rideforever

Humans Without Souls

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Desmonddf said:

 

The truth is that I disdain the idea of angels, demons, kabbalah and the whole esoteric knowledge being a "metaphor" for "self-improvement".

 

For instance, the idea that Angels aren't "beings made by god which create the universe", but "ideas which relate to the supraconscious".

 

Just wait until I can "cast fireball". Then I'll get some of you guys and take you to see a real angel, not a metaphor. If you want, of course. Then maybe I'll feel less triggered by it.

 

Goddamit people, stop reducing the world to shadowork and psychophylosophy!

 

"Humans without soul" doesn't mean "humans without the will to live" or "humans with an ego/mind this or that way", means "humans without LITERAL souls"!

 

At least if you're talking Blavatsky or Crowley, which are the sources of this!

 

Yeah I get that you have a totally different stance on how stuff like this works than me.

Yet since I haven't walked in your shoes, I cannot really take on your frame.

 

For me, many of the things you say take on a level of impossibility.

This may be because I'm very much mired in the western frame of mind.

As Jung said about the problem.

 

Quote

In these matters one needs a great deal of psychology in order to make it palatable to the Western mind.

Carl Jung - The psychology of kundalini yoga

 

Maybe you are able to metabolize this information in another way,

and hence don't need psychology to make it accessible to you.

That is good for you, but for me, I'm too comfortable in an abstracted take on things.

I may never touch the matter as you do, but I derive great benefits regardless.

 

Even though I may not think about the Angels/Demons in the same way,

I do see the carnage they generate regardless, their imprint is just as much there for me to see.

I just chose to approach them from a different frame, so to speak.

As you yourself said, they don't really give a shit about us and our agendas,

so why should I care about how I approach them, if they don't give a damn either way?

I suffer just the same, if I go down one or another path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.......... Uranus..........

 

Pluto...............Neptune

 

 

 

Saturn  |          |  Jupiter

 

..............  SUN ..............

 

 

 

..............Mercury.........

 

................MOON .........

 

Mars ........................Venus

 

2 hours ago, Integrated said:

 

Well from what I know of the planets, that makes little sense to me.

 

I guess you are trying to show some dynamic what should be going on, but to me it seems pretty random at this point.
I may not be familiar enough with all the nomenclature you use nor the planets themselves as placeholders.

 

 

I showed it to one astrologer that is into Kabbalah and  they said 'So what, that is your basic astrological set up' - everyone knows about that !  .   :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

.......... Uranus..........

 

Pluto...............Neptune

 

 

 

Saturn  |          |  Jupiter

 

..............  SUN ..............

 

 

 

..............Mercury.........

 

................MOON .........

 

Mars ........................Venus

 

 

I showed it to one astrologer that is into Kabbalah and  they said 'So what, that is your basic astrological set up' - everyone knows about that !  .   :D 

 

Yeah astrology was never my thing, so I put little stock in the planets.

Interesting to know that they have a basic setup like that.

Though my interest in it is still low, probably because I feel it is wrong on some level.

 

The though just hit me that the movement of the planets could be compared to the shuffling of the Tarot deck.

Then whatever tale the planets tell, would just be like a Tarot spread.

If that is indeed the way they do it, that would be funny, and would remove much of my skepticism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Then, if you disdain that, why on earth do you  converse with 'angels' ?   :huh:

 

And why would they 'test' you ,  as you claimed,  if self improvement is not on the cards ?

 

 

Because there are plenty of ways of conversing with the real things ._.

 

Even judaism has its own ways.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

They DO relate to the ' conscious, rational, or logical '  ? In  communicating with them there is no ' state or fact of transcending normal human consciousness'  ?  

 

 They do not :v

 

They are beings beyond space and time, and one of them has self-proclaimed himself as the "King of Lies" which creates the "ultimate lie" which is the Universe itself. Think Maya from buddhism.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Please explain your idea of the soul then .... in a  literal  ('the  usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration' )  way .

 

The thing above the Mind.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Do you think ideas about things (especially like soul and angels )  can change over time according to the collective consciousness of that time  ? Or do you think the original idea of an angel (as in Zoroastrianism, where we inherited the idea from) was wrong,  Judaism was wrong about it ,  Christianity got it right  somehow , Islam wrong and Bahai wrong,  Jung wrong ? .  Or any variation depending on which religion you like, where born into or live in a culture still dominated by it . .

