Impermanence and Cyclicity

# Impermanence – removes the notion of ownership/possession.
# Cyclicity of the nature of time – removes the notion of progress/gain
So, it seems like both ownership and progress are temporary phenomena.

The greatest civilizations rose into order/glory and later fell into chaos/oblivion.
The pain and suffering in life I feel is caused by – Trying to maintain the permanency of our illusions while also trying to make them endlessly progress.

The forward moving tides initially greatly assist us in building whatever we want,
Then the same tides reverse their direction and oppose us until everything is brought to a halt.

Our so called free will seems to be at the mercy of these cyclic larger forces.
We can only have anything or dance according to the terms dictated by these forces.
Generally we try to oppose these forces tooth and nail,
But nature eventually wins and swallows us back into itself at death.
We can prolong our life by various clever strategies,
But eventually, some day, we are forced to yield to death.
And death acts in the same way to all.

Our life as an individual with freedom,
Seems to be a kind of gift or privilege,
Bestowed to us as a possibility by these larger forces.
But whatever is given is also taken away.

The only way out of this I see,
Is to voluntarily merge with the deeper reality,
And gradually transform our individual self in alignment to that.

Every gain is a loss, and every loss is a gain, depending on how you look at it.
‘Psychological meaning making’ is sort of an art.
We are then like artists,
Shaping our experience through every moment,
From wherever we are.

The cycling between the 2 ends of qualities.

Every quality seems to perpetuate itself,
Cycling between the 2 ends of its spectrum,
To create all of the experiences of itself.

It’s like every quality is its own dimension/flavor of experience.
Where the 2 opposites within that quality,
Create the experience spectrum of that quality itself.
Like: Sour ———— Sweet.
Those are the 2 ends of the spectrum of that ‘flavor dimension’.

Other instances:
# The therapist for others, later receives therapy for themselves.
# The one who save lives, later has their own life saved by others.
# The one who bullies, gets bullied later.
# The one who protects others, get protected.
# The one who hurts others, get hurt themselves.
# The one who cheats others, gets cheated over by others.
# The oppressed become the oppressor, then once again the oppressed, and so on.
# The loved one becomes the lover, and then consequently the loved again, and so on.
# The server becomes the served.
# The caretaker becomes the one cared for.
# The one who was subjected to tyranny, then becomes the tyrannizer.
# The one who wonders, makes wonderful things, and that leads to more wonder, and so on.
# The student eventually becomes the teacher.
# The disciple becomes the master.
# The helpful becomes the helpless who is helped.
# The powerful eventually become the powerless.
# The dutiful person, gets others to do their duty towards them too.

All of these things look to be cyclic.
There are these interminable causal cycling chains running from the past,
And thereby causing the current reality.

In general language, we treat the 2 opposites are 2 distinct things.
But actually in reality they are mutually creating each other,
Like how in a tapestry, the same thread runs up and down.
For example, take sadness/despair and joy/hope.
They are both mutually creating each other.
If you fully live through your sadness, you open the way to much more joy.
If you fully work through all of your pain, you pave the way to greater pleasure.

The current life seems like suddenly watching Season 5 Episode 3 of a Drama,
Without having seen any of the previous seasons and episodes.
However the general flavors of the serial can be perceived through any episode.

Each of our lives is like the continuation of one long saga,
From the big bang till today, and still playing out.
Each of us, are riders of eternity.

It is love that makes one seek knowledge at all.
Without love, why would you bother to seek knowledge at all?
So even ignorance itself shows a lack of love.

The reject first pattern – active vs passive approach

The active approach (in second person narration):
Whenever you want, you create/resurrect the relation,
Whenever you want, you terminate it.
You want the power to control/direct/create/destroy/determine relationships.
So that you are never in that position again,
Where you land up with rejection from the other side,
Without any power to make them want or desire you,
Where you are fully open, yet abandoned, 
Like what happened in childhood.
Because you were perceived to be unlikeable/unlovable/ugly/unworthy/disappointing?
So that you are never abandoned again without your control,
You do the reject-first strategy and do the abandonment preemptively by yourself.
In a way, you inflict the same punishment onto the other (and to yourself) that you felt was inflicted on you.
The reasoning is:
“If I expect that you will reject me, I’d rather reject first,
So that what is anyways inevitable is something I perform consciously,
Rather than it coming and hitting me from behind unexpectedly and shockingly out of the blue.
If I consciously expect it, and preemptively inflict it on myself and the other,
Then I will not get hurt again like that, and it’ll therefore be much less painful.”

So the guiding force of this behavior is a certainty wrt. the expectation of rejection/abandonment.
That is, of people ultimately being disappointed/angry/frustrated with you and leaving/abandoning you.

All of the above is the active approach.
But there is also a passive approach.
There are 2 strategies to deal with rejection, forming a polarity:
Passive —– Active
The active one seeks to start and end relations as per their own whim – seduce/idealize then devalue/abandon.
The passive one lives alone in receptivity, and let what comes come, and let what goes go.
He does not seek what he needs/desires/wants, but lets everything come to him by the other’s seeking of their needs/desires/wants.

It is like:
# The Bee —–vs—– the Flower.
# Power —–vs—- Receptivity.
# Male (or rejected female) —–vs—– Female (or male with suppressed/inhibited will)
# Outward looking eyes —–vs—– Inward looking eyes
# Extroverted consciousness —-vs—– Introverted consciousness
# Things will come to you if you seek for it —-vs—- Things will come to you by what you are.
# Projection —-vs—- Introjection (of the same essential rejection theme)
# I will use everything (appearance of selfishness)  —-vs—- I will get used by everything (appearance of selflessness)
# I am perfect, others must change —-vs—- I must change, others are perfect.
# Change the environment to suit you —vs—- Change the self to suit the environment.
# Inner rigidity, Outer mobility —-vs—– Inner mobility, Outer rigidity
# Borderline —-vs—— Narcissist
# Unconscious of self, Conscious of others —-vs—– Conscious of self, Unconscious of others.
# Controlling others, leaving self uninhibited —-vs—- Controlling one’s own desires, self inhibited.

Both are narcissistic wounds in essence and reactions to the same root condition:
# I will be what I am, not change anything, and rather search for the one who will love me unconditionally —-vs—- I am not good enough, and must make myself worthy, so that then everyone will come to me.
Both of these are opposite polarizations of the same theme, and therefore will tend to get attracted to each other and play out the dance.
The attraction is because of the same root similarity and resonance of the theme of rejection. 
They are just the 2 opposing ways of dealing with the same dilemma,
From the same magnet with its 2 opposite poles.

About knowledge and fire/spirit

Every piece of knowledge must be digested to liberate more fire/spirit from itself.
It is similar to real fire from firewood.
If you put dry wood, it further enhances the fire.
Whereas if you put wet wood, it diminishes it.
Similarly, if knowledge quells the fire, then that knowledge is not serving the fire.

There is no good knowledge or bad knowledge.
However, whether your fire can handle the knowledge or not is the real question,
i.e. whether you have the necessary supports, enzymes, tools etc. to digest it or not,
And that is what needs your discretion.

Knowledge must serve and enhance your spirit,
Like dry firewood enhances and fuels the fire.
If the knowledge being consumed does the reverse,
Then that knowledge is not serving your spirit,
And it would then diminish your life force.

Every answer you get for a question,
When digested fully, will spark 10 other subtler questions.
The purpose of an answer is to act like an enzyme to break the question up into subtler and subtler questions.

In a way, this principle also holds true for physical food.
If you can digest what you eat, the the food serves you and increases your energy.
If the food takes more energy to digest than it provides,
It leaves you with lesser energy than when you started off.

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 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.