Sexuality, common morals, evolution (IF31)

Philosophical teaching 31
The two sexes do not exist in the spiritual world and they cannot exist, because we can define sex as a morphological and physiological attribute of what is the structure of the physical body.
So sex is something that concerns physical matter, however the concept of sex or better still of sexuality is not strictly linked to the physical structure but, especially when the physical body reaches its sexual maturity (always from a physical, anatomical point of view). ) begins to interact with both the emotional sphere and the mental sphere.

At this point, that is, when the physical body is at the height of its sexual maturity and sexuality begins to interact with the other spheres, it is clear and logical that everything is inevitably reflected also on the other planes of existence, on the other bodies of which the the individuality that is embodied is formed, so much so that it is possible to affirm the existence of an "emotional" sexuality and a "mental" sexuality.
All this can be verified in reality by observing a certain type of homosexuals who, despite having a well-defined physical structure, emotionally hope, wish to belong to the other sex, and mentally convince themselves and therefore believe they belong to the opposite sex to the one in that moment is theirs.

Leaving the physical body, however, all this no longer exists, and it can therefore be said that a good part of the sexual components are abandoned, while the emotional and mental components are still alive and active which, however, if they could be translated, let's say , in human behavior, they would simply translate as behavioral habits, habits of attitudes, habits of thought, being no longer tied to the strictly sexual stimuli and needs that one has when one still has a physical body.
All this to go so far as to say that there is no difference in the sympathy attraction between two or more entities, whether they were all boys or girls or whether they were both.
On the other hand, what attracts different disembodied ones to each other is a certain type of evolutionary affinity; However, I want to clarify one thing so as not to be misunderstood: all this refers to the "lowest" planes of existence, those that are closest to you, since in addition to these the discourse, while still remaining valid, is totally different.

Let us therefore limit ourselves to talking about the planes of existence closest to yours, remembering that staying in these planes is relative and dependent from individual to individual and above all on the evolutionary level that the individual himself has reached; so all this talk is limited to relative, and only serves to make you understand as well as the fact that we present ourselves with some personality masculine or feminine depends only on the fact that you need a sexual identity of whoever is speaking, and secondly because perhaps some of us, those who still live in the planes closest to the physical plane, are still affected by this emotional sexuality of theirs or mental. Francesco

I would like to talk to you about the predominant theme of this cycle of meetings, namely theevolution.
No, you don't need to be frightened: I'm not going to make very difficult, very long or "soporific" speeches as some may sometimes think, but I just want to examine for a moment an aspect of evolution that is so easily overlooked, also because usually the individual asks himself - as is right - questions regarding his existence and therefore his type of evolution, but hardly tends to ask himself what are the problems of those who are before him.

If you had time - and you don't, since you complain about it so often! - to be able to read the biographies of famous men of humanity, you would see that a large part of these famous men, as well as having been such for the works completed (you want a musical work, a painting, a writing, a poem, a drama and via e via e via), were also famous at the time - and less famous for this later because, usually, we tend to hide this aspect - for having caused scandal in their time.
Take, I know io, a philosopher recognized as important by those familiar with philosophy, or a certain Nietzsche; he, evident to his eyes when reading his biography, led a life - according to common morality - certainly not blameless. In fact, the combination so often feared, stigmatized and considered repulsive, that is sex and drugs, was an integral part of his way of existing, living and thinking so much that it caused a sensation in his time.
Of course, some of you will say that deep down, but philosophers are known to not have their brains entirely in place. This may also apply to certain philosophers, however the same is true in other fields.
Take, for example, a certain Oscar Wilde in the literary field. He, not well known by everyone, was an artist who wrote comedies, books, poems and so on and on and on and on, he was undoubtedly a figure of a certain prominence in the literature of humanity.
However, each of his biographers recognizes that his life was a set of scandals that made the eyes of those who set their gaze on the literary environment of the time freeze, horrified, shiver. And also in this case it can be observed that one of the main points of this scandal was precisely due to typically sexual factors.
Of course, if this is valid in the philosophical milieu, if this is valid in the literary milieu, one can find just as many examples in the theatrical milieu (and a Rodolfo Valentino teaches), in the musical environment (and it is enough to observe a Tchaikowsky), in the dance environment (and it is enough to stop nowadays, without going so far in time), in the political environment (and here it is perhaps better not to mention names), and in the ecclesiastical environment (and here we leave it alone because otherwise I am accused of anticlerical!).

