Every interaction is a sequence made up of moments of winces and moments of surrender. In other words you are either tripping or you are showing up. Make a habit of cultivating the latter while noticing instances of the former.
/Ht David Deida
Energetically you are either in the mode of conversing or conserving: the momentary fluctuation of which is natural but monitoring (thus checking) your prevailing tendency to do the latter (to the detriment of the former) is optional.
Take nothing at face value. See through the sur-face. See through the ripples. Rest with the truth of this moment. No matter the content it’s the context of your engagements that manifests in your experience. No matter their content it’s the context of your comments that determines the interpersonal trajectories involving you.
See through the bitchiness of women, see through the antagonism of colleagues, see through the heavy moods of loved ones, see through their trans-generational, trauma-induced compulsions to hurt and feel hurt, see through the ingratiating comments of your fans, see through your adverse and elated reactions—feel them, embrace them, fully, rest in them, struggle with ease—nothing’s a big deal.
You say that you’re heartbroken over ’’moving on’’ because you’ve grown truly fond of the forms—the places, the faces—you’ve encountered. But let’s be honest: do you get as attached to plants too? Do you feel dejected when you see a blooming flower in April and think about the fleeting nature of your encounter?—Now, is this a silly comparison? Why? What is the extent of the difference? Isn’t it but all about forms? forms that you can appreciate for their unique flair or fail to do so. One thing’s for sure, we go easy on the plants because they cannot engage in our drama, but when it comes to people we turn into weird, needy little desperate Gollums clinging, grasping, claiming and demanding—no matter how passively—we proceed, in effect, to project the love that we are onto theirform—their peculiar face and their bodily rhythms, gestures, postures and style of engaging—because we expect them to be someone for us so we can get to be someone for them.
To clash with an ego as an ego deploy the trigger points of the ’’other’’ ego to attack ’’your’’ own ego. Never defend yourself. Fight fire with fire, kind of. If someone is struggling with some form of inferiority complex (and passive aggressively demand respect and attention) tell them—nonchalant and unflinching but not provocatively—something to the effect that your insides are made of jello and deep down you are nothing but a needy little bitch and you are sorry to let them down like that. In other words, know their Kryptonite and instead of rubbing it in for them rub it in for yourself. Never defend. Simply attack yourself with their ammunition. And see what happens. And remember: ’’They’’ are attacking ’’you’’ because they are defending themselves. ’’They’’ are attacking ’’you’’ because they are afraid. They are in emotional pain.
I have a rule: If you wish to be seen, show your truest colors—the other stuff: that sticky, clingy, gooey, needy, personal, phony, affected, demanding, ambivalent, avoidant, shadow-play way of relating, no thanks, please. But then, this is a rule I myself am struggling to live up to. For all intents and purposes.
I takes up restrictive dieting when I thinks certain foods trigger the body in a harmful way. The same way I goes into restrictive socializing & emotional bonding when I thinks that certain interactions and certain ties trigger & impact the trajectory of the soul in harmful ways. This is fear based, bullet-dodge type of mentality. I is terrified of messing up. But the body cools down if its supply of simple sugars is restricted and the heart grows cold too if it’s denied the warmth of any other human heart.