Bonding with ideals vs. real people

When mothers or fathers do not extend a bond to their children,
The children may create an “idealized fantasy parent” and then seek for a reflection of that in the world.
The reasons for why the mothers/fathers did not extend the bond could be related to their own past.
After all they too were children at one time, subject to parents who might have done the same to them, and so on.
The parents themselves might be victims of the same, pursuing an ongoing project of meeting an impossible ideal [parent imposed or self created (usually an oppositional reaction)] and redeeming themselves.
So like the game of passing the parcel, they pass on their own failed project to their children, who then either continue that or choose otherwise.

PS: The roles of parent and child are in a kind of looping rotation.
…Parent -> Child[Parent -> Child[Parent -> Child…

So this goes on and on in the threads of family lineage and genetics.
In such cases, each next generation gets wounded by the projection of the ‘previous generation ideals’ on them.
Then the next generation either make their own counter ideals or try to fulfill the projected ideals, and accordingly seek in the world.
For such family systems, whole threads of genetic lineage then live off an attachment system that is entirely ungrounded/disconnected and based in the imaginal/imaginary spaces of ‘fantasy/ideals/mythic creations’.
It is a kind of primal disconnection and dissociation from reality itself, by moving attachment to the imaginary rather than what actually exists.

This also has a close connection to idol (imaginary gods) worship,
Which is also based on projection of ideals.

When forming relationships/bonds, I’ve noticed there are 2 clear categories:
# The people who bond in reality/actuality
# The people who bond in idealization/imagination
I’ll talk about the 2nd category here.
When both the partners meeting each other have an attachment to their internal idealized figure, they start to project the ideal onto each other.
The agreement then is more like a fantasy role-play:
“You play my fantasy, and I will play yours.”

There are different relational dynamics that can happen from here.
One of them is:
One of the parties projects the ideal onto the other, and the other tries to live up to that to secure the bond.
Generally the one with the narcissistic wound will take it upon himself/herself to live up to the other’s ideal projection.
“If only I can improve myself, strive, and be good enough, to meet the other’s ideal, then I can secure my bond with them.”
The one projecting the ideal does so from some kind of primal entitlement that was somehow escaped the socialization process.
They are like the demanding baby that expects the whole world to come and serve their needs.

A relationship like this could work, if the fantasy projections are doable and somehow align (socialization generally tempers the ideals to realistic levels).
But most of the time, the ideals are intense and impossible.
In a way, by very definition, ideals are impossible right?
Reality is always something else.
So often in such relationships, there is alternating role play,
Of the projector and the adapter.
Both the parties wound each other’s real selves with each other’s ideals.

The bond is never secured from start to end.
However these relationships kindle the inner flames of longing, passion, intensity, purpose, hope and other such feelings.
In that sense they are like an adventure and gratify you with the above feelings.
They make you forget your pain of disconnection and lostness.
They are exciting but empty and illusory – like an extended more involving movie.

Imagine you were really thirsty and ran with full passion and joy towards a mirage in the desert.
This experience is something like that.
When you do reach the actual sand patch where the mirage was seen,
The water has disappeared, and now the mirage has receded to the horizon again.
This is how ideals are unsatisfiable and impossible.
Even the conception of these ideals keep shifting to more and more complex and impossible forms.
No depiction can fully capture the fantasy/ideal.

Various traumas and deprivations may be instrumental in what directions and forms these ideals take.
Ultimately we long for the infinite.
And when we focus this longing onto the realm of relationships,
The above patterns happen.
Relationships are a stepping stone and not the end goal itself.
If seen that way, and if both the partners are actually seeking god through the relationship,
The relationship will only raise them higher.

The body is an extension of the earth

The body belongs to the earth.
It is an extension of the earth.

Its life is heavily dependent on the conditions present on earth.
The earth-body is a singular system.
The body is what the earth puts out and then reabsorbs/recycles back into itself.
We cannot separate the body from the earth and take it away from it and still survive.

Even when traveling to space etc. we create incubator like setups,
Where we nevertheless still simulate a cocoon of earth like conditions.
So we are still bonded to the conditions on earth.
As a body we can never be free from earth.

Simulating earth like conditions and traveling outside does not make us free from earth.
That is like wanting to experience the Sahara desert, while sitting inside an airconditioned SUV.
We will only experience the same conditions that are anyways present on earth.
Generally we try to extend the possibilities of bodily experience as much as possible.
For instance the experience of 0 gravity, is essentially the experience of an extended free fall.
However it is not true adventure.
The body is still heavily limited to the needs and dependence on earth like conditions.

