DNA and Souls

[aprilfool]

As I understand, DNA specificly draws particular souls or OPs in general. If that is correct, could a souled individual be born from two OP's? Or are OP's unable to carry a child with a soul? Can a souled individual have children that are OP's?

 

[Laura]

Due to the "intermixing of the bloodlines," and the laws of genetic recombination, yes, two OPs could have souled children and two souled individuals could have OP children.

 

[aprilfool]

Due to the "intermixing of the bloodlines," and the laws of genetic recombination, yes, two OPs could have souled children and two souled individuals could have OP children.

I was going to ask another question, but I'll search the forum, maybe I'll find it. Thanks for the reply! :)

 

[Graalsword]

Due to the "intermixing of the bloodlines," and the laws of genetic recombination, yes, two OPs could have souled children and two souled individuals could have OP children.

And that explains many family draining conflicts, and situations, where the child can't understand the behaviour of his/her parents or viceversa.

Could that also have to do with the fact that some children have always much less energy than others? i mean, if they have OP's parents, they may be much more drained (energetically) than children with souled parents (bearing in mind that souled STS beings also drain from others).

 

[Govert]

No human being can prove that there is such thing as a soul. A human being has a mind which consists only of thoughts. Thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past. So thoughts are really nothing more than memories and combinations of memories.

I would be interested if you could prove that (some) humans beings have a soul.

 

[Laura]

I would be interested if you could prove that (some) humans beings have a soul.

You are right, no human being can prove that any other human being has a soul. "Proof" is a material method and "soul" is a non-material concept. Apples and oranges, so to say.

Years ago when I was studying the biological sciences, I read quite a bit on the various theories of "mind." Still have the books on the shelf, so I'm quite familiar with your basic argument though you have taken it a step further than any of the theories I read about it and stated that thoughts are "all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past." That's quite a leap, don't you think?

How do all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of dead people in the past become part of the thinking of someone in the present? Are you proposing some kind of ethereal "field of thoughts" that anyone can tap into? If so, then you are basically talking about something as unprovable as the concept of the soul and, in fact, quite similar.

C's have said a few things about the matter that are useful to contemplate:

A: [...] The trouble is, there is simply no way to physicalize a plane of existence which is composed entirely of consciousness. It is the union of perfect balance between the two "states" or planes, that is the foundation and essence of all creation/reality. You cannot have one without the other!

Q: (L) When you say the two states or planes, you are saying the physical state and the state of consciousness...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And you can't have one without the other. And the state of consciousness and the state of material existence are so completely connected, that both are infinite? One cannot exist without the other...

A: Yes, connected, intertwined, bonded... Merged.

Q: (T) A structure of the universe that holds the levels together... everything is connected. The consciousness of 6th density is perfectly bonded and balanced with 3rd density, and the quasi physical level of 4th density, and the totally physical levels 3 through 1, and the total ONE of 7th, and whatever 5th is. (L) We have four levels of physical expression, so to speak, going from the really solid, minimal consciousness level 1 to....

A: Yes, but the Terran scientists have been programmed to believe that nothing can exist unless it can be measured, estimated, calculated and represented in some way in the physical material plane. Not true!!!!!!! For example: We are in NO WAY physical.

... we are not communicating with you in order to "prove" our existence. If one has faith and is willing to learn, to explore new realms and to discover what will one "day" be commonplace awareness profile, then no "proof" is necessary. If, on the other hand, one is of the opposite psychic orientation, then no amount of proof is adequate.

Q: (A) Yes, I think it is like the story of the crocodile skin where you can make wishes, and with every wish it becomes smaller. And, you are told that when it becomes too small, then you die. And, of course, you try, and say 'let me do one more wish...' and that is it. Once you make the choice to ask and not do the work, then it becomes easier and easier and you want more and more... and your own will and force becomes smaller and smaller...

A: [...]Classical [physics] negates consciousness, regarding the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather than being interfaced with the rest of creation at all levels of density and all dimensions, which is of course, the case. Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality, physical and ethereal. Nothing would exist without consciousness to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other. In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd density states and similar manifestations.

...Consciousness is in reality, the purest form of energy.

Of course, the argument rages on between those who are convinced that the soul exists and those who demand proof. My observation, after all these years of studying the matter is that each group knows what is true for themselves and they have not considered that factor.

Those who declare (and are convinced) that there is no soul belong to the Organic Portal group for whom such a declaration is factual, true, maps to reality: they do not have an individuated soul but merely a more or less "borrowed soul energy" that derives from something akin to a "soul pool" or essential life force that is not individual and returns to the pool upon their death dispersing its memories and experiences to the entire pool.

