see a bird’s eye view of all the possibilities.

While growing up we go through 3-4 stages of faster biological development.
-0.9-0 = Development in the womb (passing through the clouds)
0-7 = Physical development (grand vista first sight – 20s)
7-14 = Emotional/Sexual development (next 20s freefall)
14-21 = Intellectual development (next 20s freefall)
21-25 = Higher intellectual development (extra 10s of freefall)
So till the age of 25, we are on a magical ride of sort,
Hitting all the numerous developmental milestones.
The part from 0-25years of age I feel is like the free fall part of the skydive.

Then once we reach a lower altitude of around 5000ft,
The parachute is opened.
There is then a drastic reduction in speed,
Things slow down quite a bit,
And now we stabilize mentally and emotionally.
This parachute descent I feel is like the next phase of adulthood from 25-90.
Here the number of possibilities for our life has been narrowed down to a great extent.
We are fairly stable with a stable identity that moves us along through the rest of our life.

When the parachute comes fairly close to the ground,
We still don’t realize the reality of the ground.
It still looks like something unreal happening with toy buildings and toy cars put in place.
The reality of the ground suddenly hits when you are around 50ft above.
It is only then you realize, ‘Oh, this is for real!’.
On touchdown there is last run you do before coming to a full halt.

I feel this mimics the stage when we are close to death.
Death here is the ground.
The final 50ft descent and the touchdown run is the final drama of death.
Things once again get a bit dramatic in the last bit.

The 3 variables of time, space, and people

Here are the different combinations:
# This Time, Same space, Same people
# This Time. Different space, Same people
# This Time, Same space, Different people
# This Time, Different space, Different people
# Different Time, Same space, Same people
# Different Time. Different space, Same people
# Different Time, Same space, Different people
# Different Time, Different space, Different people

Here, time, space, and people refers to what/whom you hold in your mind more than the actual physical reality differences or the actual people around you.
Since your conscious experience of reality is mostly only from what/whom you engage/invest/attend to in your mind.

A timeline for your life can be charted out with these 3 variables,
Marking out the broad episodes and flow in your lifetime till date.
A diagram might look something like this say:

The flow of time

I wonder if this time-space-people position is some sort of destiny, or prewritten to some extent.
Is it prewritten that we would be at this particular time-space-people point now?
Is the overall map of our life already charted out in a vague way?
In terms of where and whom we’d be with in our minds at a certain time?

In our lifetime we may meet around a 1000 people?
1000 in proportion to 7.5 billion is like ‘7.5 millionth’ of the world population.
That means I would have to live 7.5 million lives interacting with 1000 new people in each life to cover the whole population?
And how much do we even understand the few people around us? (let alone the 1000 people we may roughly know).
We may reach some depth only after many years with a few people, that too only if we keep up the intensity.
Imagine the varieties of experiences possible.

About knowledge and fire/spirit

Every piece of knowledge must be digested to liberate more fire/spirit from itself.
It is similar to real fire from firewood.
If you put dry wood, it further enhances the fire.
Whereas if you put wet wood, it diminishes it.
Similarly, if knowledge quells the fire, then that knowledge is not serving the fire.

There is no good knowledge or bad knowledge.
However, whether your fire can handle the knowledge or not is the real question,
i.e. whether you have the necessary supports, enzymes, tools etc. to digest it or not,
And that is what needs your discretion.

Knowledge must serve and enhance your spirit,
Like dry firewood enhances and fuels the fire.
If the knowledge being consumed does the reverse,
Then that knowledge is not serving your spirit,
And it would then diminish your life force.

Every answer you get for a question,
When digested fully, will spark 10 other subtler questions.
The purpose of an answer is to act like an enzyme to break the question up into subtler and subtler questions.

In a way, this principle also holds true for physical food.
If you can digest what you eat, the the food serves you and increases your energy.
If the food takes more energy to digest than it provides,
It leaves you with lesser energy than when you started off.

The different yugas

Sat yuga = The age of spirit = Mystics
Treta Yuga = The age of mind = Imagineers
Dwapara Yua = The age of electricity = Engineers
Kali yuga = The age of the physical = Warriors

Millenia ago, if you saw something, and wanted to share it with the group,
You would have to talk/draw/act and somehow convey what you saw.
Today with electrical gadgets like cameras and smartphones,
You could just shoot a video and instantly share it with everyone in the group.
Since the information id in the same medium (of direct vision), you would not need to explain much too.
Also, we can send something like this to 100s or 1000s of people now due to the internet,
Whereas earlier you would have to go one by one or gather the different people together,
And then attempt to convey what you saw.