Identification with the body but no identification with the earth is ignorance.
From a larger perspective, the whole earth is our body.
Bondage to the body is bondage to earth itself.
Liberation from the body is liberation from earth itself.
Can you detach one of your fingers and have it live a life free from your body?
In a way, that is how we are bound to the conditions of earth.
That too, only certain regions of earth, that are hospitable and favorable to the body.
So in essence the body cannot be free from earth by its very nature.

Dispassion and Infinity

Dispassion comes from the knowledge of infinity.
When having infinite desire, how can it be satisfied by one thing?!
Desire then becomes like the sun,
That shines continuously on everything indiscriminately.

Delving deep into the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude

What is the deeper reason behind the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude?
What is the payoff of seeing something as desirable or undesirable?
What is possible to get and what is impossible to get?
Generally, we’d like to see what is ‘possible to get’ as desirable,
And what is ‘impossible to get’ as undesirable.
That way, the psyche remains stable, and its efforts bring continual fruits,
Without wasting effort on what is impossible.

I am going to look at the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude in the context of relationships.
Generally to bond with someone, you idealize them,
Which is the basis of the whole romantic fantasy.
That they are good for you, best for you, the perfect match, that they will raise you higher and so on.
Idealization is the process of desiring itself.
That is what motivates you to seek anyone i.e. to seek to include them as a part of yourself.
The whole life of the ego is the Kohut’s tension arc,
Driving between where you are now and the image of your ideal.

On the other hand,
Devaluation is the process of avoiding/fearing (vs. idealizing/desiring).

As an ego, one would idealize that which is in one’s interest, and devalue that which is not in one’s interest.
What serves one —-vs—- What does not serve one.
What is life positive —-vs—- What is life negative.

However this does not explain the ‘death drive’.
What causes a person to consume poisons? severely deprive themselves? self torture? and actively seek death and self-destruction?

The child idealizes the caregiver to bond with them.
Esp. the infant idealizes the mother,
Because the mother is the source of life and protection for its initial years.
So this is where the primary attachment is created.
A certain primary relational structure gets formed in those years.
If the mother herself is lost, and the birth was from unconscious compulsion,
And if the mother is severely misattuned to the child’s needs,
Then the child’s needs go severely unmet.

If its needs are met highly randomly and inconsistently,
Then it will develop disorganized attachment

(that includes anxious-preoccupied and fearful- avoidant attachment patterns).
If its needs are met consistently,
Then it will develop secure attachment.
If its needs are not met at all, even once,
Then it will become a dismissive-avoidant.

Basically for a dismissive-avoidant,
Opening up to an other fully is anathema to them.
It is as good as committing suicide,
It will de-structure the entire psyche they have built.
They live only relying on themselves for almost everything.
Now this naturally idealizes self-reliance,
While decrying dependence of any sort.
The world-view formed by a person with this attachment style,
Precisely mirrors his interaction with his caregivers.
The image could be something like:
“Everyone is selfish and serving their own interests.
So I too will do the same.
Nobody cares about me unless it benefits them.
I must avoid dependence at all costs.”
Something like that,
And there are many layers to this.
There is grief/sadness and great anger towards others.
Even ignoring something is a form of hostility.
The dismissive-avoidant may ignore others with such intensity.
In the deeper psyche, it is a form of punishing them for what they did.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine, what they did to him.
RULE: “We do onto others, what others did onto us.”
So their treatment of others is a reflection and it mirrors how they were treated in their formative years.
What matters here is “FORMATIVE” years.
Because that is the time the ‘Self structure’ is formed.
Thereafter the entire experience of the world is in relation to that structure.
So for the dismissive avoidant, there is no alternation between grapes are good and grapes are sour.
They don’t even talk about it, in fact they don’t talk about anything related to their needs for relationship. It stays preserved in their own unconscious darkness .
It is just stuck on “Grapes are sour”, the idealization part has been repressed and buried into their unconscious.
Because if that is brought out, it will dismantle their entire independence idealizing structures.
The irony is, it is traumatic for them to see the world as good.

It is much easier to see the world as terrible and keep finding more proof for that.
Because that would justify their position right, of being to themselves and independent like an island.
They believe they have separated themselves from the morass of an ugly uncaring hostile humanity.

