The inside-out life expression

I’m looking at the perspective of how life expresses itself from inside out.
The something that seems to come from nothing…
The potentialities/fires that seem to arise in the inner space…
It starts off from the pure desires/abstract feelings,
And then projects and focuses itself into the outer realm.
I feel the very act of being alive is the burning of these inner fires.

Using 2nd person perspective narration:
Your life in the world,
Is like the sex between your inner fires with the world.
You are always in the state of sex (as a verb).
Your inner fires are penetrating into the world and that is what allows you to see it.
In fact whatever you see is what your inner fires are sex-ing with.
So you could say, you are always in relationship, and relating.
All experience is from relating.
This act of relate-ing, sex-ing, is going on and on, and is content agnostic.
It is like how when your eyes are open, you simply keep seeing, no matter what is in front of you.
That faculty is simply shining its light unconditionally on whatever is outside.
Similarly your life energies are simply in a state of relating and sex, being content agnostic.
This is where I think the sayings that ‘we are love itself’ come from.
Because all that you experience, is from this unconditional perfusion into the world, propelled by this longing force we call love.

The fire within burns unconditionally,
And unconditionally burns all that it touches,
And unconditionally lights up everything around it.
This is true for all of life i.e. the non-physical fire that animates.
All life is this unconditional fire.
This burning, and lighting up, is a kind of touch.

Even light falling on something is like the subtlest touch.
‘The burning’ is a more intense penetrative touch.
Even to simply just see something, is to relate with it.

You are Shiva, the fire(energy),
Penetrating into Prakriti(matter),

In a state of unconditional total relating/sex-ing.
ALL relating is sex at various levels – from the lightest touch to the most intense.
What we generally call sex in essence I think is the most intense form of relating.
To be in contact with the fire itself vs. being in its light sphere or heat sphere.
Ultimate sex is the ultimate union.
From this perspective/context: Sex = Yoga = Union.

One’s Personality = One’s Subtle Body.
Personality = Likes and Dislikes,
Forming the 0s and 1s of reality perception (tapestry).
There is a vision/awareness and then there is relationship (1,0) (like, dislike).
# When you like something, you strive to see it more, bring it more into your awareness.
# When you dislike something, you strive to see it less, push away that from your awareness.
So avoidance is a manifestation of dislike,
And approach is a manifestation of like.
Push = Avoidance —vs—– Pull = Approach.
That is the dance of Push-Pull, Attraction-Aversion, Like-Dislike.


The world is a fractal and holographic.
…To Zoom out —— To Zoom in…
In both cases you get infinity.
The more you see in one thing, the more you see everything.
The more you see everything, the more you see in one thing.
The intensity of seeing is independent of the content of seeing.
When we like, we open up the full intensity (towards 1).
When we dislike, we try to close down the intensity (towards 0).
And there are all the inbetween mixtures.
The intensity of this seeing depends on the vibrance of life energies within.
All liberation is about unconditionality, to become unconditional,
To just be full on and on, for its own sake.

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.

About Achievement

Achievement = The feat of Becoming.
It is like building a skyscraper and reaching peaks.
The taller the skyscraper, the more stable the foundation and base has to be.
Another analogy is, the harder the ground on which you stand, the higher you can jump and land.
The strength of the base/foundation/anchor is what you depend and rely upon,
To ascend and to straddle through the highest peaks.

Strong personalities in the world have strong anchors, a strong support system.
This stability/anchoring/foundation can be got in many ways.
Through conscious commitment to some ideal/values,
Through developing strong stable relationships by stable ways of relating,
And so on.

The greatest foundation imo is Gyana/Truth/Dharma/Transcendence.
It seems to be the greatest refuge/anchor, like an iron ox,
To ride through the flux of change/time.

Dependent and Narcissist personality spectrum

The brain always chooses the better option, in its own judgment.
Whether Conscious or unconscious,
Depends on whether that mechanism,
Which was formed when young, was owned/claimed.

In dependent personality or narcissistic personality,
There is an unconscious polarization mechanism.
In the dependent polarity it thinks, “the other always knows better and is better”.
In the narcissist polarity it thinks, “I always know better and am better”.
There is a parent imago projection:
Positive parent imago projection = favor the other and self-sacrifice as much as possible.
Negative parent image projection = favor the self, and stick to self as much as possible.
Which is: Idealization or devaluation of parents in the self structure.

