Insights into habit and dissatisfaction 2

D - If, on the other hand, one is dynamic, he never has dissatisfaction, he never gets bored, that is, he always gets busy, but it does not mean that it is always a positive fact; it can only be a psychological dynamism, an interest, an activism - let's say - no?

(Scifo answers below, ed) As always, opposite situations do not necessarily mean opposite things; on the contrary, when an individual is so satisfied with his life, he is so happy with what he is doing - especially when he flaunts it in front of everyone - he is so gratified by everything he lives, most likely the time will come when he will find himself in front of him. the need - often obligatory - of having to modify much of what he considered fixed and acquired in his life. "Badness", you say: it really seems a bad twist of fate that when the individual, apparently, has found happiness, here is that existence makes it so as to take it away from him as soon as possible! 

But, if you think about it with a moment's attention, you will understand that this is absolutely not the case. Certainly the individual can be happy, he can be happy, he can be gratified by his work, his family, his home, what he possesses, but if truly everything he has gives him everything he needs ... imagine such a situation?

At that point, how long would it take before all this became a habit for him and then ended up becoming something unbearable, something no longer gratifying, something now taken for granted, something that - in the end - he would also try to do without? Think of all of you, creatures, just you, the oldest, who have been coming to meetings for perhaps more than ten years, how many times it has happened, despite the love you sometimes profess for us, to fall into a state of habit towards teaching? 

Yet, in words, you are gratified by the teaching, you are happy to participate, you may embark on long journeys to come here to hear us speak, yet the moment comes - there was the moment - when some of you started the habit: "Let's go to the meeting, to the meeting with the Guides, once a month, we go there, we hear a little, we chat a little, we talk a little ...", ending with find yourselves in front of the suffering caused by "those bad guides" who may have put you in front of your apparent lack of interest, your little good will, your little desire to get busy.
Remember the old days? What does this mean? It means that anything, subjected to the scrutiny of a Io not understood, of an unobserved interiority, can ultimately lead to habit and dissatisfaction. 

The only recipe, therefore, to always be satisfied is not to have no troubles in life, not to have suffering, not to have pain, not to have problems, not to have conflicts, not to have little money and on and on. and go, but it is that of to face each of these situations as if it were a new, necessary thing, from which one can learn, draw something.

Realize, however it may be, what you live you must live it, and not only because it is part of your karma but also because it is part of the Divine Design, and you are part of the Divine Design and therefore, in some way, despite your supposed free will, you must face everything that is written in the Drawing because, otherwise, if you do not face those experiences that are written in the Drawing, you will not be able to understand, you will not be able to go forward on the journey, you will not be able to observe the Drawing from above a little at a time. instead of being unconscious threads of the Design.

D - So we need to look at the acquired as something that I could lose if I don't go more and more into the knowledge of this acquired?

Well, so it seems to me perhaps exaggerated, because then each of you should live with the fear of the "sword of Damocles" which, at any moment, takes away all that has been acquired! Let's say that each of you must be ready to question your life, perhaps maintaining the positions you have reached but not being satisfied with them, not stopping at the achievements but trying to broaden them, to improve them, even if only in the nuances.

You may not have to completely change what you have understood up to that point, but, no doubt, you must try to broaden your understanding in detail. It falls a little bit into that thing that our dearest F. underlined: not only does the loving individual “see” the changes in the other, but he is obliged to seek them out!
Likewise, you not only have to accept your understandings, but you have to try to broaden them; just that is your job as long as you are embodied.

(Some nonsense words, ed) Ah, but rationally you will never succeed, creatures; absolutely! Understanding is not something that goes through your brain, your mental body; understanding occurs when the right tiles have been put in place in the Akasic body, therefore - as we have said several times - it may happen that you understand and you do not even realize it!

Not only that, but when the opportunity presents itself and you no longer make the same mistakes because you have understood, you will not even notice! I know that such a speech is not very gratifying for everyone, this without a doubt; however, if you could objectively look at yourselves of now and compare them with yourselves even just a year ago, you would notice that there have always and in any case been great changes in you.

Q - So we, on a daily level, can we only work on awareness?

Certainly. You must try to know, to be aware of what your truths are, in addition to the truths that concern a little bit of all of reality; but mainly those that are your truths, because knowing the truths concerning reality, theevolution, and on and on and on, it can help, give stimuli and so on, but it is not strictly essential to gain understanding, while instead it is strictly essential to become aware of yourself, of what your limits are, of what your problems are, what your expectations are towards reality and others, and so on.

Q - So understanding occurs without effort, that is, there is no intervention even of our will?

