At first I didn’t know why it affected me so much. To become disillusioned. To feel like everything was getting to you, to have had enough. But when we ignore our psychic reflection, we replace it with faith and obsessive demands for uniformity. To relate to the crowd. Not meditatively to our individual part of the original whole. We see ourselves again in the ignorance that once made us feel inadequate and rejected. In meditative terms, it refers to the Indian psychological experience of nibbida, which alternates in presence with a circumference of a continuously expanding psychic space. At first in a feeling of infinite emptiness and loneliness. Of starting to see things as they are in a disillusioned sense. That everything is temporary. Impermanent and comes and goes all the time. That that emptiness also contains the unique relationship that consists of the spontaneous insight that emerges in the relationship between us and ourselves. But when we have experienced the infinite space within ourselves, nature as it is embodied through us, we also know that we do not need to see ourselves only through the ignorance that once hurt us and made us accept that we do not have access to our psychic space through all people. They must be allowed to meditate on their own terms. From the same early experience and unresolved insight into the vulnerability that arises within us, they cannot allow you to do it for them. Other reasons may be that the context is not compatible with the meaning of what our psychic reflection conveys to us. It is not yet sufficiently elaborated meditatively. We cannot force others to do so, nor can we be what they must be in themselves for them, independently of us, unless we just make them a version of something we want them to see of ourselves and not people in themselves, where we once again end up with disgust with worldly life, aversion, and indifference in nibbida. Oscillating back and forth between nibbida and the preconscious content of bhavanga. This in turn corresponds to the relationship in older Sami tradition between Saivo Niejta and Sáivu, or the preconscious psyche, where Saivo Niejta is the one who communicates the expositive relationship to the preconscious content of psychic life. Her other, or opposite side, is the formless image of a young woman who, like spring itself, inspires, beautifies everything and makes us connect with nature. Where everything has its own inner growing potential through her. But she also shows that everything is impermanent, temporary and fragile. Without her and her unconditionality, our sense of a union with Nature as a whole, its inner laws and morality is not possible. In this two-fold aspect she brings about the dynamics of the temporary life processes that governs all living things. But both the ancient Indian and the traditional Sami have in common that they both encounter the content of the preconscious psyche through their descriptions of the experiences we have of it in our lives. It is therefore through the psychic function that lies behind the impressions that gives us our perceptions that makes it possible to describe what we go through when we participate in our meditative life. By giving them both the recognition they deserve without preferring one over the other, or preferring someone else’s over them, we are giving recognition to a psychic preconscious content that we can only perceive experientially. Every description of them is a personal relationship to the experiences we make in our self-observation. So it does not matter how we judge others’ descriptions of how they view what they experience in relation to the preconscious content of the original whole. The pure experience still seems to be entirely personal and thus in constant transformation as it is stimulated by our way of life. If we choose to participate in it on conditions that emerges beyond us and during our psychic reflection as well as from the world as it is.