 

Ideas do not change, the same way natural laws don't change. We access different ideas. Think of our brains like satelittes accessing diferent channels. Every single concept of what an "angel" is is a different channel.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

So I dont know what  'all this' you are claiming is  that Blavatsky AND Crowley where both  the sources of  ?

 

The idea of "humans without souls" comes from Blavatsky's understanding of the theme of the Higher Self - as the thing beyond the Mind, the Higher Manas and above "bodies" of humans.

 

Here please mind that Blavatsky may have read a lot, but most of what she said contradicted or perverted the original authors' meanings. The same with Crowley. In their search for a way to "unite all knowledge" they merely produced a perverted knowledge which somewhat ressembles what can be obtained through some spiritual experiences, not effectively "uniting everything" - even because it would be impossible to.

 

Crowley himself was highly contradictive. However, his idea of elementals possessing human fetuses and therefore creating "imperfect humans" which lacked human "complete" souls is what I'm refeering here. Blavatsky also supported this idea as being something possible.

 

13 hours ago, Nungali said:

But if you want that, at the expense of self development  ... thats your call .   

 

What DO you do for self development, by the way ?

 

Actually, developing those has been a very important part of my own spiritual development.


The abbandoning of the beliefs and ego cristalizations which would make me insane if I was to see or produce physical effects has been a major point of self-improvement for me. Since I've been born in this day and age, they pervade most of my psyche and are a rich source of inner work.

 

Here's the thing which applied to the people of old and doesn't apply to us: They would use siddhis in a disordained manner and following formulas which they did not master.

 

However, through inner development it is impossible not to develop siddhis. Once you're manifesting your spirit, it will act as it will. And the impossibility of the ego accepting its actions as possible, as well as the following insanity, are the major barrier stopping people from progressing the very first step on initiation.

 

Once you're able to merely start commuting with spirit, see Ishvaha or talk to a God, physical effects WILL manifest. Matter and the physical plane cannot be separated from the manifestations of spirit, and they WILL affect it.

 

However, most people of our time will go insane if that happens.


So we rely on those old warnings of "don't seek siddhis!" as a scapegoat for not progressing in direction of inner improvement.

 

Except the inner improvement WILL request for outer improvement, and the inner empowering WILL affect your outer power.


All inner improvement beyond the most basic of basics requires for siddhis to manifest. You might not seek them, but they will come. And if they come, and you get insane because of that, the path stops there.

 

See why I'm angry? People use "don't seek for siddhis" as an EXCUSE not to progress on the spiritual path. As for me, I seek them as proof that I'm indeed having progress and not simply deluding myself.


And it is through this proof that I've been getting closer and closer to what was described as the true initiations, as well as the "powers" that come with it, and the realizations and inner achievements.

 

I've been gone through a lot of what people say are the "marks" on the path for an initiate. Depending on the interpretation, I might very well call myself an Ipissimus - as in metaphorical ways, I've already accessed the mysteries of this degree of development.

 

But not in literal and effective sense. And as I come closer to the very first landmarks of being a very, very young apprentice, more and more I see the inner transformations and changes in me becoming more and more literal as well.

 

Seek not siddhis for power, ego or other such things. But do use them as landmarks (as well as the inner changes related to every step of the way, of course) to evaluate your personal progress. If you do so, most of the so-called "initiates", "adepts" and so on will show themselves as people who are simply being delusional.

 

And as long as you don't believe siddhis by themselves are proof that you've advanced a step, but complementary aspects of doing so, your analysis becomes even more profound and reasonable.

 

This is what I'm angry about: People who evaluate themselves merely through inner transformation, when inner transformation is extremely flawed. Siddhis are flawed? Of course. But if you use both to evaluate yourself, then you'll get closer to a more grounded self-analysis.


It doesn't work this way for many things, but it does work this way for spiritual improvement. If your mind cannot stop seeking self-analysis and trying to know "where it is" (which is one of the steps on the way, in which your level doesn't matter but only experiencing things themselves), then at least do it with a little more rigour.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

They could  ?    Like these ?

