Giving meaning to life by changing, understanding [sf29]

The sense of dissatisfaction walks by your side almost constantly: you hardly feel happy and at peace with yourself and, even in the rare cases in which this happens, nothing is enough to make you rediscover that dissatisfaction which, the main characteristic of your Io, is ready to manifest with every blink of an eye.

Never lose sight, never forget that your main task is, and always remains, that of understanding, and that in order to succeed in the fastest way, in order to make suffering not a perpetual condition but a transitory state, it is necessary that you understand your interiority.

And to be able to do it in the best way you have to observe yourself while you live the experiences that life offers you, one after the other.
Always remember that you will make sense of your life the moment you allow your consciousness to understand by observing yourself.

I know, watching you also means seeing things about yourself that you wish you could ignore, and this doesn't leave you indifferent, because it means suffering for what you would like to be and which, instead, you realize you can't be.

Yet observing these things makes the suffering of their discovery surmountable, it does not leave them to fester inside you like an infected bubo which, in any case, sooner or later will inevitably burst with far greater suffering not only for you but also for those closest to you. next to.

Accept and make your own, to the end, the idea that running away is useless, if not to prolong your stay on the physical plane for a greater number of lives, it does not cancel your suffering but lengthens and makes your pain constant in a much longer time than will pass from the moment of your present birth to the moment of your abandonment of this physical body which for this life is a part of you.

Convince yourself of this, brother, try to make it truly yours, sister and then even your ego will have to come to realize that looking away from your problems does not mean canceling them. Viola

  • 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.

But, once again, our children, this small/huge teaching that brother Scifo has brought you is fallen under the rule of your ego, making it an empty and useless thing to give meaning to your life.

In fact, he took it and used it to try to modify the exterior of himself, in the illusion that adapting the exterior of your life to the dictates of the models that the transient archetypes (and which summarize the idea of ​​happiness and good/evil, or right/wrong typical of your society or your social group) can really make you happy.

Sad disillusionment: it is not by changing what is external to yourself that you will be able to be happy, that your life will acquire value, that your existence will have meaning.

Look into the eyes of people who have much less than you, who perhaps live in large numbers in a ramshackle hut, who hardly possess the little that makes their physical and social survival possible. You may often see an ability to love and enjoy the little things that you have so often neglected to cultivate.

If you had what they have and not the "much" you have, would you be happier or less happy? Would your life make more or less sense?
There is not and there cannot be an answer to these questions because the problem arises in very different terms, which, as I said, do not pass outside you but inside you. Weather

Realize what you really want it's part of giving your life meaning. How else could one truly be able to change it by alleviating the suffering that seems to loom just around the corner from the experiences one is facing?

If one believes that there is a need to change one's life but the change remains only a hypothesis never implemented, this may mean that the hypothesis made is not felt, but is only a means for the ego to appear strong and active towards the difficulties that make us suffer.

To change means to change and to change means not to be never passive in the face of what you are going through.

When the desire for change in one's life does not translate into a stimulus to action this can only mean that, for some reason that we do not dare to face openly, ultimately we are okay with living life the way we are living it.

It all seems completely logical and, at the same time, completely meaningless: how is it possible to wish not to suffer anymore and, at the same time, do nothing to undo, modify or, at least, mitigate the suffering and pain that afflicts us? Rodolfo

The main problem, again, goes sought in the individual's ego. The ego, by its nature, is not far-sighted, it does not have a great propensity to develop complex plans over time.

If you carefully observed the child of a few years – that is, the individual in whom the ego is more free to manifest itself, still only relatively subject to the influences of conscience and those of archetypes, both permanent and transient – ​​you would immediately realize that it is his prerogative to want everything and immediately, to become enraged when he does not immediately get what gratifies him, to react to suffering directly and in no uncertain terms, either by attacking its source or by devising a behavior which can make it less heavy at the moment.

Basically, the basis of the adult individual's ego is the same as that of the child: he has the same tendency to live as much as possible in the "here and now", which is in line with teaching, except that the "here and now", as far as the ego is concerned, is oriented not towards fully savoring the nuances of the experience it finds itself having to face, but towards obtain in the "here and now" what he wants and what gratifies him.

Undoubtedly the individual's ego, although built around that of the child, is no longer so simple, direct and immediate, as other elements have come into play, elements which have obviously structured it in a more complex way.
What are these elements? 

