All charisma is about the strength of the pranamaya kosha

The 5 koshas/shealths/layers covering the light of the Self.

The pranamaya kosha is the energy body.
The vibrancy of this energy body determines your extent of influence and transformative power in the world.
A hyper-vibrant body is unmistakable.
We call it different words like charisma, confidence, happy vibes, and power.
Happiness itself actually is a condition of a highly vibrant exhuberant harmonic energy state.
Harmony is a very important variable.
Without harmony/balance, the high intensity of that person, may appear threatening,
And you may instead stay away from them as much as possible.

Some people are very vibrant inside.
But because of:
1. Hyper restrictive childhood environments,
2. Very low reception from others in formative years,
3. Very hostile and critical parents creating mountains of shame,
All of the activity is sealed and very little gets out.
You mostly see them staying invisible with a poker face.
There are very strong suppressive/repressive mechanisms containing all expressions in them.
This also however can be picked up by others.
Even if you are just silent, someone who wants to mess with you will stay away,
Because he/she senses your prana power that you are bottling inside.

The prana exerts the attractive force by its own nature,
But what form it takes depends on the structure it is channeled through.
For instance there are many different forms of high prana personalities.
It could take different flavors such as:
Power, Anger, Intensity, Calmness/Balance/Equanimity, Movers/Shakers, Celebration/Joy

A very old person has a really feeble pranamaya kosha,
So it is actually quite difficult to even feel their presence.
The opposite of this, is a kid full of exhuberant energy expressing itself,
You just cannot miss the presence of the kid.

Some thoughts on dating

This is a very vast subject,
And no matter what I write here,
I’d still only be scratching the surface.

In my understanding,
All relationships/dating/romantic pursuits,
Are about mutually fulfilling needs.
At a broad level, the needs might be:
Emotional, Social, Psychological (Companionship),
Physical, Financial…and so on.

I feel the root of all of these needs starts from early childhood,
From the relationship with the parents.
How did the parents reflect the child?
In the formative stage,
A child knows itself only by parental reflection/mirroring.

If the parent treats the child like a satellite,
(Like an extension of themselves instead of an independent entity),
That has to revolve around the planet,
Which is the parent in this case,
Then that creates the co-dependency dynamic.

If the mother/father is herself/himself profoundly needy,
They may project the role of the hero/savior/martyr to the child.
Due to this, a role-reversal would take place,
Causing the child to be the caretaker/peacemaker/emotional-regulator for the parent.
This would create the hero/martyr/savior dynamic.

In other cases,
The child may be conditioned to be overly dependent on the parent,
And the parent would encourage that to keep them dependent/enmeshed.

An opposite kind of enmeshment is also possible,
Where the parent depends upon the child from an early age,
Causing the child to be unusually independent early-on,
And assuming adult-like responsibility from a very young age.

There are many more cases like this,
Which then create a plethora of possible dynamics.
I feel it is these dynamics that are once again enacted in romantic relations.
The role-plays conditioned early on,
Perpetuate themselves in future relationships for most.

Whether negative or positive,
The dynamics go on unless deeply introspected.
Essentially the holy-grail sought in these romantic relations is:
If original dynamic was positive: To perpetuate that same successful dynamic with the other, and have that pattern simply live on.
If the original dynamic was negative: To once again find someone to trust, and then attempt to get our narcissistic wounds healed through their positive reflection of us.

Generally, I observe, that if the original dynamic was positive,
The person has very little trouble finding a partner and continuing it.
Trust comes easy, it happens seamlessly somehow,
And suddenly in a wink of an eye,
You see them all settled, happy, continuing their shtick(lol).

Most of the drama however, happens in the latter case,
Where the original dynamic was negative.
I feel the reason why this case is so difficult is because,
Not only was there a lack of trust to begin with from both sides,
But also, each of them continues to be still attached to their parent(s) in a negative way.
After enduring huge amounts of narcissistic injury, they buried all of their hurt/shame/anger/sadness…and so on,
And all this buried resentment and unprocessed parental enmeshment/attachment,
Makes both of them project their own ‘unfulfilling-parent’ onto the other.

For each of them:
The real quest is to get a cocktail of the following validations from the other:

Emotional/Self-esteem/Achievement/Specialness,
/Significance/Importance/Greatness/Worth/Value,
Trustability/Lovability/Likeability/Attractiveness,
Intelligence/Status…and so on.
It is a quest for redemption:
To be seen in a positive light,
And granted entry into a better world,
That is now finally safe for them to enter.

