To be fully alive

Life is change.
All that does not change is dead.
So total change is total life.

To be fully alive,
Is to be like a fire,
That blazes, sparkles, and dazzles.
Everything you do must change everything,
So as to fall into endless transformation.

Whatever you do must be:
Towards what matters to you the most,
Towards what means the most to you,
Towards what you most deeply feel/desire/care about.

It must transform and change you fully from moment to moment.
Living in a way where the whole moves the whole.
Where all of you is free,
In full power, glory, and splendor.

Living every moment from the creativity,
Of ushering a whole new world at each moment.
Bringing/Gathering all of one at each moment,
Only to fire up and change it all up in the next.

Desire and Perception

Is desire/interest because of perception?
Or Does perception itself come because there is desire/interest?
Or Do they both go together (arise together and pass together)?

In other words,
Do you see because you want to see?
Or Do you want because you see?
Or Do the seeing and the wanting go together?

Is desire the cause of perception?
Or perception the cause of desire?

For instance, for a child who has never tasted sugar,
There is no perception (of that thing) yet, therefore no desire.
But once there is perception of sugar (the thing), the desire for it is awakened.
This would be the case of ‘perception causing desire for that thing’.
It is the case of: “I never knew I wanted this, but now that I see it, I want it more than ever”.

‘Desire causing perception’ is “You see what you want to see (those things)”.
For instance, you are walking on the road and you want to catch a cab.
What do you see, just cabs and cabs right.

Generally causation implies separation in time.
But here, I would say both are simultaneous.
Like the burning fire being desire,
And the light emanating from it being perception.
The burning fire and the light emitted from it are simultaneous.

However, in my examples, those were cases of:
Desire for specific things and perception of those specific things.
Now this is what happens/plays out in time.
And you could find the causal relations between the 2.

Another related aspect to this is ‘desire and memory’.
Memory creates desire (for that memory)
Desire (for that memory) then seeks for more such memories.
Which came first? The memory or desire?
There is a kind of cycling between the 2.
Like hunger/desire and food/memories to satiate it.

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.

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.

Allotments of desire to serve or take responsibility

Abstractly seen,
There are “quotas/allotments of desires” functioning through us.
I think this is exactly what they call “Prarabdha karma”.
I feel we gravitate and are attracted to the ‘genetic instruments’ and ‘conditions’ that will be best suited to serve those desires.
‘Genetic instruments’ here refers to our choice of which human body to occupy for this lifetime.
And of course, this genetic instrument will be a child of many other surrounding conditions that will be like the larger body surrounding it.

To give an analogy:
Supposing you wanted to do a lot of professional video editing work and are continuously on the move, you might choose to buy a high end Apple Macbook Laptop for that purpose.
But suppose, lets say you wanted to play the latest AAA pc games which require the most powerful GFX card, and are mostly at home, then you might choose to buy a much bigger Desktop PC.
If you live in the US, you would get it cheaper, compared to buying it from India.
Similarly, in US you might also get many more options for the hardware components.

So based off that analogy, here in this case:
We choose an instrument from the choices available in the market,
To fulfill our requirements/desire/purpose.
We are also limited by what is available in the market at that point of time.
Just like how when we desire/need something,
We check out the local market at that time,
And make a choice from what’s available.
I think similarly, when taking birth here we might probably have a similar set of constraints.

Then there is the concept of responsibility.
I think responsibility is something we take up from our own desires.
Generally we refer to the overheads as responsibility.
For example, take the statement:
“I enjoy my smartphone, but I am responsible to keep it safe and in good condition”.
# Here the desire is to enjoy the functions/features/abilities of the smartphone.
# But the responsibility is the overhead of maintaining it, keeping it safe, and so on.
Another example would be, say our desire is for a monthly salary, then we would take up a job (take on some responsibility) so that we are paid that salary (which is the desire).
So in short, all responsibilities serve our desires.
Responsibilities are necessary overheads we take on for fulfilling our desires.
It is desires that is primary.
Responsibilities are its supporting function.