 

Don't know about these history behind those photos, but something like this. Materialization and so on.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

It is an age old warning, the one against seeking siddhis .

 

Don't seek them, because seeking anything will take you away from your path. But if you can't stop seeking things, then don't ignore the need for them in order to avoid delusions. They are proof that you're doing something and has achieved something beyond imagination and self-trickery by itself.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Okay how about  'doing development' then ?

 

Also how does NON action come into it BEFORE   one's consciousness is disassociated with ego ?

 

Unless, here we are communicating with a consciousness that already has  in you ?  If that is your claim, well, errrmmmm   really ?

 

If not then you better start seeking development and develop, or you will never get to the place you would need to to do without it ... in the first place .

 

So what are you really saying here ?

 

Don't "do". Dissociating consciousness from the ego (on the level of discovering that non-action exists) isn't even in the first chamber of initiation.

 

It happens naturally for some, with help for others. But there is no development and initiation with an ego that hasn't dissociated.

 

All forms of "spiritual progress" which are based on any kind of mental progress (and here I include all forms of emotional intelligence) aren't spiritual progress. They are simply mental progress.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Errrrmmmm .... dude .... they already DO !

 

Beyond the realm of "coincidence" ?

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

And by the way ... I have yet to see ONE SINGLE GOD levitate  a pen .  Why on earth would I want to anyway , I just pick it up

 

Well, you haven't seen a god then. Let's see if someday I'm able to show that to you. This day seems to be drawing nearer. Then I'll call you to come here and see it.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

and not like those non delusional people that see angels,  talk to them LITERALY   levitate pens and believe in GOD  ... no personality disorders there .

 

Here's the thing though: One thing is to talk to angels literaly, other is to believe you're doing that beyond the realm of doubt.

 

I'm still seeking for what I've put as the ultimate proof: Physical effects. Which others can see as well, so it isn't simply a psychotic attack.

 

Until them, yes, I'm talking with literal angels and literal gods. Only can't prove that and may be wrong. It is simply deciding if you'll assume they are literal or not. Both assertives may be right, but I'm more prone into falling on the pit of "this is all from my mind so fuck it" and go back to my old habits than in the pit of "god commanded me!" and go on a killing spree.

 

So I've chosen the first. And get very upset when people make other choices and then come to me saying stuff like "you have obviously chosen to believe that they are not literal, right?"

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

If this isnt  for development , why do it at all ?  

 

Because I want to. Seems nice ._.

 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

Okay ... and then what ?  

 

There's no "then what". Once I'm satisfyed with my proofs of the supernatural I'll do what they have been asking me to do all this time: Stop seeking things to do; Stop trying to decide what to do next ; Stop acting with plans, looking for meaning in my actions and so on.

 

Simply let the spirit manifest and enter non-action as best as I can, and then use mind tricks to stop my mind from trying to control things once I see myself again looking for reasons to do things. I won't do it with body and soul without having proof first, though. That's the limit of what has been imprinted on my ego.

 

"Non action might be a simple delusion" is the primeval doubt on my heart. "Letting go of all control and reason, planning and ideas is insanity" follows suit. And the reason for all of that is "because that's not how reality works".

 

Anything which conforms to all that reality is supposed to be, that is, physical, manifest, shared with others, etc, and can be used to go against these claims and show that indeed this is merely a foolish thought I have not to protect will suffice for me to abbandon it.

 

So I'm using siddhis as a means of abbandoning the mind. That's why I'm looking for them, being able to produce them and to rebuke the social mental attacks about the existence or not of magick with a fireball to the face.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Integrated said:

so why should I care about how I approach them, if they don't give a damn either way?

 

Fireball to the face will break your western frame of view quite quickly :P

 

That said, I myself am still waiting for it. The amount, frequence and impact of the evidence is pilling up. That gives me hope of achieving it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

What type of siddhi's should one see when they spiritually advance?

 

You should see--quite vividly, with smells and sounds and the rush of hot wind against your face all accompanying your vision to prove that this is not mere phantasy--the butt of a man farting onto candle flame in very close proximity to your face. (Well, pretty much every time I sit to meditate I have visions like that, do you guys? No? Oh, huh. Yeah, actually me neither, was just thinking out loud, you know, about stuff I don't actually think about.)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

What type of siddhi's should one see when they spiritually advance?