Those who KNOW they have a soul and have experiences that confirm it (even if subjective and not amenable to material proof) belong to the group having individuated souls and when they die this consciousness continues as a discrete unit that has further adventures.

The problems arise, of course, mainly from the non-souled grouping that cannot conceive of individuated soul and believe it is a silly notion. The souled group, on the other hand, does have the ability to understand those that do not have individuated souls even if, for the most part, they have not availed themselves of this awareness and the understanding it conveys for some time due mainly to religions created by psychopaths for control purposes.

It is interesting to consider the idea that the many fundamentalists who adhere to the teachings of the Old Testament more than the New may be of the OP variety since their idea of what the soul does after it dies is so "material," for lack of a better word, and for them the "resurrection" is definitely a material event. For the Jews, the messiah and his rule is a material event and their eschatology centers around material happenings. There was no idea among the Jews of a spiritual life. For them, death was the end, Sheol. You might be interested in reading Douglas Reed's "Controversy of Zion" for some deeper insight on the matter and how it affects our reality.

 

[Govert]

Soul is indeed a non-material concept and that is exactly the reason why we cannot know if we have a soul. Thoughts are a material concept. With our mind, which only consists of thoughts, we cannot understand existence. We will never be able to understand existence with our thinking. We think we know what a tree is because we call it a tree, but as soon as we called it a tree it is not a tree. We can't know what a tree really is (even if it exists), because the concept of a tree is based on past knowledge. When you see or think about a tree the knowledge of humanity of what a tree is (according to that knowledge) is in your mind, nothing else.

When you say that you know you have a soul you are fooling yourself, as your knowledge of a soul is based on the knowledge (which includes thoughts, feelings and experiences) of humanity about the concept 'soul'. It is a belief nothing else. I am not saying that we have a soul or not, probably not (as it is formulated) but we really cannot know. With our mind we cannot understand existence. Your belief is maybe based on religious concepts, Gurdjieff (Mouravieff) (which is a religious concept as well), the c's or whatever. Interesting material, but it goes unproved and stands or falls with belief. It may be true, it may be not true.
Why do people believe in religious answers? Probably it is too hard to say that we really don't know the answer to our problem that we die. It is difficult to say that we don't understand existence.

Therefore your concept about OP's who don't have a soul and other people (who think they have a soul) have a soul, is flawed. It is based on religion like judaists believe that they have a different soul than goys. Maybe the concept is correct, maybe not.
Death is by the way for jews not the end, they just say that they don't know what will be beyond and therefore don't talk about it.

The concept that our thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past cannot be proven. It's just based on thinking about the concept

- that nothing in the universe will be lost
- that our genes store information and memories
- and the concept that we can only know that a tree is a tree (the naming of it) because of knowledge in the past.

The bottom line is that we cannot understand existence and we cannot do anything to solve our problems within existence. There is no way out, we are trapped in the matrix. There are no methods, no techniques to find a way out. All these methods and techniques are based on thinking which consist of thoughts in the past. The methods and techniques are based on trying to change and manipulate and become someone you are not. The more we try the more we are trapped.
Maybe if you realize this and understand that you cannot understand and cannot do anything, that you are lost, maybe nature will do it (get you out), but even hope is a thought that keeps you in the matrix.

 

[RflctnOfU]

When you say that you know you have a soul you are fooling yourself, as your knowledge of a soul is based on the knowledge (which includes thoughts, feelings and experiences) of humanity about the concept 'soul'. It is a belief nothing else. I am not saying that we have a soul or not, probably not (as it is formulated) but we really cannot know. With our mind we cannot understand existence. Your belief is maybe based on religious concepts, Gurdjieff (Mouravieff) (which is a religious concept as well), the c's or whatever. Interesting material, but it goes unproved and stands or falls with belief. It may be true, it may be not true.
Why do people believe in religious answers? Probably it is too hard to say that we really don't know the answer to our problem that we die. It is difficult to say that we don't understand existence.

I think that if you read all the material, you would see it has been stated many times that the C's material is treated as a hypothesis.

Therefore your concept about OP's who don't have a soul and other people (who think they have a soul) have a soul, is flawed. It is based on religion like judaists believe that they have a different soul than goys. Maybe the concept is correct, maybe not.
Death is by the way for jews not the end, they just say that they don't know what will be beyond and therefore don't talk about it.

Again, this is a hypothesis.

I cannot prove that our thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past. It's just based on thinking about the concept.
- that nothing in the universe will be lost
- that our genes store information and memories
- and the concept that we can only know that a tree is a tree (the naming of it) because of knowledge in the past. This concept cannot be proven.