Certainly. Understanding happens whether you want it to or not.

D- The effort I know is in achieving awareness, because you have to try to be enough ...

Certainly, because it involves several factors get to be aware:
- implies meanwhile the good will to be,
- it involves attention for what surrounds you, for what moves around you,
- it involves observing your experiences from all points of view,
- it involves being open to experiences and do not hedgehog in front of them,
- it involves remind you that you are responsible, and therefore in the course of your experiences modify, modulate your needs with respect to the needs of those around you.
This is one of the most difficult things, because it is what sets the limit between what is lawful and what is not lawful; between what will make you suffer and what will give you joy.

D - I wanted to ask the difference between desire and need. It seems to me that it has never been delimited here in Genoa. You have now spoken of looking at the needs of others, of being aware of them, but when does the need end and desire begins and vice versa?

They are two distinctly different things, I would say. The desire it is something that arises from the lower bodies, mainly from the astral body, although clearly it also has mental influences; while the need, the real need, arises mainly from the needs of the Akasic body.

I certainly don't talk about the daily needs you talk about sometimes, I don't know… “I need to have a bigger car, a bigger house, such a dress, to take a vacation” and so on; the needs I am talking about are those needs that concern the interiority, therefore the needs for understanding, essentially. It is really a different point from which the two functions arise, the two elements.

Q - So in matter you don't find continuity between a need to eat and a desire to eat beyond? (to be down to earth in the example).

But the need to eat does not arise from the Akasic body.

D - No. In fact, I meant a very physical need.

The physical need arises from a physiological need and that's it. The need to eat arises from the fact that if you don't eat, you cannot continue your physical experience.

D - Exactly. But if I, instead of eating what my body needs, I go further because my mind tells me: "Keep eating this, how good is this chocolate cake", do we go in desire or not?

How to confuse the simple things! Let's say that there are primary needs in the individual, which are connected in some way both to the physical, physiological laws, and also to that matrix, thatimprinting which was discussed at the beginning of your afternoon discussion and which are necessary for the individual to carry on his life and, like him, to carry on their lives all other individuals and therefore the whole race, in a way that that evolution goes on. 

One of these - to stay on the "small" - is for example the appetite; certainly each of you needs to put material into that great physiological inner factory that you possess, because otherwise your mechanisms would somehow suffer and end up wearing down or stopping. 

Undoubtedly, in this introducing material there is already the possibility, on the part of the individual, to make choices; it is clear that each of you has a particular sensitivity of perception with respect to certain tastes, certain smells, with respect to other tastes and other smells, therefore he will have preferences and will undoubtedly be inclined - since one always tends to seek pleasure rather than suffering - to feed on what they like, first of all. 

It goes beyond - but I would say that it then becomes an almost pathological thing - when you go beyond what are the real needs, the real needs of the body you possess; when, knowing that certain foods and certain substances are harmful in a certain quantity, you exceed; when the amount of what you eat is far beyond your inner processing mechanism, and on and on and on.

At that point, then, other mechanisms come into play which, yes, can be identified as desires on the part of the individual, but which ultimately can be traced back to problems on the psychological level and, therefore, to a lack of understanding on the Akasic level.
And if you want an answer whether they are connected or not, it is clear that everything is always connected with everything, of course

D - I felt a little called into question for many things (chocolate cakes and smoke) but I wanted to ask you then: you said the needs of the Akasic body ... an example could be to respect the needs of the other ...

No, stop now. There is only one need of the Akasic body: understanding; and - to make a little note, since you have been told that you have been good today - understanding is not acquired on the physical plane, but is only acquired on the Akasic plane.
On the physical plane only "the elements" are acquired for understanding.

Q - Did I say something different?

You said "understanding that is acquired on the physical plane".

Q - Let's see if I can do my question better: we can identify the need of the other with the needs of experience that he has, so we should not go against what a person manifests - and we call it his desire - but that in reality is it a need for experience that his body pushes him to seek?

What if the other individual needs to jump out the window?

D - I have to think about it.

What are you doing? Do you let him or do you even give him a hand?

D - No, I warn him that he gets hurt, but if he really feels it as a need he will throw himself. No, joking aside, certainly that our intervention is always advice perhaps, but advising is one thing and prohibiting or opposing is another.

There is a small perspective to change in what you said: you talk about the needs of others but, first of all, are you sure you can know what the needs of others are?

D - No, no. Precisely for that reason nothing can be said.

So? Throw it out the window ?! 

D - No, I would advise him not to and then he will decide. So when is it that the needs of others are not opposed?

