All our impressions and impulses are labeled concepts that give rise to the cognitive-behavioral patterns we employ when manifesting our thoughts as objects through verbalization. If we observe consciousness from the self-aware, placeless perspective that constitutes our nature in its primordial state, we see that the very means we use to defend ourselves against past violations are what we subsequently turn against ourselves—manifesting as self-criticism and feelings of inadequacy. This obscures our connection to our primordial or basic face—its relationship to the spaciousness within us, to spaciousness itself, to the placeless nature of consciousness, and to the clear awareness that articulates our experience of the primordial ground we share with others. We cannot accept or unreservedly tolerate this without our own defenses intervening. We cannot accept it with genuine compassion toward another because we do not possess it in an undistorted form regarding ourselves—beyond the rejection of the acceptance and compassion we encounter in relation to that aspect of our own being. Our own conditioned cognitive patterns which we perceive everywhere around us—reveal themselves from the very foundation of our being. If we are overly solicitous of someone else, we deprive them of their relationship with themselves and of their self-confidence. Which creates dependencies. If we are too controlling, we make them willful and dismissive. If we do not care about them from our self-observant perspective of the content of our mind, they become emotionally distant and withdrawn. We will never truly reach our authentic face in relation to the emptiness that lies at our ground of being, not a consciuosness as an object of the intellect with all that we identify with and try to permanence in it, but as something placeless. But mind as something appearing without an origin, not as a dwelling place, or a destination. But with the experience of nothingness and the clarity of pure awareness, as having a sense of seing things as they are. Then it emerges in our meditative and placeless consciousness, as cause and effect within this emptiness, we become aware of dependent origination. That everything is connected. We become aware of this through our conduct and through the samsaric labels that shape these contexts of our mind. That without self-observation we are never truly born in a psychological sense; instead, we exist in a mental intermediate state. In Sámi, the Jábmiidaibmu, or the Sámi state of Bardo. This also belongs to Máttaráhkká’s dark side, and her reign as Jábmiidáhkká, her possessiveness when it does not manifest in cultural expressions, in a self-reflective connection and its deeper sense of psychological affiliation, coherence and belonging, because those of us who are oldest ought to know better than to confuse them with real people when we put these relationships into words. Jábmiidaibmu, and the terrible dualistic contradictions to which it exposes us, is, of course, something that will slowly, over a long period of time, transpose into Sáivu, and into the content there with which we relate in terms of our inner person: and to his contrasexual counterpart and to the parental pair and ancestors that forms the traditional families we engage with from within Sáivu in our personal psyche. When we first encounter our contrasexual counterpart, we do so in her virginal form, pure and unadulterated in her identification with nature itself. Yet, over time, we come to view nature not only with compassion but also with a clarity regarding its impermanence, its constant arising and passing away that transcends her pristine idealization. This clarity represents genuine compassion for these conditions, articulated through her mature and evolved relationship with life as it is, rather than as it ought to be. This is Rádienáhkká. Or Samantabhadri, in the embodiment of this experience within the Buddhist tradition.