No human being can prove that there is such thing as a soul. A human being has a mind which consists only of thoughts. Thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past. So thoughts are really nothing more than memories and combinations of memories.

Why state this as fact then?

The bottom line is that we cannot understand existence and we cannot do anything to solve our problems within existence. There is no way out, we are trapped in the matrix. There are no methods, no techniques to find a way out. All these methods and techniques are based on thinking which consist of thoughts in the past.

Are you basing this "fact" on actual experiences with the material in question? Or is this an assumption based on "thinking about the concept"?

The methods and techniques are based on trying to change and manipulate and become someone you are not.

Actually, the techniques are geared to the opposite, that is, to become who 'we' truly are, at least in potential.

The more we try the more we are trapped.

Are you basing this "fact" on actual experiences with the material in question? Or is this an assumption based on "thinking about the concept"?

Maybe if you realize this and understand that you cannot understand and cannot do anything, that you are lost, maybe nature will do it (get you out), but even hope is a thought that keeps you in the matrix.

So you encourage "giving up" in making an effort to understand the illusion?
It is very easy to fall back asleep (or, as it seems to be in your case, stay asleep) in the world of "A" influences (which is basically a materialistic mindset). I thank you for demonstrating The General Law in action, as it helps to crystallize my studies at the moment.

It seems as though in "thinking about the concept(s)" of the material being discussed, you have come to an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps your "Personality" is not suited for esoteric work. If that is the case, which it seems to be - based on the assumptions made by you and then presented said assumptions as fact - I'm sure you will be able to find other discussion groups where you can share your facts (opinions) with others who share in those facts (opinions). This forum is about signal, not noise.

From the Rules of the Forum section:

[...]
Methodology: *Facilitation of the creation and the sharing of objective knowledge by providing the framework / resources / moderation and "elder brother guidance." As Gurdjieff has said:

"On the fourth way there is not one teacher. Whoever is the elder, he is the teacher. And as the teacher is indispensable to the pupil, so also is the pupil indispensable to the teacher. The pupil cannot go on without the teacher, and the teacher cannot go on without the pupil or pupils. And this is not a general consideration but an indispensable and quite concrete rule on which is based the law of a man's ascending. As has been said before, no one can ascend onto a higher step until he places another man in his own place. What a man has received he must immediately give back; only then can he receive more. Otherwise from him will be taken even what he has already been given."

* Capitalisation, sharing, analysis of information on key topics
* Scientific approach. Collection of direct and indirect data (videos, articles, books extracts,...) , sources validation, elaboration and challenge of hypothesis and theories consistent with validated datas.
* Maximization of the signal to noise ratio
[...]

I thank you for understanding my position, and discontinuing the process of "invalidation", as it were, as it only serves as creating noise.

On the other hand, by creating noise, it allows detection of noise by those who are interested in signal.

Kris

 

[Govert]

Hi Kris,

Govert wrote:
When you say that you know you have a soul you are fooling yourself, as your knowledge of a soul is based on the knowledge (which includes thoughts, feelings and experiences) of humanity about the concept 'soul'. It is a belief nothing else. I am not saying that we have a soul or not, probably not (as it is formulated) but we really cannot know. With our mind we cannot understand existence. Your belief is maybe based on religious concepts, Gurdjieff (Mouravieff) (which is a religious concept as well), the c's or whatever. Interesting material, but it goes unproved and stands or falls with belief. It may be true, it may be not true.
Why do people believe in religious answers? Probably it is too hard to say that we really don't know the answer to our problem that we die. It is difficult to say that we don't understand existence.

Kris wrote:
I think that if you read all the material, you would see it has been stated many times that the C's material is treated as a hypothesis.


* That's why probably what you are thinking and doing is based on belief, just like christians believe the bible and jewish people believe the tanach. Nobody can prove anything, because the mind is not the instrument to understand existence and reality.


Govert wrote:
Therefore your concept about OP's who don't have a soul and other people (who think they have a soul) have a soul, is flawed. It is based on religion like judaists believe that they have a different soul than goys. Maybe the concept is correct, maybe not.
Death is by the way for jews not the end, they just say that they don't know what will be beyond and therefore don't talk about it.

Kris wrote:
Again, this is a hypothesis.

* see above


Govert wrote:
I cannot prove that our thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past. It's just based on thinking about the concept.
- that nothing in the universe will be lost
- that our genes store information and memories
- and the concept that we can only know that a tree is a tree (the naming of it) because of knowledge in the past. This concept cannot be proven.