But in order to get the above,
They first have to become vulnerable to the other,
And open themselves up to a new internalization.
But to have history not repeat itself, and double the hurt,
They would have to test each other first.
And this testing part is where things break off eventually.
Because:
1. Usually nobody passes their tests (far too steep).
2. Secondly they attract partners who resemble their parents (the ones who created the issues to begin with).
It then becomes a sort of negative-prophecy that keeps repeating.

The quest could be worded as:
“How do I find an other,
Who is safe/trustable/adept/and wants my best interests?,
Who gives me the positive-reflection of myself I have longed for,
Who thereby opens up a new safe world for me to start thriving,
Which is the opposite of the hellish in-between ambivalent place I am in now.”
Most of the time, such an other is never found or never passes the tests,
And therefore results in “serial-monogamy” or other forms of disguised-despair.

Imo the only way out of a negative illusion like this,
Is to wake up (to awaken).
Unfortunately, it is not as easy to change a negative illusion to a positive one.
The only way out is to make EVERYTHING conscious.

On Fear, Contraction, Abuse, and Sociopaths

When there is a threat perceived by the senses (sensory input) we are jolted back into the body.
Have you ever noticed a toddler, how they startle easily?
My hypothesis is that, that is because they are only loosely in their body.
So any loud noise tends to startle them, which is something that jolts them back into the body (contraction impulse).
Abstractly put, the spectrum is:
Fear = Contraction(increased density) ————– Bliss = Expansion (decreased density)
And fear is a response to threat.
Bliss is a response to safety.

Continuous abuse tends to result in habitual contraction which is a result of constantly bracing for the fight or impact.
Mental abuse causes mental contraction.
Physical abuse causes physical contraction.
The labels of mental and physical are cursory, as compared to the base phenomenon happening which is similar – ‘contraction of energy’ or an increasing of ‘density’.
To understand this let’s consider another spectrum:
Finite(infinite density)(1)—————— Infinite(lowest density)(∞)
The greatest fear would be the greatest density/infinite density/singularity/black hole (the left of the spectrum).
The greatest bliss would be infinitely low density that permeates all of existence (the right of the spectrum).

Now, generally sociopaths are created in certain early childhood environments where there is a lot of abuse.
What is normal for a sociopath is abusive to others. It is relative.
So what I mean by abuse here is an exposure to a kind of rough, blunt, high density, and hard interaction.
So the child develops in accordance to this environment and quality of interaction sensitivity etc.
When this child meets other kids brought up in much softer and more sensitive environments he finds they are hurt by his ways of interaction, feeling all his interaction as abusive, and avoid him.

Another important thing to consider is, higher density naturally implies selfishness and lower density naturally implies empathy.
Because empathy is sensitivity.
The same energy thins out and spreads over to consider the other, expanding the circle of concern.
Whereas in high contraction, there is inherently a non-consideration of the other.
Look at the way people act under extreme fear or anger.
Does the person in front of them even matter when such a strong projection is put forth?
So take it far enough along the left in the spectrum towards fear or energy contraction and you have a sociopath.
The opposite of this would be a saint, whose energy is subtle, highly sensitive and shows very high sensitivity and empathy to all beings.

For a saintly person, do you want to know how a sociopath feels?
Just watch a horror film, that feeling of being wired and in the edge of your seat, is a CONTRACTION of your default state of energy, and that might be the default operating mode for a sociopath.
For a sociopath, do you want to know how a saint feels?
Just take a lot of ‘mdma’, you will experience a higher degree of the world of sensitivity and empathy.

You can only give, what you have received

In terms of childhood personality programming, I’ve had the following empirical observation:
RULE:
“You can only give, what you have received”
Whatever you have received, forms the ceiling of your compassion.
There is no absolute standard here, its all relative.

For example:
If your salary is $60000, and fulfilling all your needs takes up $30000, leaving you with an excess of $30000 for free spending.
In this situation, you can easily feel compassion for anybody earning less than $30000.
But, can you feel compassion for a person earning $100,000? – No right? – because it is much beyond your income.
Another example:
Say you score 75/100 in math. You feel compassionate towards someone who has scored 40 or 60/100.
But will you feel compassion to a person who has scored 90/100? – No right? – because it is much beyond your score.

I’ve seen the care we have received in childhood sets our standards for later life.
For instance, if your partner asks you something that is far above the care you have received, then you simply call it unreasonable/unjustified. Whereas if they ask you something that you have consistently received yourself, then you may immediately do it without any expectation because you feel it was “totally reasonable”.

What determines what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable”?
It is totally relative to what you have received.

Once deep contemplation awakens in you, you access much greater standards of compassion, than was provided to you by what you received as a child/formative years.