D – I have the concept of personality conflicts somewhat with the concept of Io: if at this moment they asked me what is the difference, or the things in common between these two concepts, I would not have understood.
Well, that is already an important point to bear in mind. Actually the difference between personality and ego is very hard to find, because they are two aspects that coincide for most of the things. The fact is that personality, as we said last time, arises from the development of genetically innate characteristics, primarily of the individual as they are enacted within the physical plane.
So, it's something that it allows you to give a connotation of various types (mental, physical or emotional) to all the experiences you live. Personality is something - I repeat - that allows you to connote the experiences you live according to the transitory bodies you possess at the moment of incarnation.
If there was no ego, what would happen? It would happen that everything you experience, everything, would do nothing but bring to your awareness, directly and immediately, all that experience teaches you, because there would be no element that would stand between you and the perception of your reactions.
The ego – which, on the other hand, you know, is illusory and arises from the clash between the reactions of your lower bodies and the reality you live – has a fictitious life which tends to maintain the status quo, tends to ensure that nothing escapes its attention and , therefore, everything is as rigid and firm as possible.
Here, then, that if we want to find a difference between personality and egowe can say that the personality is an instrument that would be extremely useful if the ego were not there because it would allow us to immediately acquire the elements of understanding – while the ego is the instrument which, on the contrary, I am not saying that it is harmful, but it is at least boring, in allowing the elements that come close to your understanding to be misunderstood or misrepresented, or modified, by the perception of the lower bodies.
It's a subtle difference, I realize. I hope you understood, otherwise keep asking and let's try to clarify as best as possible.
- Readings for the interior: every day a short spiritual reading of the Cerchio Ifior and the Cerchio Firenze 77, up Whatsapp and Telegram.
- Summary of the philosophical teaching of the Ifior Circle: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES PERSONAL REALITY, you can order here the book. If you're reading this and want support, write.
Q – Scifo, is it possible, as a character, to be inclined towards altruism and then with the ego to manifest outside not a pure altruism but confused by other intentions?
Well, I would say yes. Here, let's take this case that our friend mentioned: let's suppose that a characteristic of your character (I'm sorry, it's ugly but you can't say otherwise) is that you tend to be altruistic. What happen? It happens that there is this "gift" within the individual which gives him the possibility in the course of his experiences to behave not in a selfish but altruistic way, also taking into account the needs of others.
If he could implement his personality without any interference from the Ego, the individual, in making his experiences, would always be able to take others into account and, therefore, to be tendentially altruistic even in his manifestation in the physical world; since, however, there is the ego which seeks to have prominence, to be the center of reality, to be the most important thing in the world (so, at least, it tends to consider itself), here is that the attention of the the individual, instead of manifesting himself as a personality through the ability to be altruistic, tends to shift attention towards himself and, therefore, in some way to do this he must obviously reduce the expression of altruism typical of the character.
Q – So, at this point, the ego is nothing but the filter of our understandings and misunderstandings on the physical plane, which also distorts our personality?
Certain. There is another important point to take into account: the Ego - as you know - does not exist in reality, it is fictitious, it is illusory, the personality however does not; personality is real because it is related to who each of you is when embodied; this is the big difference, and this is also why I was saying that, if you were able to express your personality - and therefore, at the source, your character - you would be able to arrive directly at understanding, at your ability to be aware of your understanding/not -comprehension.
D - So, in practice, if I have understood correctly, it is always the usual reasoning: pay close attention to our inner movements to actually see what of our character can be perceived and manifested on a physical level, without the interference of the ego?
Certainly. So, at this point, perhaps our insistence on speaking of «passive observation». How, then, can passive observation be understood with these elements?
Passive observation includes the ability to interact with reality, through the personality, keeping the ego aside; or rather: observing without interacting – and whoever interacts with what you do is your ego – and letting your emotions, your thoughts, your desires, your understanding, your conscience, your character move your actions.
Q – I understand that while there is a direct link between the akasic body and the personality. Or not?
Of course, going through the character.
Difference between personality and ego: clear
“The Ego – as you know – does not exist in reality, it is fictitious, it is illusory, the personality however does not; personality is real because it is related to who each of you is when embodied”
I strongly disagree with this position. Even the ego is connected with what the individual has understood and (above all) not understood: the ego is the mirror of consciousness during incarnation.