Generally the ‘grapes are sour’ experience applies to people who go through its opposite too of ‘grapes are wonderful’.
It is the alternation between the 2 that gives the strong experience in either direction.
Since in their formative years, their needs were intermittently met, followed by long periods of the opposite, it is a torturous confusion.
It is like living in a place where a gale, hurricane, flood, earthquake and other natural calamities keep striking your house again and again, causing you to somehow survive that and build your house once again from scratch maybe in a different area, only for that to happen again, and only for you to once again build a new house, and so on.
It becomes like an eternal improvisation exercise,
Where all relations are nulled, and where you try all over again and again.
This is basically a situation of high insecurity.
Where all “basis, rooting, hinging, foundation” is lost on a dime again and again.

This can be quite maddening for them.
Why? Because the projections wildly alternate,
Swinging from one extreme to another extreme,
Canceling everything out as they move from extreme to extreme.

For instance, suppose someone does not like me,
Then I will tend to try to see them as undesirable/terrible, 
Because only then can them not liking me, become a kind of ‘good riddance’, i.e. a good thing.
Else, if I see them as good/desirable, 
Then that means I am not getting access to something good,
And that will entangle my energies where I keep making efforts to try to get them to like me.

So it is better to tune perception to see them as undesirable or poisonous, 
Then them not liking me back will be good and alright, 
Because that would only prove I am good and they are bad.
Else it would turn into, I am bad and they are good, 
And that I have to be the sorry one to change and please them enough for them to accept me.

This is precisely the harrowing attachment struggle.
Preparing the body to bond OR to be alone.
Essentially, for the secure attachment people, the aloneness gets repressed in the unconscious.
For the dismissive-avoidant, the bonding part of them gets repressed in the unconscious.
They both appear to be stable, because of achieving successful repression from moving from chakra 2 to chakra 3.
Whereas, when repression cannot happen easily, because of conflicting caregiver’s attitude and behavior, then it results in the anxious-preoccupied or fearful avoidant,
Depending upon which side the scale veers to.
# If it comes closer to the secure side, then it has greater hope “If I can just try harder this time, I will make it to secure attachment”.
# If it comes closer to the avoidant side, then the hope is towards the opposite “If I can just become independent, then I can get rid of this painful need for others”.

So the scale is:
Dismissive avoidant —- Fearful avoidant –|– Anxious-Preoccupied —– Secure attachment.
This inner drama play between ‘he loves me’ and ‘he loves me not’, happens only with the middle 2. Because it is the middle 2 that are the realm of insecurity.
The dismissive avoidant is sure ‘he loves me not’.
The secure attachment person is sure ‘he loves me’.
So they both are somewhat settled in their lifestyles.

There is no real “reason” for anything

There is no real “reason” for anything,
The reason for anything is everything (everything, the way it is).
How can an “infinite multi-dimensional inter-connected oceanic happening” fit into a “single thread of reasoning”
The reasoning is just that, one thread of logic.
It is one among billions of threads, and threads of all sizes.
So the mind is more of an elucidator, expounder, expresser, and reflector.
There is only commentary/expression/reflection/study/understanding.
So there isn’t any clear ‘why’, ‘reason’, ’cause’ for anything.
There are no hard conclusions, only soft ones,
And no absolute causality because causality comes from threads of reason, and there are infinite such threads running forwards and backwards and criss-cross.
The whole moves the whole.
It is all one gigantic absurdity or wonder.
The dream is simply dreamed as an expression of infinite-possibility.
All is but an appearance in consciousness/field.

My musings on death

Death fills me with a sense of deep awe, respect, wonder, and a sacred silence.
I bow down to its power.
Death fills me with a kind of gratitude.
That I have had the privilege of having this stream of experience, 
And to be a witness of this body’s inner life process.

Every death is liberation from the form.
Seen from a higher perspective, death isn’t a separate unconnected event.
Birth and Death are part of a singular continuum.
They are different parts of the same process, the same thread,
That continues on inexorably.

We have all done this countless times before,
Living from different points of view.
When moving from form to form, it is the point of attention that shifts.
All forms are temporal in nature.
Every form that is born also dies.
We descend into form and ascend back into the formless.
Birth and death are the grandest events that can happen to anyone.

Birth and Death happen to us as ‘consciousness’.
We are not born and we do not die.
We are the eternal substance (consciousness),
Witnessing the plays of both birth and death,
And all that happens in the middle we call our lives.

The deepest fear and the deepest desire

The deepest fear is the ‘fear of death’.
It is not ‘death’ itself that is feared (because it is unknown), but the ‘fear of death’.
The fear is of the ‘image of that possibility’.

Fear is not about the actuality but about the possibility (as imagined).
Fear is the projection of a negative possibility onto the unknown.
But it derives its substance from the past memories/known.
So the unknown is defended against, by fear.