Next let’s cover ‘disposition and attitudes’.
Our personality/dispositions/attitudes are also ways to serve our desires only.
They are like the background/backdrop conducive factors.
For instance: Say I have the desire to be liked by everyone and avoid conflict.
Then naturally, the disposition I would adopt would be: ‘polite, pleasant, diplomatic, highly adaptable’.
So your disposition definitely conveys your desire.
But even here, desire is primary.
The disposition and attitudes are like conducive fragrances to attract the bees that you desire.

Another reason for birth could be for balancing out the personality.
For instance, say someone was an insensitive bully in his former life.
He could then choose a birth of being an artistic, sensitive, and weaker person to experience those opposite qualities.
That would satisfy his desire for balance and neutrality.
After all, we can truly move to non-duality only when we transcend all dualities, right?!
This is a dictum I learned from Teal Swan: “To heal from anything is to experience its opposite”.

So figure out what your real desires are.
And the things that you have taken up in your life to fulfill them.
This is more a contemplation on ‘why’ by conscious observation, and the goal is for ‘revelation’.
Even looking at your mundane life and tiny decisions, will reveal a lot of deeper things about yourself.

Resonance, Attraction, the time-shaft dimension of a person

Every person we meet has a past, present, and future.
“…Past self —— Present self ——- Future self…”
People are like flowing rivers.
And when you meet them, you are meeting their river at that time and place.

All interaction is only possible only because of resonance.
Without resonance, the others would not even appear in your experience.
You mingle/jibe/sync with the person only through the resonance you both share.
In other words, you see them within you, through how they appear/form within your space and its filtering structures.

Understanding this resonance can be a very subtle job.
It could be a positive or negative kind of ‘energy investment’ resonance.
For example: Both liking or hating the same thing.

Another possibility is, it could be resonance with the thing but not with the relationship to that thing.
For instance: Say both are obsessed with the idea of beauty.
One of them trying to become beautiful with the other actively rebelling against the idea of beauty and doing the opposite.
The commonality here is, both are focused/fixated/locked onto, and have their cathexis/emotional investment set on the same theme/field/topic/idea, although with differing/opposing relationship.

So there is the resonance from:
# What idea you focus on
# Relationship towards that idea
The first bullet point creates the “shared reality/shared frame of reference”, which is the primary resonance.
The second bullet point, that is, the relationship towards that shared frame is the secondary resonance.
This is because if the 2 do not see/share the reality/frame as the first step, then no interaction is possible at all.

Another element of this is consciousness.
# 2 people could come from the same cultural background and share that deep resonance,
But they could be completely unconscious of it.
They both may not see that shared resonance as an object at all in their experience.
# On the other hand, if there is consciousness of the resonance, then there is also consciousness of the object that is resonated with. And this implies that the person is seeing from a point of view that is transcendent of the object.

This is actually a necessary precondition for all consciousness of any object.
All consciousness requires transcendence, that is to see something clearly as an object in your experience, requires ‘you’ to see from an ‘identity space’ that is transcendent of that object.
All consciousness needs contrast.
The ‘transcendent reality’ provides a contrast to everything we experience here.
Union-ing with that, allows for the greatest clarity and unifying vision of everything here.

Let’s now look into the time dimension:
What the other values/cherishes/desires/longs/strives for, represents their future self.
That is what they will become, or that is the direction of their movement.
They are drawn towards certain possibilities, and if you are also attracted towards a similar direction/possibility, then that also is a resonance shared.

In a way, seen from a 5-D perspective, every person is tracing a time mandala.
From the 5-D perspective, the entire mandala is already there, it is only a matter of time.
Like how a cassette or DVD already has the entire recording, but it is played out in time.
So there could be a 5-D resonance too. Some kind of complementary time mandalas in deep relationship with each other.
This is what is called soul connection I believe.
Basically a referent used to point to a much deeper higher dimensional resonance/relationship/attraction/complement-ality.