But if you find ... let's think absurdly: there is this person who says: "I have decided, my life is worth nothing because he doesn't tell me 'I love you' and I throw myself out the window!" and she goes up to the window. And you, calm calm and quiet, tell him: "My dear, I advise you not to throw yourself out the window" or what would you do otherwise? Give her a push?

D - No, I would try to explain to him that there is no need to lose faith in life, that the value of life does not lie in what is another's declaration of love.

Do you think it would be enough?

D - Well ... what do I know? I'd do my best. 

When you find yourself in situations where there are apparently needs of others - I say "apparently" because, I repeat, you are unable, in most cases, to understand what the needs of others really are; this will come, but much later - you must, however, Act. You certainly cannot withdraw from experience.
You have to think first… who? To what? Let's see'. To the other?

Readings for the interior: every day, a short spiritual reading of the Ifior Circle and of the Florence 77 Circle, on Whatsapp. 
(Read only, cannot comment) To subscribe

D - No, to what is of our ego that induces us to intervene. Me in the selfish sense, of course.

No. If you thought about that you would never intervene. You have to think ... alas, what a sentence I have to say! You have to think about yourself first. I know it sounds like an insult to the rest of the teaching, this one, but I'll explain better what I mean.
As a fixed point, you, of the other, actually know very little, so you can do very little towards the other if you do not try to use the tools you have (your mind, your word ...) to try to dissuade him from making gestures insane. 

But, first of all, you have to observe yourself and try not to go through suffering because it is necessary for you understand in those moments what is the thing you really feel you are doing: if, and how much, and to what extent you want to do something, and how you want to do it, since if you act against your feel - and maybe you would say: "But let him go, so much the worse for him, he'll learn to be a little smarter next time!" - if you act against your feelings, this would mean that from that moment on you, however, would go into suffering. I see you perplexed and some even shocked.

D - Yes, it is difficult to understand.

So, trying to summarize as clearly as possible, so as not to make you throw everyone out of the window from tomorrow, when you are faced with the needs of others try first of all to understand what "you" want.

Having understood this, however it may be, do what you think is right to be done. I mean, even if you find that inside you would want to give it a push, precisely because you have discovered that, you will find in you at that moment the words, the strength and the will to make that individual be able to behave differently and not carry out their plan, making sure that you you will have acted according to your feelings and your behavior will have taken the situation into account. 

You will have behaved in the most appropriate way possible (because it corresponds to the personal feel, ed). What then will happen, that is, whether the individual will throw himself or not will throw himself, will be independent of your will and your action and, therefore, will not bring you suffering later on.

D - We always talk about intention; then if you think at that moment that the only thing you would like is that that doesn't bother you and instead you try to dissuade him from throwing himself, etc., then how do you see it with yourself? He does not throw himself and that's fine, so much the better for him, but you with yourself, since there is the discourse of intention, you did it in a hypocritical way!

Of course, you have done it in a hypocritical way, but you forget the great advantage you have obtained: you have brought to consciousness something that otherwise you would have had great difficulty admitting to yourself, because none of you, in such a situation, would ever admit. with himself immediately, at first glance, that all in all if that person did a nice fly it would also do him good!

D - Because it is this story of intention that has traumatized me a bit since it came out, because I discover that I have monstrous intentions, and then maybe I am a great hypocrite.

The speech of theintention it is an essential basis of teaching, because the intention is that which somehow sets in motion all the processes of inner revolution and therefore of evolution of the individual.
You say that you discover some very bad intentions in you (beyond that it was a phrase said just to say) ... you know, the term "very ugly" is always very relative; you have to see what parameters you use to define the intention as ugly ...

But, beyond all this, which would lead us to make a social speech and perhaps that is not the case tonight, the fact that these intentions are not implemented it can mean two things: either that the intentions you found are not as heartfelt and therefore not really your true intentions, right? 
Or they are really your intentions but there is another part of you that has understood something that contrasts them, so you will not put them into action and you will be able to dominate them within yourself.

D - You know, in the famous example that was done: that one should not steal even if he is in a room full of diamonds and is not observed by anyone etc., I do not know if I would not put a couple of handfuls in my pocket. That is, if I don't do it, it's because I say: "No, why should I see this story another two thousand times until I understand it" and then maybe I'll let it go, but ... I don't know, this thing doesn't convince me ... because , if there really isn't anyone, maybe ...

Well, it doesn't seem like such a bad intention, it seems to me that it falls within the norm of your current society, all things considered.

D - But, in short, I don't take these because maybe I say ... apart from that it doesn't happen to me, but I say to myself “there will be a camera”.

