Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question
I think that the first thing to consider is that no being is entirely soul-less. That is, the question ought not to be framed as one who has or does not have a soul. Rather I think it is the "type" of soul. There are, apparently, discrete soul fragments of larger souls that do not have the development to retain that individuality, but rather go back and re-merge with the larger soul or group soul upon death; and then there are souls that have grown to the point that they are individuated and survive death as consciousness units. I think Gurdjieff perceived something about this and concluded that no people have souls at all unless they "work on themselves" and crystallize a soul in some way. (The Tamdgidi book goes into this a little bit.)
Years before I had my encounter with Gurdjieff, I had observed that there were a LOT of people that I simply called "cardboard cutouts" because they were "as deep as a thimble". It was puzzling to me how some people could be so "empty". Then, Gurdjieff came along in my reading and I tentatively accepted his description though, even then, I modified it because I was quite sure that reincarnation was a fact and G disavowed this idea.
Then, after some years of the Cs, they explicated the "organic portal" idea which made quite a bit more sense to me, especially after a long period studying psychopathology.
What the Cs said, basically, was that one could probably tell the nature of the being if they were "failures" but the really good ones were difficult.
The idea put forth in the book "Darkness Over Tibet" seemed to be useful: that there are ways you can tell a "soul on the way up or way down". The test was that if a person (or critter) could turn against someone who had helped them. In a sense, this goes along with G's "scratch test". However, after long consideration, I don't think that is as useful as one might think.
Now, you are speculating a bit.
And:
And:
So, as I wrote above, as the Cs said, more or less, the ones you can "read" are the failures but the really good ones take awhile.
I don't know if the "signs" that you notice are particularly significant. For example, I like animal prints because I like animals in general and think that Nature has done a marvelous job clothing them. I would never use a real animal skin but I like some of their markings, like tigers and leopards and so on. I like fake fur, too because I like furriness in general but, again, I wouldn't have a real fur because it would involve harming a critter. I don't like and won't have snake-like prints around me because I don't like snakes. So I don't think this is quite as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
As to your statement about "reptilians that embody humans": Do you mean humans (really, organic portals) that derive from a reptilian gene pool or "reptilians" in the sense of 4D STS? In the latter case, I think that they only temporarily "embody humans", though in the former case, it might be accurate.
We actually have a rather long thread discussing this topic already and in a day or so, I think this new thread should be merged with the older one if someone can find it. And you should read it. We've gone over this quite a bit already and concluded that it really isn't that important to make a determination, just to know that it is possible and to take action when presented with certain situations and conditions; but then, to always leave the door open a crack.