Sometimes the attraction to the other is because they represent a possibility/potential that we desire, but we are unable to be/become or own that due to various reasons.
This could be 5-D or even 6-D based.
# 5-D based attraction would be something you could potentially become, but you may be having many other preoccupations and constraints, it may involve too many sacrifices, compromises, guilts, fears, restructuring, and so on.
# 6-D based would be something that is impossible for you to become in this birth given your conditions. For instance, if I wanted to be a billionaire’s child, that is a 6-D possibility because it is impossible in this current birth no matter what choices/decisions/investments I make. It is then more like a parallel universe, that can only be lived in the imagination.
Imagination is the Ultimate Bridger of all worlds and possibilities.

Investment of life energies

Invest your life energies in:
# What you love/cherish
# What you like
# What you are interested in
# What you value
# What you care about
# What you feel really matters to you
# What you are concerned about
# What you feel deeply and genuinely about
# What you think and feel is important/significant
# What you feel is most meaningful to you
# What you desire

The whole idea of romantic relations may be a social construct

I had this wacky train of thought come to me.
Hope viewers of this post find it entertaining/interesting.

The whole idea of romantic relationship is a societal/cultural/civilizational/human-organization based construct.
If all humans just lived wild,
Males would randomly have sex with 100s of women, and probably have 30-40 children each or more.
The male would not know who his child is.
Also, there seems to be no easily observable causality linking the sexual act to the consequence of pregnancy, and the consequent children that come from that.

There is just a wild instinctual desire for the male.
Similarly women too feel this same wild desire, in certain time periods, and depending on their mood they may run away, resist, or allow the sex to happen.
The man in his prime years would probably be more motivated, since he can easily manage to do 1 or 2 every day without any time-off periods.

The things is, after the sex, the woman too may not be able to causally connect the act of sex to the pregnancy that happens after.
Could she not take it as something that just naturally happened from God?
So the causality is not known from either side, male or female.

The female would bond with the child from the oxytocin and breastfeeding period, and that bond may result in the child and mother recognizing each other.
But there is no way the child will know the father, and neither will the father know.
It could be anybody.
If the woman has had sex with 5 men in a day, and gets pregnant, how would she have any idea who caused the child OR if the 5 acts had anything to do with the child at all?
The first symptoms of pregnancy after all come much later, probably a fortnight later at least, right?

Another aspect is that, if the child grows up away from the mother from a young age, it is doubtful if the mother can recognize the child.
The child may recognize the mother, because her age may not change her appearance as much in the 15-45 zone, but even that may not be easy.

So it seems like the entire notion of civilization/society is to regulate birth and to ensure the spread of resources to everyone.
By putting the responsibility on the father, the father is deterred from following his raw instinct and seeking new mates.
Similarly, a responsibility is also put on the mother, to take care of the child for much longer than she might have otherwise done.
The socialization/enculturation/civilization process is to suppress the sex instinct’s wildness, and instead redirect it into the structures of society, that is, to gain status/position/rank and then seek out the opp-sex of similar status/position/rank etc.
This I guess spawns the whole matrix of mating/romantic fantasy and social status/rank/position/specialness.
The fantasy of being the elite and mating with other elite,
Like the notion of kings/queens, emperors/empresses, prince/princesses and so on.

Names are used in societal organization to TAG the person.
It is an identifier similar to your debit card number, social security number and so on.
Similarly even the roles of mother/father are tags society puts on folk.
Like XXX is the mother of XXXX —–OR—— XXXX is the father of XXXX.
Also the agreement of marriage itself, is really a contract/agreement that serves the children who will be born from the mating of the 2.

Marriage was essentially a system created for the bringing up of children.
Nowadays people use it for companionship, but that is a conscious contract of sort, and it does not have much binding, since both the parties are independent.
It is only the child that is born helpless, and needs a lot of nurture at least till the age of 10.