Drawing from that analogy, in Treta yuga,
We would have zillions of machines made for modulating the mind field,
In the same way our cities today are filled with electrical gadgets constantly modulating the electrical field.
Imagine if a person from 10BC came and visited our cities in 2021.
He would see electrical contraptions everywhere, right!
Similarly if we find ourselves suddenly plopped into Treta yuga,
We would see mind machines everywhere, and the whole landscape may look truly alien.
Then you could easily share an insight, thought, dream, mental idea, concept, plan etc. directly in the same mental format without the need to verbalize.

The absurdity of the ‘love yourself’ mantra

This is something that has perplexed me since childhood.
I’d keep hearing slogans like ‘be yourself’, ‘love yourself, ‘believe in yourself’, and so on.
I used to wonder, what is this self that they are referring to, while pointing at me.
Where is this self? What is it?
Is it my image of their idea of what I am, what I should be, or what I think they want me to be?
Is it my own image of what I am independent of them being around me?
But generally my own image of what I am, is heavily and actively conditioned/influenced by who is around me (in silent or talking level interaction with me) and the larger surroundings in that place.
Even if nobody is around me, my self is some sort of a more diffused response to the environment around me.

My general personality/disposition/investments/ways of thinking-perceiving-feeling etc. are part nature and part nurture.
I can recall an active self forming at the age of 6, then a more developed one at 11, and I think after the age of 28 it seems to have stabilized itself.
But what was that active self that first formed? What existed before the age 6?
It feels like I just emerged from a bunch of situations throughout early childhood.

Ok, then was I born a clean slate? – I don’t relate with that too.
I have no continuous memories of anything below the age 4-5, but I intuit I could have already had a seed with its potentials/proclivities/tendencies/patterns (what they call samkharas and vasanas in vedic literature).
So maybe the selves that formed through 6, 11, 20, 24, 28 etc. were different milestones where a distinctive evolving pattern emerged in my vibrating sands (like the sand patterns in Cymatics as the frequency is raised).
So my deeper self then could be my bio-memory embedded in the whole body (in its trillions of cells)? – Coming from my forefathers, ancestry, genetics, lineage.
That genetics could have passed on its own fantasies, ideals, projects, works, characteristics, goals, preoccupations etc. that I identify with or dis-identify with depending on my own past lives?
In my own past lives, again the same situation might have been there, of genetics, upbringing, conditioning, social environment (the yuga at that time) and its influence etc.
So it sort of loops on itself. When did it all start?

The dilemma is like, when you are a tree, you search for your source.
You find out, you grew from a seed.
But a seed cannot grow without the fertile ground.
So the ground is also responsible for the tree.
But that seed itself has come from a previous full grown tree (the past life), and so on.
It goes into an infinite regress loop.
My whole quest to find an independent self eludes me.
I just cannot grasp a ‘me’ that exists independently.

From my contemplation, I see none of any of this is me.
Because if I can perceive it as an object,
Then the me must be separate from the object right?!
The deeper I contemplate this, I realize that what I am is transcendent of language itself.
It is a transcendent dimension, what they call consciousness.

My understanding of ‘understanding’

The purpose of understanding I feel is to help you let go/digest/dissolve/transcend the thing. 
Otherwise the understanding is not taking you in the right direction, if it only increases the holding of it.
True solution is dissolution (David Hawkins).
I see understanding as the tool to catalyze the dissolution.
Understanding should carry you back to the state of wonder with greater fluidity and openness.

Law of gravity and attraction

There is a universal force of mutual attraction between all particles in existence.
When a pencil is dropped from 2 meters height onto to the earth,
Interestingly, on closer inspection, it is seen that the earth also moves towards the pencil.
Maybe only 1 trillionth compared to the distance the pencil moved.
So there is mutual attraction between the pencil and the earth,
Not just from the pencil to the earth but also from the earth to the pencil.
How much each one moves towards the other depends on the mass of each.

An interesting extension of that would be:
If you traveled to the other side of the earth to meet your lover,
He/she there may also love you the same.
It might just be that his/her mass is higher.
So you are making the large movements to meet them.

I feel spiritual gurus are like black holes.
Their beings are embodiments of our own higher nature/mind.
So they attract people from all corners of the world.
But the attraction is mutual.
It is just that because their mass is so extreme,
It appears as if only others are attracted to them.