In all these years we have talked to you aboutIo and, alas, I have - who knows how - the fear that our words, in the end, despite more than once specifying the truth and reality of the thing, have ended up producing a wrong image of the ego within you themselves.
The ego does not do, the ego is not, the ego does not interact, the ego does not influence, the ego is not positive, the ego is not negative; in reality, the ego is not.
What we have defined "I" for convenience, in order to provide you with a picture of what concerns the mechanisms of your experience within the evolutionary cycle, is none other than an interface - we had said - between yourself and reality, it is nothing more than a result of who you are, of the understandings reached and the understandings not reached. Here, then, is that you must not make the mistake of thinking that the ego is acting in some way: the ego does not act in any way; the ego simply exists as a result of who you are.
You cannot identify - as you usually do - the ego with yourself. Yourself you are not your ego; you are your conscience. It is the fact that you are immersed in physical matter, and therefore you act within the physical matter, which makes you identify in your own eyes your reality with your behavior and, therefore, with how your ego seems to act; but in reality - I repeat - you yourselves are not your I, but you are the sum of your understandings and your misunderstandings. Scifo
Identifying yourself with your ego would be like identifying blue with the sea, and saying that blue is the true essence of the sea, without realizing that the blue of the sea is blue only due to a series of external factors including the sky and the sea. air, which give the illusion of "blue" to that mass of water that is defined as "sea".
At this point, the question posed has no reason to exist because it is evident that the ego, not acting, not doing, not being, cannot even affect those who are archetypes.
- 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.
However, if what I have just stated is true, the opposite is absolutely not true: certainly The transient archetypes they act on the ego; and how is it that they act on the ego?
They act on the ego through the action exerted on the body of consciousness of the individual. Since the vibrations of the transient archetype cross the individual's akasic body and provide a first stimulus, a first push to the akasic body to move and try to broaden its own field of consciousness, here - indirectly - the vibrations of the transient archetype end to influence the modification of the ego itself or of what, to each of you observing yourself, appears to be your ego.
There are other ways in which transient archetypes can act on the ego - and not vice versa, remember - for example, remember that transient archetypes are linked to a plurality of people: obviously they act in concert with the Akasic bodies of these people who are related to them, thus creating particular psychosocial and environmental situations that, in the course of their evolution within the experience on the physical plane, they end up increasing the understanding, in its nuances, of every Akasic body connected to that type of transient archetype.
This means that, with each nuance, the ego of each individual connected to that type of transitory archetype will change and here, therefore, we have found another way, another direction through which the transient archetype has influence on ' The.
I hope this concept has been clear to you. Some of you, I wanted to add, have wondered about examples of transitory archetypes, making more or less valid, more or less important hypotheses. I remind you that, in reality, the transitional archetype - as well as the permanent archetype - can in some way be assimilated to "symbols"; thus there is no (as I have heard) the "father archetype"; there is the archetype of "fatherhood", which is a different thing!
There is no archetype of a particular precise figure, but there is the archetype, the constructed idea of what that term expresses. Ombre
From the cycle Nuances of Feeling 2002-2007
'... remember that transient archetypes are linked to a plurality of people: obviously they act in concert with the Akasic bodies of these people who are connected to them, thus creating particular psychosocial and environmental situations which, during their evolution within of the experience on the physical plane, they end up increasing the understanding, in its nuances, of every Akasic body connected to that type of transitory archetype. "
In other words, the modification of transient archetypes brings about a cultural change. This is a process determined by the Akasic bodies connected to them; the change of one or more Akasic bodies sets in motion a transformation in all of them.
So there is a collective and not just a personal responsibility in the process of change.
It is no coincidence, in fact, that we say that to change the world one must first change oneself.
Very clear post.
Taking up Mariella's answer and broadening the reflection of the post, we can affirm that the ego cannot modify the transient archetypes but these can be modified by the understandings of the bodies of consciousness connected to the transitory archetypes themselves.
Clear to me too.
Great clarity on the definition of the self and of what we are.
When a Guide says "You", addressing each of us, it is not addressed to a plurality of "I" but to a multiplicity of "individuals".
I will have to reexamine the meaning of the "encumbrance of oneself", so dear and significant in the first years of adherence to the Path, known and experienced, now in need of conceptual revision.
But we're almost there.
Thanks.