Govert wrote:
No human being can prove that there is such thing as a soul. A human being has a mind which consists only of thoughts. Thoughts consist of all the thoughts, feelings and experiences of mankind in the past. So thoughts are really nothing more than memories and combinations of memories.

Kris:
Why state this as fact then?

* if you can prove that there is such thing as a soul, I will 'believe' you. I am only saying that a human being cannot prove (or disprove) that s/he or anyone else has a soul. The mind is not the instrument to understand such things or anything regarding existence and reality. It is hard to understand that you cannot understand.




Govert wrote:
The bottom line is that we cannot understand existence and we cannot do anything to solve our problems within existence. There is no way out, we are trapped in the matrix. There are no methods, no techniques to find a way out. All these methods and techniques are based on thinking which consist of thoughts in the past.

Kris wrote:
Are you basing this "fact" on actual experiences with the material in question? Or is this an assumption based on "thinking about the concept"?

* I studied christianity, judaism, islam, magick/qabalah, kabbalah, alchemy, new age stuff, guru stuff, gurdjieff, ouspensky and mouravieff, the c's material, theory and practice and to my regret and dislike I came to the conclusion that a human being cannot understand existence and reality.
He cannot observe himself, he cannot know himself, he cannot change others or himself, he cannot do anything to reach enlightenment or to find a way out of the matrix, because he can only use his thoughts to do all this and it is impossible to know what a tree really is or what he himself really is. Thoughts separate a human being from existence (and objects) and therefore he can only observe the things around him from a distance and with knowledge of the past. He can and does not know what to do to reach enlightenment or get out of the matrix. Everything he does gives more momentum to the force of thoughts that keep him trapped.
Only when he is in a natural state, nature will take care of this (getting out).


Govert wrote:
The methods and techniques are based on trying to change and manipulate and become someone you are not.

Kris wrote:
Actually, the techniques are geared to the opposite, that is, to become who 'we' truly are, at least in potential.

* If that's what you believe go ahead. It's not my intention to change you. It will take you maybe a long time after you tried many/all methods and techniques to find out that the techniques don't work and that you are getting nowhere.


Govert wrote:
The more we try the more we are trapped.

Kris wrote:
Are you basing this "fact" on actual experiences with the material in question? Or is this an assumption based on "thinking about the concept"?

* see above

Govert wrote:
Maybe if you realize this and understand that you cannot understand and cannot do anything, that you are lost, maybe nature will do it (get you out), but even hope is a thought that keeps you in the matrix.

Kris wrote:

So you encourage "giving up" in making an effort to understand the illusion?
It is very easy to fall back asleep (or, as it seems to be in your case, stay asleep) in the world of "A" influences (which is basically a materialistic mindset). I thank you for demonstrating The General Law in action, as it helps to crystallize my studies at the moment.

* I am not encouraging anything. It's not my intention to change you. I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to understand the existence and the illusion. I see more things than ever, not falling back asleep, just the opposite, as I now see that it is impossible to understand the illusion with our mind. It's the end of the search. The natural state can take over. Then, there is no authority that can teach you, there is no urge to change in a very artificial and manupulative way. Culture and religion have shaped us in a terrible way, wanting to make perfect human beings out of us (which really means making us slaves). Now I can be myself, being who I really am, an unique individual (like everybody else), as nature does not make anything according to a model. No flower is the same.


Kris wrote:
It seems as though in "thinking about the concept(s)" of the material being discussed, you have come to an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps your "Personality" is not suited for esoteric work. If that is the case, which it seems to be - based on the assumptions made by you and then presented said assumptions as fact - I'm sure you will be able to find other discussion groups where you can share your facts (opinions) with others who share in those facts (opinions). This forum is about signal, not noise.

* I understand your anger. It is hard to understand that the mind is not the instrument to understand anything. You want to have control and to change (although you are not really changing but running in circles within the matrix). It sounds foolish what I'm saying but it is more esoteric than anything.

Best wishes,

Govert



From the Rules of the Forum section:



[...]
Methodology: *Facilitation of the creation and the sharing of objective knowledge by providing the framework / resources / moderation and "elder brother guidance." As Gurdjieff has said:

"On the fourth way there is not one teacher. Whoever is the elder, he is the teacher. And as the teacher is indispensable to the pupil, so also is the pupil indispensable to the teacher. The pupil cannot go on without the teacher, and the teacher cannot go on without the pupil or pupils. And this is not a general consideration but an indispensable and quite concrete rule on which is based the law of a man's ascending. As has been said before, no one can ascend onto a higher step until he places another man in his own place. What a man has received he must immediately give back; only then can he receive more. Otherwise from him will be taken even what he has already been given."