What does this mean?
It means that many of these people who have left a mark of some kind in humanity, have led a life, according to common morality, certainly not blameless, and indeed have clashed several times with what is considered "normality" .
Oh, it would be easy, creatures, at this point to ask what normality is but I will leave the examination of this term to another moment.

You will say what all this has to do with evolution and, if you wait a moment, we get there.
What I wanted to come to mean is the fact that the individual when he evolves, that is, when he passes from a feel less broad to a broader feeling, he finds himself from one moment to the next to be placed in front of a morality that, in some way, differs from what is the common morality.
I will try to explain myself better, also because this is a very delicate speech that can be misunderstood, misunderstood and therefore lead to behavior errors!

What I meant is that the individual who has reached an above-average evolution inevitably realizes, for example, that all sexual taboos that are regarded as normal are in fact absolutely, without doubt and without fear of saying it, absurd and meaningless.
This, inevitably, even only for what concerns the simple sexual aspect, causes the evolved to deviate from the average, to deviate, therefore, from normality. But not a departure simply due to a mental attitude, an attitude due to a fashion; but rather a departure due to something that feels real inside.
Of course, if he were to reveal this newly acquired feeling of his, he would immediately be deemed insane or abnormal or antisocial by those who have not yet come to the same understanding. And it is precisely for this reason - referring back to what I said earlier - that many of the historical figures considered such, in reality, were such only because they were considered in this way by the norm, of the "normality" of humanity.
You will say, “Okay, this may also be true from a certain point of view. The fact remains that if the individual is truly evolved then at that point he cannot behave in an amoral way that could harm other people! ".
Of course: this is perfectly true.
But you forget, creatures, if you affirm this, that evolution is acquired slowly, gradually; it is not that an individual - from one moment to the next - is from ignorant to super evolved: there is always a step by step; there is, that is, first the discovery of the new feeling, then its understanding and then, finally, its acquisition.

Thus, the individual who advances to "feel" must pass through these various phases and the most delicate phase is precisely that of discovering this "feeling". This is also quite understandable from a psychological point of view; in fact, he who discovers that he thinks differently from the norm with respect to certain topics, finds himself - at least in the course of a lifetime - in a rather delicate position. In fact, internally he feels that certain things are not to be stigmatized as others do, yet he clashes with the reality of the society in which he is inserted, which does not accept or would not accept a different behavior, with the result of obtaining internal contrasts, because he no longer knows whether to act according to his own feelings or whether it is right to conform to normality, repudiating what he feels inwardly as right.
If you, in fact, observed those biographies I was talking about before, you would notice that all these people who have behaved certainly not irreproachable in the eyes of the norm, have never held it lightly, but have always been prey to problems, to dramas, up to sometimes even suicide, precisely because they were unable to resolve this dichotomy inwardly.

However, this usually resolves itself over the course of a lifetime. In fact, in the interval between one existence and the next, the individual has the possibility of observing what he felt interiorly outside the social and psychological influences that influenced him when he was embodied in the physical world; at that moment, then, he understands what was the right way, that his "feeling" was what was right and that, all in all, the norm was not true just because it was a "norm" and that it was also a norm general may be wrong, compared to what the individual feels to be true within. So that in the next life, this individual will behave very differently.

Quite different in what way, though? Certainly not adapting to the norm (assuming, of course, that the conditions in which it will come to incarnate later are the same as in the previous life). In the course of the next life, in fact, the individual will be able to reach an understanding of his feelings, he will be able to completely acquire the conception of what is right and what is not right in relation to certain arguments; however his behavior will no longer be aimed at scandalizing, reacting, showing off sé with behaviors that go against current morality, because he himself will be the one who slows down his own way of behaving: in fact, the responsibility of the one who realizes that he possesses an evolution that, little or a lot, deviates from the average is great , as - inevitably - the less evolved will refer to him.
And at that point, then, he will no longer be able to deliberately cause trauma in others but, even if his feeling will be such as to make him understand that certain attitudes considered normal are actually wrong, his action will not be violent but will be acting which will tend to try to make people understand slowly, gradually, a little at a time and without jolts, what is the truth.
Because, returning to what was said at the beginning, the truly evolved, the initiate, is not the one who imposes his own ideas, even though he knows them to be correct, but he is the one who helps and directs others to understand these ideas, even without showing them. that he himself leads others. Scifo

Readings for the interior: every day, a short spiritual reading of the Ifior Circle and of the Florence 77 Circle, on Whatsapp. To subscribe

Privacy policy of this site to consult before commenting, or subscribing to feeds