Very early premature individuation = narcissism.
Unable to individuate and being dependent on the other = dependent personality.
Individuation at the balanced time = balanced social personality mix.

Generally the kid will take on the opposite polarization of the opp-sex parent,
If that parent invests in the kid (This insight needs more investigation though).
Dependent children usually have a narcissist opposite sex parent.
Narcissist children usually have a dependent opposite sex parent.

Positive and Negative Anima

Positive/Light Anima:
Pleasant, Kind, Warm, Watery, Friendly, Embracing, Including, Giving, Trusting, Pleasing, Requesting, Sincere, Innocent, Non-calculative, Freeing, Relaxed, Open-minded, Gentle, Soft-spoken, Expressive, Non-violent, Happy to learn, Listening, Admiring, Adoring, Thankful, Grateful, Having remorse when having wronged, Solution-oriented, Forgiving, Understanding, Enjoying other’s happiness, Safe, Reliable, Revealing, Genuine, Sweet, Forthright, Honest, Truthful, Goodwill, Cooperating, Nectar-filled, Healer, Well-wisher, Playful, Democratic, Charming, Agreeable, Nice, Likeable, Constructive, Keeps promises/word, Secure, Angel-like, Refined, Sophisticated, Fine, Filled with compassion, Drive to enhance life, Greek goddess Aphrodite like, Principled, Nurturer, Interested in God vs. false power, Truthful, Empath, Alluring, Ethical, Sunlight source, Benevolent, Mature soul, Light, Optimistic, Positive, Happy, Cherubic, Uplifting, Flexible, Yielding, Considerate, Abundant, Philanthropic, Heavens/Deva-lokas/Sky entity, Respects the other, Sane, Supportive, Responsible, Authentic, Growing, Adaptable, Easily Satisfiable/Pleasable, Open heart of air, Sharing self with other and other with self, Ready to serve.

Negative/Shadow anima:
Super severe, harsh, cold, dry, hostile, deserting, abandoning, withholding, mistrusting, punishing, commanding, tactful, calculating, measuring, controlling, imposing, dominating, demanding, repressing, violent, fake-confidence-mask, inflated-ego (looking down on everyone else), thankless/in-grateful/remorseless, defensive, vengeful, jealous, treacherous, deceitful, hiding/covering/occluding/pretending, vile, bitter, manipulative, resentful, hateful, nursing grudges, abusive, venomous, poisonous, wanting revenge, targeting people, playing politics games (like house of cards), ingratiating itself to authorities and people in power, nasty, cruel (can cut you off totally anytime), destroyer, betrayer (can entirely turn its back on you), sorcerer-like, crude, filled with pain and holding on and nursing it within herself, death drive (total withdrawal of the phantasy projections anytime), Goddess Kali like, asuric, demonic, witch, diabolical, devilish, looking to die and absorb itself into people more powerful (but all to execute its revenge), expert liar, psychopathic, creepy, sly, opportunistic, energy vampire, reptilian, snake like, dark, gloomy, depressive, melancholic, absolutely stubborn, rigid, stoic, in a deep feeling of lack, power hungry, exploitative, underworld/underground/dungeon entity, gas-lighting/crazy-making, madness, attacking, blaming, projecting, broody, mopey, whiny, complaining, fussy, sulky, cribby, unsatisfiable, unpleasable, devouring, self-obsessed/absorbed, closed heart of stone.

Different ways of dealing with others

When watching YouTube videos of influential speakers, I often read through a lot of the comments too.
What I have noticed is a broad pattern.
I haven’t totally thought through this, but I was excited to present my immediate findings.

Firstly, I’ve seen the more popular/contentious you are, the more the intensity of fans and haters.
In people’s responses I see the following trends:
The speaker say Person A makes an argument, assertion or simply presents his view “X”.
Now lets say people B, C, D, E react to this.
* Person B says “X is wrong, X'(X complement) is true”.
* Person C says “X is wrong, Y is true”.
* Person D says “Not only is X true but it is also supported by Y”
* Person E says “X is true, but Z is truer than X”
The responses of B,C,D and E represent the 4 broad types I’ve noticed.

Here is a more algorithmic form of the response types:
For X then X’ = Position X’ (Oppose X) – Reactionary
For X then Y = Position Y (Invalidate/Deny X, Present Y) – Blind
For X then Xx = Position X+x (Clarify/support X with x) – Bolstering
For X then U = Position U (Transcend X and dissolve it in a larger frame U) – Transcending

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.