D – The blocks that arise fromIo they always have the purpose of providing support or support to the ego and the image of sé what does he want to give and keep on the outside?
It seems to me that the answer is clear following what I said in answer to the previous question. We can add that, considering the usual ambivalence which characterizes the way we live life, the blocks have the double function of supporting the Ego and disturbing and disequilibrium of the Ego itself, with the result that the Ego will have to start looking for a new balance to keep itself 'integrity'. ', while changing part of its image.
Q – Are there any "symptoms" in the embodied person that can indicate with some certainty that they are right and that they have done what they feel?
A decrease in one's internal tensions, a sense of gratification and satisfaction (deriving from the Ego, obviously) and the lack of feelings of guilt following our action, are all indicators that one has been adhering to "what one feels". The difficulty lies in not interpreting these sensations based on what you hope for but based on what you really feel.
Ultimately, sincerity with oneself is always the main pivot around which our relationships with the people and situations that arise throughout our lives revolve. The less sincerity we have with ourselves, the greater the possibility that our ego will impose its interference on what we do.
- 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 – The suffering that is felt for something that was done in the past may be an indication that, in the meantime, ours feel has it changed and made us aware of what our behavior could have been more suited to our feelings?
Undoubtedly, as the incarnational experience passes, nuances of understanding are completed that make the individual's feelings broader: the individual in the first years of his physical life has a feeling that will certainly be inferior, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot , from what he will have at the end of his physical life. This, inevitably, makes us aware with a certain ease, with the passage of time and experience, that the mistakes made in the past could have been avoided.
But it is necessary to keep in mind that if those errors were made, in the end, it was because something was missing from one's understanding, consequently the error became inevitable. Even in cases where «he makes a mistake knowing he is making a mistake» evidently there is something underlying that is not understood that prevents us from truly implementing what feels right.
This is not a mitigating factor for that inflexible observer of ourselves that is our conscience, and the consequence is often the birth of a sense of guilt, easily overcome if we realize that we just weren't capable of doing otherwise, but more difficult to overcome if not doing the right thing is a consequence, perhaps, of not having been sincere with ourselves or of having been afraid that with our behavior we would have lost something of what gratified us.
Q – Are doing what you feel and the Ego necessarily in conflict or are they not necessarily at odds?
The question could also be asked in another, perhaps more useful way: is our ego always in conflict with our feelings or is it not necessarily the case that they diverge?
The answer, ultimately, is quite easy, referring to the teaching: we know that the Ego is the result of misunderstandings but also of the understandings of our akashic body. This can only mean that in our expression of what we feel there is always both a part that concerns what is understood and one that concerns what is not understood.
It is from the interaction between these two elements, both extremely useful and necessary, that the push for change arises.
Q – When someone does what they feel is their behavior always altruistic?
This is certainly not the case. In fact, truly altruistic behavior derives from fully acquired understandings; if this is not the case, there are always, at the very least, shades of incomprehension that the ego tries to cover, making the altruism implemented insincere.
The consequence is that the action implemented may appear altruistic for those who observe it or for those who categorize it based on the result achieved, but within the individual who acts there are intentions which, in small or large parts, are not truly altruistic.
This is the normal condition for embodied people: the fact that they are embodied means that they still have to understand and that, consequently, their feeling is not complete. This does not mean that there is often a mix between real altruism and real selfishness, an image of the internal situation of the ego of the individual who, as we know, includes within himself both the results of the understandings and the misunderstandings of his body of consciousness.
However, it remains important to try to do "what one feels" even if it is not a "real" feeling, because it is the best way to come to recognize how one's action is truly altruistic and what are the nuances still to be complete.
D – Usually, doing what you feel is in tune with your own evolution, one's own feelings or more simply is it a tool available to the conscience to enrich itself with data, through self-observation and knowing oneself after acting?
Based on what I said previously, it can be said that all these possibilities exist at the same time: "doing what you feel" or not doing it are undoubtedly linked to the evolution achieved, and they are both ways to broaden the possibility of knowing yourself .
What we tend to forget in discussing "doing what you feel" is that a person's feelings at the beginning of human incarnations can be so poorly structured that "doing what you feel" means, in everyday action, committing any nefariousness the ego suggests to him. In reality, strictly speaking, he really does "what he feels", and he cannot do otherwise because he does not have the internal tools to act differently.
Therefore, do not cloak yourself in "sublime" aspects of doing what you feel, as, I repeat, it is strictly related to the degree of understanding that the individual possesses at the moment of the action.
D – It can also depend on the transient archetypes to which one is connected, for example if one feels like killing, it is his doing what he feels, why is his feeling about this aspect not yet well structured?
It seems more correct to me to say that transitory archetypes do not so much influence what one feels like doing on the ways in which they implement them their own actions. In the example that has been suggested, the key point is not the action of killing or not killing, but rather implementing the violence that the individual feels within himself and which, based on the degree of his feeling, can consider it right to express, actually putting into practice "doing what you feel". The transitory archetype will then influence the manifestation of his internal violence, or, in this case, the way in which he kills himself. Ombre
thank you