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.

The blessing and curse of extremes

Extremes in the psyche,
Can be a curse,
When they drive your life,
Leading you into more disarray, pain, and destruction.

Healing of any extreme is from the experience of its opposite.
That is one way i.e. the method of nulling.
The other way is to dissolve and sublimate the extremes into higher understanding.
This is the method of dilution.

Extremes when worked upon and resolved,
Give the blessing of much higher wisdom, dynamic range, richer understanding/experience, and inclusion, compared to someone who has not experienced them.
They serve like more potent manure for creating a taller and larger tree.

Most of suffering in my experience comes from psychological extremes.
Achieving balance by working out both sides of the extreme (flexibility),
Gives a great combination of exuberance, riches, stability, and control.

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.

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 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.

Karma, Samskharas, and the completion process

Karma means ‘action’ (verb).
Samskhara means ‘imprint/engram’ (noun).

In colloquial usage though, karma and samskharas are used interchangeably.

The mind in its clear pure state is like a clear mirror,
Where it simply reflects reality exactly the way it is.
Now, imagine a mirror that holds memory.
Suppose you go on a trip and carry the mirror to various places.
On returning home, you would be seeing colorings/ghosts of the past all over the mirror image, right?

This is the nature of a mind loaded with samskharas (impressions/imprints from the past).
The completion process (samskhara dahana kriya) is about thinning out these imprints, so that you can eventually see clearly through them.

One good visualization to imagine this is:
Imagine you are holding a ‘color checker board’ in front of you.

Color checker board, the thinning of the color pieces.

If the color slots on the checker board are totally opaque, then, you can only see the color and nothing through it.
If the color in the piece is made more and more transparent (decreasing opacity), you would gradually start to see what is behind the color piece more and more.
After reducing the opacity i.e. thinning the color to a certain point, you would be able to easily see through it even if there is a bit of coloring still present, right?
This is what is done in the completion process.

Generally in psychology, when the light of your consciousness shines through the color pieces in the checkerboard, it is known as ‘projection’.
# If the color piece is totally opaque, then there is ‘total projection’.
That is, you are entirely seeing your past imprint and nothing of the actual reality in front of you. Total projection completely obscures reality.
# If the color checker board has no colors and if all the colors are replaced with clear glass pieces, then there is no projection at all, and you are directly seeing what is in front of you with no coloring. There is then 0 projection.
So essentially, the spectrum is like this:
Projection(0% transparency) ——- (50% transparency)——- Reality(100% transparency)

For most of us, there is a wide spectrum of opacity variation for these color pieces.
It is neither 0% nor 100% transparent but somewhere in the middle.
Positive colored pieces make us see life through positive colorings (seeing through rose tinted glasses). This is commonly referred to as good karma.
Negative colored pieces make us see life through negative colorings/lenses (seeing through a hell bent mind). This is commonly referred to as bad karma.

The very process of living exhausts karma (colloquial usage).
The main difference between a regular person and spiritual seeker is that the spiritual seeker exhausts the karma at a much higher intensity.
Exhausting karma here means thinning the colors out.
All samskharas in a way are partially unlived or undigested experiences.
That is why they continue to color our present experience.
To digest all these imprints is therefore the goal of the completion process.
In a way, these positive coloring and negative coloring set of lenses are what you call your identity (that is, the combination of our specific likes-dislikes).
So in the completion process, you are also thinning your identity out and eventually merging with the actual reality.

Consider the experience of eating physical food from a plate.
At first we have a more intense experience of it in our tongue,
And then we experience the more subtle experience of the consumed food getting digested, right?
Then what follows is, the nutrients are extracted and the remaining food is sent out.
Karma is food for the gods/soul.
Digestion of karma (the completion process), enriches the soul with wisdom which are the nutrients in this case.

The truth I have observed about love and devotion

From my own experiences I have seen,
For people to love you, you must love them first.
Then the reflection of that would come back to you as them loving you.
You may get varying levels of this reflection depending on the other and their receptivity/capacity.

People will be devoted to you, if you are devoted to them first.
Again the amount of reflection shining back on you would depend on the other.
If you are fully on, your job is done.

Once you are fully loving and fully devoted,
Then people will recognize and reflect this back to you based on their own openness, receptivity, and capacity.

Others loving you is only a security or utility experience for you.
It is only a 1st and 2nd chakra level security.
But you loving others, now that is the real experience of love.
That is the actual 4th chakra experience.

That is why I think Gandhi said “You be the change you want to see in the world.”
You stand for a cherished quality and turn yourself on in full measure,
And the rest will simply unravel.
Your work is finished, apart from deepening your own connection with it.

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.

Creativity for me is best when it is twilight

Creativity is at its best for me in twilight (metaphorically speaking).
Very bright lights/loud sounds = Make me purely receptive and outer focused (all senses are basically receptive in nature, right)
Very low light/low sounds = Make me sleepy and comatose.
So when there is just the right amount of visual/sound intensity,
I can simultaneously access the inner and outer spaces,
And let the outer cues stimulate the inner space well.
The thresholds of sensitivity may however vary from person to person.

Creativity is an “inside -> out” action.
While, sensing is an “outside -> in” action.
There is ‘sensory appetite/hunger’.
When that is adequately satisfied,
Naturally, there is a sort of retreat to the dark to digest/process it all.
This processing is then what I think is often the source of creative works.