The stimuli of life and the work of the Akasic body [IB5]

Fable of the hoopoe
At the song of the hoopoe the warrior looked at the tangle of the forest and thought between sé: «Listen to how she screams. Of course he is preparing to defend his nest from the attack of some enemy! " and he resumed his journey.

The pilgrim heard the hup ... hup ... hup and meditated: "Sing again, creature, the glory of God." And he continued along the way.

The merchant, angry at the bad day, on hearing the sound of the bird shouted, irritated, to the forest: «You ugly beast, you have little to fool me. Come on, so I'll console myself with a good roast. "

The woman who went to the date with her lover giggled to herself trying to understand the mischievous things that, of course, the hoopoe was saying to her partner.

"Another misfortune," thought the man on his way home from his friend's funeral, and he hurried on as if the sound he heard put wings on his feet.

The girl who was going to the fountain joined her voice to the song in an overwhelming melody of cheerfulness and lightheartedness.

The old man who dragged the tired body leaning on a rod, heard the cry of the hoopoe and stopped to listen, holding on to the gnarled stick. "It must be a lonely and tired bird like me," he thought. Then, bracing himself, he slowly resumed his going.

In the woods the child blew into the reed again trying to make a sound different from that of the owl.

---

The discussion between the participants, omitted here.

---

The meeting with the Guides

Let's begin to briefly examine the fable of the hoopoe, pausing, as usual, not to tell you how good you have been, how many beautiful things you have said (and you have said, actually), how you have been educated, intelligent, beautiful, ready and away and away and away, but emphasizing, instead, the things you haven't thought about, especially a couple.

One was that to which his friend Gneus was referring and which was, after all, really the simplest to understand, the one that gave meaning not so much to the story as to the title we had given to the story: the stimuli of life; if you think back to the text of the fable it is evident that what the child draws from the reed and the flask is nothing more than a stimulus, right?

A stimulus that he offers to himself for some reason which we will then examine a little later. However, like all stimuli, this does not end there.
Yes, it does not only have that function, but it must necessarily be inserted in some way into the plot constructed by the Absolute; so, then, that for that magnificent law of economics that governs all creation, the stimulus that a person needs is reflected around him at the same time and is also used by all those who come into contact with the same stimulus.

Here, then, that the breath inside the barrel, and the sound it produces, ultimately influence in some way other characters who listen to that sound. You certainly understand this, don't you? What does that mean?

It means - also in the light of what we said previously - that you are truly so united with all the others around you, that nothing of what you live, do, feel, even think, is in reality not without importance also for all the others: there is nothing of all that I have listed that serves only and simply for yourself , and, of course, a stimulus that arouses a reaction in you becomes the stimulus for a different reaction in another individual, in another person.

However, the stimulus itself has no connotation, it has no possible variation, it is just that; we say that it can be said, in a certain sense, that it is an undifferentiated stimulus in its nature, in its essence. What differs, however, is the effect it causes, and the effect it causes is made different, differentiated from feel of each individual who receives the stimulus!
Here, in some way, we return to the famous one subjective perception of reality which has been a cross and a delight to all of you for years, years and years.

I would say that this was the simplest part, since it was nothing more than the application, with a literary and practical example, in a sense, of what we have been repeating for a long time.

Then there is that eighth character, that child, interpreted in various ways by all of you. As we always say, every interpretation is actually valid, since the same thing is modified by the subjective perception of the interpreter and, therefore, it is possible to give infinite interpretations to the same fact. So the friend's interpretation is valid, F.'s interpretation is valid and all the other interpretations that each of you could give.

However, perhaps the one that most serves to merge with the whole of the teaching that we are bringing, is that which he attributes to the child the character of the Akasic body symbol; this is because it can serve, once again, as an example for what we have been saying long ago (and even lately, in more depth).

Let us suppose, therefore, that we interpret this child as a symbol, in fact, of the Akasic body.
First of all, what we have to ask ourselves is why a child: it could be a girl, it could be a man, it could be an old man… why a child, creatures?

• 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.

D - Because the Akasic body is at the beginning of its structuring, it is only partially structured, therefore it is symbolized by a child.

Quite right. You guessed it at first!
So try to go on yourself, come to the consequences of what you just said.