First of all, the conscience, the akasic body came into play, and this prompted the ego to try to adapt to the new vibrations that pervade it.

The increasingly massive input of vibrations from expanding understanding inevitably sets limits to the possible actions of the Ego which is forced to slalom between these "fixed points" as it knows that it is unable to truly oppose them.

The most frequent technique he implements is, then, that of ostrich: that is, he operates a censorship to pretend not to see what would be the right way to act, looking for a thousand reasons for his non-action that can justify his behavior in the "here and now".

As a consequence of the complete connection of the body of consciousness, the ability to perceive the vibrations that come from the permanent archetypes and even hearing the tolling of the permanent archetypes sets limits to the type of action put in place (or not put in) by the Ego, which often reacts masquerading as a lamb, or doing everything possible for others to consider him good, right, evolved, I would even say "enlightened".

Up to this point it would seem that the game can only be won by the ego.
If this is not the case (and we thank the imagination of Whoever created this complex structure that embraces the whole of Reality) it is because the Ego finds itself unsettled in the face of the instances made available to it by the transitory archetypes.

In fact, as you will certainly remember, these offer him simpler models for him to accept, because they seem to show him the most direct and fastest ways to integrate into the society he is experiencing and beyond: they suggest the "ways" of interacting with that society.

By trying to conform as much as possible to the dictates of the transitory archetypes, the ego believes it can obtain appreciation, attention, assent, gratification, that is, all the gratification and all the satisfaction it wishes to obtain from its relationship with others.

In this way, he forces himself to operate in a closed circle that leads him to swing between the feel and selfishness, experiencing his own reactions in spite of himself and trying to escape what causes him discomfort or suffering.

When the ego manages to maintain an iron and protracted control over time, those symptoms known as neurosis or psychosis, difficult to overcome.

When control is only partial, however, the Ego finds itself having to continually update its image and its schemes in an attempt to run for cover, an operation which makes the individual inconstant, alternatively at the mercy of emotions and rationality but which in reality, it can be qualified as a symptom of those necessary inner upheavals which, always and in any case, accompany the evolutionary change of the individual.

When the Ego loses control, the individual escapes all schemes, becomes difficult to understand to the external observer, his reactions and actions are difficult to classify on the basis of the models of transitory archetypes, that is, we find ourselves faced with a evolved individual. Ombre

From the cycle Nuances of Feeling 2002-2007

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments on “Giving meaning to life by changing, understanding [sf29]”

  1. Certainly this post is an invitation to change.
    But, as the guide says, we often prefer to do like the ostriches.

    Reply
  2. It's easy to get confused, deluding yourself that you've changed. The repetition of certain events and reactions is not always sufficient to trigger change

    Reply
  3. Very dense and interesting passage but some passages seem to highlight an unclear and at times contradictory doctrinal system.

    – “the characteristic dissatisfaction of your ego”. If the ego does not exist, how can it be dissatisfied? Are we sure that the dissatisfaction belongs to the ego and not to the conscience? Sure, the ego doesn't exist and so it all adds up, but then why keep bringing up this ego as if it were always a problem and an "other" with respect to conscience?

    – “By observing yourself, you will allow your conscience to understand”. Understanding comes from experience and may not even be aware, the teaching seems to me to say. 
    It is true that teaching was also what one proceeds with "knowledge, awareness, understanding (CCC)", but then it was denied when it was stated by the Guides that understanding can also be unconscious.
    Perhaps the implication is that CCC is the norm but then there are exceptions.

    Ordunque the quoted statement is a little strong and quite questionable. As if to say that only those who observe themselves are able to understand but if this were the case many humans would be in serious trouble and even worse would be all the other life forms not endowed with reflective capacity.

    Then in the piece there is truly a flood of "I", treated as a truly important, cumbersome, problematic entity, endowed with its own characteristics... as if it not only existed, but was actually something gigantic.

    How much difficulty I have in understanding…

    Reply
    • Attention! It is my mistake to say that the self does not exist. It does not exist as a body in its own right or as an entity in the strict sense.

      However it does exist and is the result of the bidirectional dialectic between lower bodies and conscience.

      This awareness unravels some shadows but doesn't affect others.

      Reply

Leave a comment