Personality, its subjective perception, its overcoming (IF19)

Philosophical teaching 19
As we talked about personality, we have decided to offer you a direct example of what your personalities are, since we must not lose sight of the main purpose of teaching which is to make yourselves known to yourself and that therefore the messages we send you do not they are ends in themselves, nor mere mental ruminations, but they must necessarily serve something.
Let us therefore observe your behavior when the session was interrupted. (Ed: the session was over and was resumed after about an hour). We observe what you have manifested in your plane of existence, which is the manifestation of your personalities.
If you had been attentive mainly to your reactions rather than to those of others, from what we have tried tonight to teach you by direct teaching, you could understand an infinity of things about your way of being, about your personality, about your evolution, on your most intimate feel.
There were those who masked their disappointment by retreating with their tails between their legs in another room to carry out a manual work that somehow gave meaning to the evening which, according to their point of view, was incomprehensible and incomplete, demonstrating in this way, not only of not being able to communicate with others, but also, after all, of not being interested enough in them.
There have been those who have said in the past that they have no questions, or that they do not want to ask questions, and then found in the discussion an enormous number of points on which they could have asked and which would have provided material to give interesting, comparative answers. of discussion, not only with the texts that he knows, scrolls and catalogs so well, but also with what we say and with what, possibly, others may have said or understood or known, thus offering us the opportunity to face certain arguments and to others the opportunity to open up, to communicate, to dissolve and to understand.
There were those who were struck by what Moti said and walked the path of pessimism with their minds, finding in those words, lived perhaps heartily, as if they had been pronounced sadly and with veiled reproach, the feeling that for the current circle things would have gotten somewhat bad in the future.
There have been those who are primarily concerned with how the instruments felt.
There have been those who usually do not ask questions; yet he found it within sé, in a rare moment of openness, the desire, the desire, the pleasure of talking, of asking, of exchanging, of knowing.
There were those who closed themselves in silence and remained in a state of incommunicability.
I could continue in my analysis of your behaviors, bearing in mind, among other things, that all these behaviors can be valid one by one, but that in reality they can also be very well mixed with each other and be a more or less evident part of the personality. of all of you.
Here, creatures, the personality of an individual within the physical plane is made up of all these multiple factors that act and interact with each other.
The personality that the individual possesses is not so much due to the presence of these factors, but to the strength that each of them has in the structuring of the personality or better, to clarify what I mean, to the quantity of these factors present in the constitution of the personality.
In the analysis that io I suggested that, at the beginning of my speech, each of you could commit a common and typical mistake of all human beings, that is to stop and observe the personality of others and try to understand not your own personality, through your own behavior, but the behavior of others and therefore the personality of others.

I remind you that doing this leads only to an examination of one's own subjective perception of others and that, in reality, the personality of others continues to remain incomprehensible in its real essence, since, I still remember, what you perceive of others is not said it is truly what others are, but only what you see of others.

Just think of the judgment that all of you can give of the same person and that certainly does not coincide because your ego pushes you to notice particular strengths or weaknesses in that person, so much so that if you spoke to others that this person does not know, they could think that you are always talking about a different person.
To make a slightly more curious speech, before really closing this evening, that is, to make you understand how relative the concept of personality is, just pick up any of your calendars.
"Ohibò, as usual, Scifo says something strange!".
Not creatures at all. You, accustomed for centuries to the religion to which you belong, undoubtedly know many of the saints present on the calendar, however, as often happens, you hardly know why these people were made saints; however you have a concept of holiness, you have, more or less, an image of what a holy person must be, an image that may differ, in some points for some of you, but which, in basic points, is always the same, therefore one should think that all the sanctified people present on the calendar should have had the same basic personality over time, or at least, most of their personality traits should have been similar.
It is clear that this is not the case, and it is enough to think of a Saint Louis who was made a saint not for his personality, which was rather tormented to tell the truth, but mostly for strictly political reasons; or to a saint, so unknown - whom I think practically none of you know - corresponding to the name of Labre. This saint lived for some tens of years at the gates of the holy city, never moving from the place where he resided, without washing himself, without changing, and on and on and on, so much so that it is said, more or less truthfully, that he died. eaten up by the countless lice he wore!
And if this is not the presentation of a relative conception then tell me what it can be!
Of course, those who decided to sanctify this person will have had some reasons, but was it only a subjective perception, or did this person really have the personality of the Saint?
Think about it creatures: as usual, we also put this question in the pile of the many that I have asked you in all these years and that, as always, await an answer from you.
Perhaps you, in your everyday life, in your everyday personality, have a strong component of impatience: you would like to go on, have the answers immediately and so on. Well creatures, instead in our personality the highest component is undoubtedly that of patience, so we will continue to wait (even for lives and perhaps lives) for the answers to be given.
As for my personality, what you consider so strong and such as to put at times embarrassment or in conditions not to have the courage to answer, I can assure you that I have never possessed it in this form and that if it is in this form that I present myself to you, it is only so that you can see a different aspect of the teaching, that you can draw from this fictitious personality new stimuli to understand, to move forward, to react.
Just to answer another of the countless questions that I have just heard and that have pleased me, I would like to add that even if I present myself with this personality, in reality I could do it with any other personality belonging to those who are present on the my plane of existence.
Why this, creatures? Because from Akasic onwards one finally begins to feel communion with other beings, one begins to feel oneself and at the same time to feel others, thus forming a sort of evolved group soul for which each individual who is part of it can still having, in the lower strata of the Akasic plane, the perception of one's own subjectivity, but at the same time, it is also all the others.
But I would not like to go into something that, for the moment, is totally alien to your way of conceiving life and things.
I only wish you, creatures, to soon reach the threshold of communion. Scifo