 

Animals.  Every dog and every cat, squirrel, raccoon, possum, snake in your neighborhood wants to come up and say hi.  Hawks circle over your head.  White egrets and blue herons show up and gift you with their feathers.  Hummingbirds zip in and out of your path.  Dolphins, seals, and an occasional shark might join you if you go swimming.  Pelicans will land in close proximity, you can even stroke one.  You may spot a mountain lion, a coyote, or even the exceedingly rare ring-tailed cat (an animal that is not actually a cat but, rather, related to raccoons.)   

  

ringtail.jpg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 8:05 AM, Integrated said:

 

Yeah astrology was never my thing, so I put little stock in the planets.

Interesting to know that they have a basic setup like that.

Though my interest in it is still low, probably because I feel it is wrong on some level.

 

The though just hit me that the movement of the planets could be compared to the shuffling of the Tarot deck.

Then whatever tale the planets tell, would just be like a Tarot spread.

If that is indeed the way they do it, that would be funny, and would remove much of my skepticism.

 

 

 

The planets are always 'shuffling'  .... any given moment is a 'spread'  and a 'reading' .   

 

The main difference is , with the planets, the arrangement isn't based on a random process.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 6:17 PM, idiot_stimpy said:

What type of siddhi's should one see when they spiritually advance?

 

d

 

 

 

 

 

 

48574001_303.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as the silver cord is still connected to the body then there is a soul connection.  Granted the body may be sleeping or in some partial sense not working right,  be in a coma, or in effect sleep walking per mental loops,  but it still has a connection,  thus simply put if there is no silver cord connection then there is death of the body because no soul is giving it life through that cord.  All the in between stuff talked about is interesting but I'd say it still comes down to that cord connection to the body. (that is to make a clear cut definition, btw i'm not guessing or only quoting something I've read)

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Greek philosophers go, the soul was generally just whatever principle enabled life- a human without a soul would necessarily be dead. The soul might be considered inherently immortal, or impermanent like the body. Even the atomist philosophers like Epicurus talked about a soul, though for them it was just a very fine body of atoms that animated the rest of the body, which dispersed at death.

 

In Chinese philosophy, terms like qi, shen, etc. have varying and overlapping meanings. This is a great article on Neo-Confucian conceptions of these terms, which is helpful in understanding Chinese philosophy in general.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Luxin said:

As far as I know, all the major philosophers going way back have spoken of the soul as if everyone had one. If one knows one has a soul, as Pythagoras did, and speaks of it, that's safe. The subject of this thread is not suitable for public discussion.

 

Why not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm...

Psalm 96:11-12 says “Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it! Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy”

Psalm 145:10 says, “All your works shall give thanks to you, O LORD, and all your saints shall bless you!”

And in Luke 19, many of Jesus’ disciples were praising Him and the pharisees there told Jesus to rebuke them, and Jesus said, I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”

 

so in a sense the trees and even rocks have "soul"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Terracotta Army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently clay models, or 'humans' for all intents and purposes, can be animated by A.I; and also by heterochimera

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2020 at 6:52 AM, Nungali said:

 

Why not ?

Hello Nungali, thank you for your question. I revised my original post, hid it, and suggested it be deleted. I shouldn't have commented on what I consider to be an occult matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 10:11 AM, BluLotus said:

The real question to ask is how many OLD souls are there? For me, an "old soul" would be someone who has been human for many lifetimes.

 

Meaning that a soul could split into 2 separate entities? 

how does Buddhism explain that with say 1 billion humans and countless animals, insects etc we have a few hundreds years later  8+ billion humans and countless animals and insects less all with souls? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because more souls come into existence , of course.

 

How could you have some 'old souls'  if you never got any new ones popping up ?

 

This doent have to mean a soul splits into 2 separate entities , I am not sure how you reached THAT conclusion  ?

 

It might mean that one soul can reflect parts of itself in myriad forms though .

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until recently I thought it true that some people do not have souls; I was mistaken. Someone told me that everyone has a soul; this person is the one who also told me my soul's last life was with one of my great grandfathers (my mother's paternal grandfather) in Scotland who was born about 1860.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luxin your past life was your great grandfather? As in you were you great grandfather and then re incarnated as yourself today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello i_s, thanks for your reply.