D - So, let's see if I can: an Akasic body not very structured ... so it has not received the impulse sent by the Spark well, he does his best to send this impulse forward to the lower bodies but not being very skilled he sends it to a inadequate way that is returned by the lower bodies, logically, not as the Spark would have wanted, and above all subjectively depending on the characters so different.

I would say that perhaps it can be fixed even better, even eliminating the other characters who, in reality, have nothing to do with the child except as users of the same stimulus in common with the child.

The Akasic body therefore, you know, receives from the Spark (and therefore, in some way, from the Absolute) the stimulus to carry out certain experiences; however he is still small, he is still a child, he does not yet have all the ability to understand what is happening and so far, we agree with our friend G.

The child feels, however, that he must understand, in some way, that he must come to understand; he knows that in order to understand he must provoke an experience to himself within the lower planes, because through this experience, to how his lower bodies will react through the stimulation of these experiences, he will receive information that will make him understand, probably, what he's trying, so confusedly, to understand, okay?

Then this Akasic body says: «I feel (because it is his to feel, remember it) that io I have to understand these certain things and I think, I believe, I believe, from the experience made previously, that in order to be able to understand these certain things I need a certain type of stimulus.

So what should I do? I have to send this stimulus to my lower bodies so that from their reactions I come to understand.

However, creatures, let's not forget it, the Akasic body (in this case the child), like all children, does not yet have a great ability to use its faculties, it is not yet aware of itself, of its means, of its possibilities ... he is a bit like a small child who wants to create a vase with clay, but does not yet have the right dexterity to be able to give the desired shape to the vase, so that, perhaps, he succeeds without a hole.
So what happens?

It happens that the Akasic body sends the stimulus that it feels to be the right one (this point is important), but this stimulus is sent in an inaccurate way, and he receives this imprecision of the stimulus.

Suppose, to remain in the fable, he felt that as his need for experience he had to reproduce the crowing of a rooster. He then tries to blow into the barrel and reproduce the crowing of a rooster and, instead, reproduces, as he says in the fable, that of the owl.

So that's not what he wanted to reproduce, he realizes it and, then, continues to play one, two, three, four, five times trying not to draw the sound of the owl but to get closer and closer to what he wants to draw, or the crowing of the cock.
You follow me up to this point: wouldn't I want to confuse you too much?

D - Sorry Scifo, then the fact that he was received as a hoopoe has nothing to do with it, because it concerns the subjectivity of the other characters, while, instead, he didn't even want to reproduce the owl as we thought before; he may have wanted to make the sound of any other animal, only the one that came out of the barrel seemed to him the song of the owl.

Certainly. Let's say that, therefore, to return to the relationship with teaching, you have in this example a very evident, practical example of what we said aboutintention.

In fact, the Akasic body had the intention to do a certain thing, the intention descends through the lower planes to arrive to manifest itself on the physical plane but, alas, it cannot find the right way to manifest itself, and here it comes to manifest itself. into something that is not exactly the starting intention.

But there is a question at this point… why the owl? Why that kind of stimulus that keeps repeating itself over and over again? I know they seem like academic questions but, in reality, as you can see, they can help you understand the mechanics of what happens inside you!

D - Because, as long as it is not received in an exact and correct way, the stimulus will repeat itself.

But why that, why the owl?

D - But because I think it is a bird that emits a monotonous, constant sound.

Beyond that blowing into a reed it is difficult to draw the crowing of the rooster (on this I can undoubtedly agree) let's instead ask ourselves why the owl, however, putting it in the perspective of teaching, justifying it according to the teaching, at least.

D - Sorry it's not that you mean analogy, that is, the repetition of the same experience.

It is very simple to understand, and this is linked to what Gneus said that you see the most complicated things, while the simpler ones you cannot see them.

D - Is it that the Akasic can only express his feeling, and obviously that's what it is?

So: here we have an Akasic who sends a stimulus to his lower bodies, we said, right?
This stimulus is interpreted in a certain way, it is interpreted as an owl, simply because there is the subjective perception by the lower bodies. Do not forget, in fact, that the Akasic body, in some way, is beyond subjective perception, as it does not have a perception based on physical facts but has a perception due to a feeling and, therefore, of very different stature, creatures. : the Akasic body knows whether a thing is right or not when it has the counterpart within the physical planewhereas, on the other hand, when you are on the physical plane, you may have in mind the doubt as to whether or not what you have perceived was true.