But you should be proud that you already stand out from the crowd because you would have something that prevents you from taking them, anyway, while others would take them without thinking!

D - Is it the terror of the camera, you say? Or the fact that I think that sooner or later I'll get back to making that story there?

Both, possibly. You see, many times, when you make a speech like that, you just think of the terror of the camera or the speech "I'll carry it on for lives, lives and lives" saying: "These are the things that stop", but this is what rationalizes your mind, it is not said that those are the things that stop you. 

You realize that your mind, your brain has been conditioned by decades of society and therefore you identify with those elements the taxing elements - in some way - that have a value such as to stop you from committing a negative intention, but this could simply be your mentalization, your rationalization, while the "no" could actually come from the Akasic body; and this vibration, this "no", this prohibition that comes from the Akasic body because it has understood that it should not be done, is rationalized by your mind as - accustomed to the society in which you are inserted - that behavior of yours is a fairly common thing, therefore you must have an "external why" that prevents you from doing it.

D - Sure; so I will never know if it actually comes from Akasic. In practice, then it is better not to do it and ... dead there, then we'll see later?

Well, in the long run you will see if your pockets are full of diamonds or not.

D - Sure, but to understand if it comes from Akasic or not, I see it later. At this moment I begin not to put them in my pocket. Is that how it works?

A first element to understand is to understand how much suffering it gives you not to have your pockets full of diamonds. I don't think he gives you much. So, if it doesn't give you much, it means that there is no great need to have these pockets full of diamonds; and then it means that, if there is no great need, there is something that has been understood by the Akasic body; and then, if it was understood by the Akasic body, probably even in a room with diamonds at hand maybe for a moment you would be tempted, but then you would leave them there.
You are better than you seem, in short.

D - Thanks! I still wanted to ask you one last question about Akasic understandings. Earlier we talked about this link of the akasic who, to understand, uses the physical, of course; we were talking about food, which is a subject on which I am very sensitive… So, what does an Akasic body have to understand, which then, in the physical, “goes crazy” for which it does not eat a slice of chocolate cake but eats three? And many other things of this type: the cake, the pasta or whatever. I can't connect these two things to her, that is, I can't understand this Akasic, what comes to him then if not a great frustration of having continued to disregard.

You understand, my dear, the possibilities and whys are endless. Could it be, what do I know? ... it would be enough for your mother to tell you that it is better to eat little and you, in reaction, would eat a lot.

D - Yes, but what does the Akasic understand?

It means that you have not yet understood that it is not appropriate to compete with a mother on such a thing, or that perhaps that is an indication of a relationship that must be modified in some way because, if it provokes such an opposite reaction, it means to say that there is something to change on one side or the other or, perhaps, who knows, on both sides; which is always the truest thing, then.

D - Okay. Thank you.

On the other hand, you can take advantage of it because you don't have a body that gets fat!

D - Yes, but it is the frustration that you then have of disregarding yourself, of feeling just a bit silly about the smallest things.

Why not feel guilty if only you can do it !? It would be much better to eat three slices of chocolate cake and be happy to have eaten them! So you would eat three more, then three more, then three more ... with many greetings to your health!

D - Returning for a moment to "that of the window", taking it as a general example, by nature I always feel torn in my choices; if I had had the instinct to say "It 'better to throw", but consciously I think it would be better not, I would continue for years to say: "But what is the best thing I say to him at this moment?". By character, I never manage to take a firm orientation, I always look for the right choice.
Is there a right choice in life or is it always subjective?

There is the perspective I was trying to make you understand earlier. The right choice for whom? For the thrower or for you?

D - For both of us I would like it.

Very often it is not possible that it is right for both of us. 

D - Because sometimes you have incredible impulses inside, that you feel them right for you ...

I can tell you how the evolved person can behave. I don't know if this is your case ... The evolved person does what I said before: he realizes what he internally would like, keeps it in mind and puts it aside for a moment waiting to be able to observe it calmly, and then puts , primarily, the need of the person in front of him; he then puts aside his own needs, his own ego, for a moment, to be available to the needs of the individual who needs. 

Of course, even though he has evolved he can be wrong; it is not certain that his response is adequate to the other's need, to the other's situation, however his intention - being right - will not cause him any problems. In your case, however, the best thing would certainly be not wavering between yes, no, but, maybe, how, why, and on and on and on, also because by now that would have been thrown away, but the thing. better, when there are these character conditions of indecision, is to act impulsively without thinking. Scifo

---

Privacy policy of this site to consult before commenting,
or subscribe to feeds.

---