 

I don't have my great grandfather's personality (no reincarnation). I just have the same soul he did but not his mind and personality. Though I never met him, I'm sure our personalities were different.

 

My understanding of souls is that:

 

. they are different from the mortal mind (with its ego and personality);

 

. they go from life to life for many thousands of years and are said to be "ageless";

 

. at some point in those many years of living with many people, they come to live with a particularly "good" and loving person; when that happens God/Nature grants them eternal life, i.e. they are "born" and become immortal. From that point the soul has the righteousness of the loving person they were with when they were born as an etheric being, and those who are "good" enough to inherit the soul in the future have a power of protection in the love of that soul.

 

. they represent pure Love and positivity, and they watch over people and help them to make good decisions. They're here to guide, teach and share their great Love.

 

The fairy godmother is a figuration of the soul.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

Edited by Luxin
para space & font
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Luxin said:

Hello i_s, thanks for your reply.

 

I don't have my great grandfather's personality (no reincarnation). I just have the same soul he did but not his mind and personality. Though I never met him, I'm sure our personalities were different.

 

My understanding of souls is that:

 

. they are different from the mortal mind (with its ego and personality);

 

. they go from life to life for many thousands of years and are said to be "ageless";

 

. at some point in those many years of living with many people, they come to live with a particularly "good" and loving person; when that happens God/Nature grants them eternal life, i.e. they are "born" and become immortal. From that point the soul has the righteousness of the loving person they were with when they were born as an etheric being, and those who are "good" enough to inherit the soul in the future have a power of protection in the love of that soul.

 

. they represent pure Love and positivity, and they watch over people and help them to make good decisions. They're here to guide, teach and share their great Love.

 

The fairy godmother is a figuration of the soul.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

You make it sound like it's housed in the body and fuels the person in the body. Meaning it can be stolen. What happens if it is stolen? Can one steal fragments only?

Does it have any particular phenomena / unique qualities or specific lights/colors it is seen as?

Edited by EmeraldHead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2020 at 3:46 AM, idiot_stimpy said:

Luxin your past life was your great grandfather? As in you were you great grandfather and then re incarnated as yourself today?

 

Ooooo !  You are close with that one .

 

In a quasi masonic 'raising ceremony'  ( a ritual that enacts death and  post death experience ) one that is more updated and modern, incorporating newer knowledge of science and other things , the Initiate is informed , on his raising by acclimation ; " He lives in the Son'.

 

verbally it sounds like 'He lives in the Sun' leading some to think its about the old view that life death rebirth  is like the Sun raising , setting and passing into the underworld to be 'born' again.  But it isnt a typo , its intentional .  On such a tradition, this is a great impact and change .

 

It ties in with a huge body of knowledge , from our connections to our ancestors (many tribal people see 're-emergence' of certain ancestors in descendants ) ,  there is the whole thing about genetic consciousness and memory - circuit 7 , the neuro genetic consciousness of Exo psychology.  There is some very interesting research being done on genetics and inheritance (apparently even traits and habits can be inherited , eg, the way a hand gestures when talking, the way hair is flicked out the eyes, etc . ).  let alone the whole vast body of knowledge YET to be found in things like  'junk'  DNA .

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 17/08/2020 at 5:27 AM, EmeraldHead said:

You make it sound like it's housed in the body and fuels the person in the body. Meaning it can be stolen. What happens if it is stolen? Can one steal fragments only?

Does it have any particular phenomena / unique qualities or specific lights/colors it is seen as?

Edited August 17 by EmeraldHead

 

Hello EmeraldHead, thanks for your response!


My concept -- which cannot be proven as it's based on the invisible but real abstract realm, and is the result of my intuition of abstract truth -- is as follows, responding to your five statements/questions in their order:


1. Re "housed in the body." -- At the time of their conception, a person's soul does "take up residence" in their body. Re "fuels the person in the body." -- If 'fuels' means 'empowers' or 'controls', that's true. The soul, being of the etheric (aka astral) plane is separate or "above" the physical plane; however, it can control its possessor's body and physical functions; I've seen proof of this that I can't share.