There seems to big rift in the way “natural biology drives/impulses/instincts” operate and in the way we view everything from the “societal/cultural/civilizational lens”.
The former is generally subsumed into the latter in the process of socialization.
I guess, based on seeing the consequences, ramifications, and aftermath, birth causation etc. – Wise people with vision created systems such as culture/society/civilization to organize and regulate the different drives so that the system could serve in the longer term as a win-win for everyone.
Society/Culture then seems like a long distance vision of how people can live together and mutually fulfill all their needs .
As more needs get satisfied, people may become conscious of finer and subtler needs, which would gradually make their way into modifying society’s formal or informal structures.

The Schizoid/Split vs Depressive/Ambivalent position

Schizoid/Paranoid/Split —vs— Depressive/Ambivalent.
# Good and Bad objects are separate —–vs—– Good and bad objects are one.
# There is god and the devil —-vs—- There is only god who is both the angel and devil.
# There is a white paper with black dots to be eliminated —vs— There is white paper with black dots OR a black paper with white dots.
# Mother as good or tyrant based on specific behaviors —-vs—- Mother as randomly good or bad without my understanding/control.
# ‘World as rules driven’ hard right/wrong conception —-vs—- ‘World as mad’ conception
# AvPD, Schizoid, Autistic —–vs—– Fearful avoidant, Disorganized attachment, ADHD.
# Tyrant mother = Tyrant world (Fight/Flight) —–vs—– Crazy mother = Crazy random world (Freeze/Fawn)
# Catastrophic thinking —–vs—— Fantasy thinking.
# The desired object and feared object are separate in time —-vs—- The desired object and the feared object are one (accelerator and brake emotions on at the same time causing friction/resistance/suffering, causing hesitation/shyness).
# Splitting of self and object into good and bad —-vs—- Union of self and object into good and bad.
# [loving, gratifying] object vs. [frustrating, persecutory, hating] object as 2 distinct things —-vs—- Both of those mixed randomly in the same person.
# Binary logic (it is either fully A or B) —-vs—- It’s A, it’s B, it’s both A and B, it’s neither A nor B.

There is only consciousness, and there is only the work

There is no inside-outside.
There is no self-other.
There is no you-world.
There is no body-environment.
There is no voluntary-involuntary.
There is just the one.

All of these are distinctions made by the mind,
Like throwing a net from a boat into seamless sea water,
And then calling each square of the net a label.
We create mental maps and use them to control and navigate in our life.
But the map is distinct from the territory.
The map is the lens through which we view the territory.
The territory is one undivided ocean of consciousness.

Reality/Territory appears to us as experience,
Based on how we see it through the maps of our mind.
Each map is a perspective.
And the multiple maps you carry in your mind,
Are like multiple perspectives to see the territory.
But the territory itself is like an unbounded kaleidoscope,
And it contains all of what all of the maps reveal.

We think we are born and we die.
But it is only the persistent appearance that dies.
In fact if you observe each moment,
Things are continuously arising and passing.
We see events because of our lack of vision.
When anything is seen very minutely,
We see that things happen in a continuous stream (continuum).

If life is the bird, its 2 wings are creation and destruction.
Our experience is like a continuous music in time.
Life on earth in the body is the theme of the music now.
This theme will shift and another kind of music may play,
Once the physiological process is completed.

So one very broad perspective of looking at this is:
There is only you and your karma unfolding.
The true completion of your birth,
Is when you complete the karma of the birth.
From this perspective – there are no situations/people/places,
Rather there is just an appearance to work with, whatever it appears as.

How does one complete karma?
In my understanding, it is by transformation.
We penetrate the darkness that surrounds our lives with our light,
And transform it.
We do this until we fulfill the potential (desire) in this birth,
And attain integration, enlightenment, and wholeness.
Then another cycle might begin in the next.

Consciousness creates its own darkness,
Filled with puzzles and possibilities (maya),
And then opens up a point of light (awareness),
With the desire to keep expanding its sphere of reach.