* Capitalisation, sharing, analysis of information on key topics
* Scientific approach. Collection of direct and indirect data (videos, articles, books extracts,...) , sources validation, elaboration and challenge of hypothesis and theories consistent with validated datas.
* Maximization of the signal to noise ratio
[...]

 

[Art]

I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to understand the existence and the illusion.

Ok... and then?

 

[RflctnOfU]

Kris wrote:
It seems as though in "thinking about the concept(s)" of the material being discussed, you have come to an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps your "Personality" is not suited for esoteric work. If that is the case, which it seems to be - based on the assumptions made by you and then presented said assumptions as fact - I'm sure you will be able to find other discussion groups where you can share your facts (opinions) with others who share in those facts (opinions). This forum is about signal, not noise.

* I understand your anger. It is hard to understand that the mind is not the instrument to understand anything. You want to have control and to change (although you are not really changing but running in circles within the matrix). It sounds foolish what I'm saying but it is more esoteric than anything.

Best wishes,

Govert

You apparently do not understand my post at all. There is no anger whatsoever. I was pointing out the subjectivity of your statements. For you, they very well may be true. But you are projecting your 'conclusions' on the rest of humanity, and stating it in absolute terms:

He cannot observe himself, he cannot know himself, he cannot change others or himself, he cannot do anything to reach enlightenment or to find a way out of the matrix, because he can only use his thoughts to do all this and it is impossible to know what a tree really is or what he himself really is.

Perhaps if you replaced 'he' with 'I', that would be closer to objective reality.

I studied christianity, judaism, islam, magick/qabalah, kabbalah, alchemy, new age stuff, guru stuff, gurdjieff, ouspensky and mouravieff, the c's material, theory and practice and to my regret and dislike I came to the conclusion that a human being cannot understand existence and reality.

As I stated before, perhaps your "Personality" is not suited to esoteric work. I suggest perhaps that you don't understand, in the fullest sense of that word, the material in question, which you studied.

Kris wrote:
Actually, the techniques are geared to the opposite, that is, to become who 'we' truly are, at least in potential.

* If that's what you believe go ahead. It's not my intention to change you. It will take you maybe a long time after you tried many/all methods and techniques to find out that the techniques don't work and that you are getting nowhere.

I also suggest we have different definitions of 'belief'. My working with the hypothesis, the idea, that I assign a high probability to being correct, is not etched in stone. I am open to the possibility of it being in-correct. However, based on the results of my working with said hypothesis, I assign a low probability of it (hypothesis) being incorrect. Data can change everything. Data pointing towards your 'conclusions' - which comes across as a sacred cow for you - is lacking severely in my case, as well as others involved in the Work.

Just because you didn't get results, does not mean another person would get the same lack of results. I do empathize with you that your foray into things esoteric was not fruit-full. Perhaps the 'next time around', that particular 'plant' will bear 'fruit' for you.

Kris

 

[Govert]

Hi Art,

Govert wrote:
I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to understand the existence and the illusion.

Art wrote:
Ok... and then?


* It means that you cannot know or understand the 'truth'.

Kind regards,

Govert

 

[anart]

It means that you cannot know or understand the 'truth'.

Yes, you keep saying this - over and over and over again -- and it is obviously true for you - however, that does not mean it is true for one other person.

Your incessant repetition of this idea is becoming noise on this forum and your apparant closed mindedness regarding other people's points of view is also distracting. If you would like to consider that you may not , in fact, have all of the answers (even though your answer is that an answer is impossible to have) then your presence here is very welcomed. However, if you are not willing to open your mind up a bit, it would be better for you to go elsewhere.

 

[RflctnOfU]

It means that you cannot know or understand the 'truth'.

Yes, you keep saying this - over and over and over again -- and it is obviously true for you - however, that does not mean it is true for one other person.

Your incessant repetition of this idea is becoming noise on this forum and your apparant closed mindedness regarding other people's points of view is also distracting. If you would like to consider that you may not , in fact, have all of the answers (even though your answer is that an answer is impossible to have) then your presence here is very welcomed. However, if you are not willing to open your mind up a bit, it would be better for you to go elsewhere.

Thank you Anne. You do have a gift for eloquence, stating what I was attempting to say, in such concise terms.

Kris

 

[Ryan]

* It means that you cannot know or understand the 'truth'.

But since you cannot prove this, you will have to allow us our freedom to continue to attempt to do so.

Unless of course, your intent is to prevent exactly that?