All fears are illusions though, because:
“Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.”
So in a way, our greatest fear is of total disillusionment.

I feel the deepest desire/longing is the desire for:
Liberation, Mukti, Transcendence, Enlightenment, The highest possibility,
To merge with the deathless source,
The desire for God itself (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence).

I think all other desires and fears are different mixtures of the above 2.
Like how sugar and salt is mixed in different proportions in different foods.
They all taste unique, but carry these 2 essences.

When the heart is fully cleansed,
It radiates deep devotion.
It feels like a boundless vacuum, or an infinite fall.
It is like falling in love, but with the fall never ending,
Because it is a state inspired and generated from within, not from outside conditions.
Devotion is the highest expression/potential/possibility of the heart.
Devotion is just you being really straight and committed to your own deepest desire/longing.

The holographic field

We live in a holographic field.
We are the holographic field in essence.

Birth into form and Death into the formless,
Is from the crystallization and dissolution of the ‘organic structure’,
That creates the ‘point of view/lens/focal apparatus’.

A fully crystallized self structure creates/projects a fully crystallized world.
On the other hand, when the self structure is in transformation,
The world seen/perceived/experienced also appears to undergo a transformation.
Birth and Death is like the shifting of the point of observation/attention/focus.

For visualization: Imagine a 360 degree camera moved around your room.
At all times, all the contents of your room would be visible in the video.
However, you would see the details and sizes of objects varying wildly depending upon the camera’s position.
Similarly, we experience the same general field from all the points of view within it.

Since the field is holographic,
Every point in the field contains the whole in principle,
Just like a drop of water contains the same essence as the whole ocean.
Or just like the structure of the atom is said to mimic the structure of the universe itself.
So through studying the self, all knowledge of the world/universe too can be gained.

The self and the world are complements of each other.
As is the self, so is the world.
As is the world, so is the self.
They both go together.
They arise together and pass away together.
Studying the self is also a study of the world.
Studying the world is also a study of the self.
You are only aware of the world, to the extent you are aware of the self.
You are only aware of the self, to the extent you are aware of the world.

I could say, from more practical terms,
The lens through which you perceive the world,
Would be the entirety of your biochemistry (inc. all neurotransmitters).
So the biochemistry and neurotransmitters would be the switching station to access all possible worlds in the human body.

I am generally witnessing the play of the field/existence/god through a point of attention within my body.
If I move this point of attention outside/beyond my organic body, then it would be called an out of body experience.
Generally when we say out of body, or this concept of beyond or outside, we imagine a certain direction or a different point in space-time.
But in my experience, out of body experience is far vaster than that conception.
It is a non-linear, non-Euclidian movement in the field.
It is like the idea of ‘concepts’.
All ‘concepts/ideas’ actually transcend space and time. Even simple ones like a ‘chair’ etc.
When you shift your mind from one concept to another, what direction are you moving in?
(x, y, or z axis?)!
When you move from between the states of consciousness from waking to dreaming, what direction do you move in?!
Even in general science today, we speak about movement in the 4th dimension, but this is quite inconceivable. What direction would you move in to move in the 4th dimension?!
There are many such movements possible in the consciousness field that are outside of the space-time physical reality framework we generally think in.

Experience Waterfall

Experience Waterfall:
…Infinite/Nothing —>— Finite/Something —>— Infinite/Nothing…
…Infinite filling in —>— Infinite emptying out…
There is only the endless flow/fall/stream,
Creating the dream experience as it moves through.

The observer and the observed world

You see the world not as it is (idea of 1 objective world),
But as you are (idea of observer-observed relationality).
The world appears to you in the way you are.
The world changing is you changing.
You changing is the world changing.
There is perfect correspondence.
The self-world pair appear together as one process,
And they also vanish together in the same process.

Generally if the self is relatively more stable than the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like a stable person with a stable view of a fast moving world.
On the other hand, if the self is rapidly changing compared to the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like the very viewpoint is shifting and experience of the world becomes more like a dream.

When you open up, the world (as you perceive) opens up.
When you close down, the world closes down.
The violence within you is the violence in the world.
The peace within you is the peace in the world.
When you are unstable, the view of the world is unstable.
When you are stable, the view of the world is stable.
The true objective nature of the world is Shunya/Indeterminate.

The body-world appears like a hologram.
Like how every drop of the ocean is the ocean contained in the drop.
Both the body and mind are actually external to your real nature.
When both the body and mind are witnessed as objects,
Then you realize the transcendent space.