Q - Excuse me, but in the fable the seven characters perceived the sound of the owl or the hoopoe?

Everyone perceived the sound of the hoopoe because in reality what the child drew from the reed was a sound that was more similar to that of the hoopoe than to that of the owl, but it was perceived as an owl through the subjective perception of the child's reality. that, probably, he had not even the faintest idea of ​​how a hoopoe sang; then - simply in terms of vibration - perhaps the other characters of the child himself were more in the right, as perception from reality, understood?

Q - In other words, was the child the one he made a mistake in perceiving, that is, the Akasic body in relation to the seven characters?

Let's say that, as a perception of the stimulus compared to the natural phenomena (the type of vibration) to which we were referring, it was closer to the correct interpretation (if it were a bird) that made by the other characters; on the other hand, the perception of the child's lower bodies was even more wrong, probably for reasons perhaps due to a lack of culture, not knowing - at the limit - of the hoopoe's song, for which the perception was somehow adapted to the song more similar than the child could know.

This is an important mechanism in our subjective perception: how many times do you not understand something and, then, what do you do to try to rationalize it?
You make it as close as possible to what you know.

Q - I wanted to ask a question: the consciousness of the ego, let's say the consciousness of the thinking subject, how does it fit into this scheme? Because obviously it must be a consciousness that is placed on a physical plane in order to react on the physical plane, so how does it perceive this Akasic stimulus?

But look, in reality, in our opinion, the ego has no consciousness, the ego does not exist, the ego is simply the effect of a mechanism between what are the interactions between the lower bodies of the individual and the physical plane. ; it does not have a life of its own, the ego: it is simply an effect, a mechanism.

D - A construction of the mind?

Right.

Q - So how is consciousness defined?

Consciousness (which is much more similar to what we define as feeling), is a way of being within what is the Akasic body of the individual which, so much so, is defined as the body of consciousness.

D - I had made an objection. It seemed to me that the fable was incomplete because there was no return to Akasic, not having understood that the lower bodies of the child naturally also had to do with it, I said: every stimulus puts us in a position to have an experience, from experience then, however, there must be a return to the akasic so that the akasic can realize this and, therefore, draw the consequences. And, therefore, a piece was missing: now it seems much more logical

But perhaps there is still a little something to say about it.
Let's see, depending on the experience, what happened, thanks to this blessed whistling reed: the child, clearly in his groped to try to reproduce a certain type of sound, is having his experience, it is evident, because reactive, acts and interacts with reality, manipulates in some way the physical reality in which he finds himself experimenting with matter and from it he draws experience, knowledge and, perhaps, even understanding, awareness and on and on and on.

The other individuals, however, if you think about it, in reality it seems that they do not derive anything from what they have received, they seem rightly completely unaware of the stimulus they have received ... is it so or not?
So, I ask you: are they unaware or not? Is there anything else underneath that justifies what appears to be happening?

D - The stimuli of life teach, however, that after one one puts more or less awareness if he is prepared to receive them ... it is always subjective.

Let's say, as you said this afternoon too, that, of course, each of you makes a selection of the stimuli you receive ... and let's forget how, because otherwise we would complicate our lives too much tonight, since many of those present are still quite fast on these topics!

Therefore, not all stimuli are perceived consciously or assume such importance that the individual needs to think about it, to try to understand, and come to understand what the stimulus must move; in the case of these characters presented in the fable, perhaps, the interpretation that, in my opinion, can be considered more correct is that, instead, the perceived sound has a very specific function: the function of placing the accent for each of them on what, at that moment, most involves them, bringing their attention back that maybe a moment before (we do not know creatures but, probably it was), wandered in completely different directions.

They are not real stimuli from which you will be able to gain awareness but are, instead, stimuli that direct you, route you, and which, in any case, are strictly necessary for the path you have to travel; many of these stimuli come from yourself, others are stimuli that come from what you call "guiding spirit", and which has the task of helping you to go through what your Akasic body must understand.

And it is in this way, between a pull and a push, a joy and a pain, a suffering and a pleasure, between a happiness and a sadness that, now staggering, now hopping, you carry on for your lives. Scifo

---