With regard to how a soul empowers a person: The soul's presence can prevent them from doing foolish things that could harm them and others. The soul is protective of its possessor. The soul has what is called a "subtle or etheric body" that invisibly (to most of us) forms an abstract unseen field that encompasses the whole body and extends into the ether outside the body some inches.


The soul's communication is subtle because it cannot speak words as we do; however, it has no need for language as it's telepathic. It knows what "its person" thinks, but doesn't harshly judge anything. However, because the soul is protective, when it senses that its person is in danger -- i.e. that they are either being very foolish or some bad things are happening around them (it can read other people's thoughts too) -- it can do things like make its person vomit. The soul's centre of control seems to be the solar plexus, one of our four brains and the seat of emotion.


2. RE "Meaning it can be stolen." I haven't come across the concept of a soul being stolen before.


3. RE "What happens if it is stolen?" I'm sure that a soul cannot be stolen. My search for "stealing the soul" shows that some believe this to be a problem. All I have intuited about the soul tells me that anyone outside its person could not affect it. Despite its ethereal nature, the soul's compulsion to find and take up residence or live with a new person doesn't suggest a vulnerable or easily influenced quality. The soul clings to its owner; Claudianus Mamertus'[1] account spoke of how the soul loves the body. The soul studies the parents at conception, when the child is just an embryo; if one of the parents is dishonorable, it will not go with their child, but will continue searching for a new life partner "from house to house" so to speak, in the ether.


4. RE "Can one steal fragments only?" As discussed, the soul, that has eternal life, is a strong and determined entity. According to one source I don't recall, when the soul is travelling in the ether it's like a point of light (it presumably travels at the speed of light). The difficulty of trying to steal or fragment a soul could be analogous to trying, with bad intent, to split an atom or wrestle with a thousand legged octopus. The draining of blood is a reality, but similarly affecting the soul I sense would be impossible.


Another invulnerability of the soul is that, being of the pure and always positive Superconscious plane, separate and "above" the negative channel of mind, it doesn't respond to or judge evil or any possible "bad intentions towards it." Being a Superconscious force, it is, so to speak, "completely confident" that no evil (which is only found in mind) can affect it at all. Related is the precept, "Seeing only good, one is not harmed by evil", expressed by Buddha as "Seeing the beautiful is the whole of the holy life" (paraphrase), and expressed in The Dhammapada 9.124 as


"As a man who has no wound on his hand cannot be hurt by the poison he may carry in his hand, since poison hurts not where there is no wound, the man who has no evil cannot be hurt by evil."


No one need be concerned about their soul being stolen whole or in pieces. I believe some can see profit in promoting the idea; I think I saw a computer game referenced in my search.


5. RE "Does it have any particular phenomena / unique qualities or specific lights/colors it is seen as?" I've witnessed untellable phenomena as per point 1. I haven't come across any reports of psychics seeing soul auras. I believe the psychics who can see auras are witnessing the biomagnetic fields that exist around the chakra points.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reference.


[1] Claudianus Mamertus was a Gallo-Roman theologian and the brother of St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, d. about 473. Extract from paper by R. Ferwerda follows:


"The Meaning of the Word [Gk word] (Body) in the Axial Age: An Interpretation of Plato's Cratylus 400c by R. Ferwerda"


" ... A spark of the divine lives in every being and our goal in life should be the assimilation to God. In this view the body is not necessarily hostile to the soul. In fact there are Pythagorean sayings that the soul is the attunement of the body and that it is set in the body by means of number and an immortal and incorporeal harmony.14 The soul even loves the body, because, without it, it can make no use of the senses (Claudianus Mamertus, De Statu Animae II, 3 [p120]). Besides, it is a well-known tenet of Pythagorean doctrine that man should take good care of his body so as to make sure that his soul stays in a healthy place.15 This theory could hardly have been propounded by philosophers who contended that the body is the tomb of the soul."

 

Another quote of Claudianus Mamertus:

 

"The soul is introduced and associated with the body by Number, and by a harmony simultaneously immortal and incorporeal....the soul cherishes its body, because without it the soul cannot feel; but when death has separated the soul therefrom, the soul lives an incorporeal existence in the cosmos.' (Claudianus Mamertus, De Statu Animae, 2. P. 7; from p 174, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library, VPL, SOC 182 P99ZG9p, Guthrie)"

 

 

Edited by Luxin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites