Not everybody has to have a soul

a reply to: SourceTruth

I did, you are the topic insofar as to what you have gained by following this path. What will you create when you have no creativity, depth or insight?

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Well yeah, the focus of this js not on trying to distinguish who is a soul and who isn't, it is more about realjzing that you are the soul and that you are able to awaken in a way that the soulless ones don't.

And what have you done so far with this 'awakening'?

I have been able to realize that I have the power to become my own creator of my experience.

The weird and wonderful thing is.... there is no creator and no experiencer.

What is IS!

Could what is appearing be any different than it is?

What IS happening IS.

The assumption maybe that, there is a you separate to what is.

I see what you are saying, I have heard this before.

This is just an experience, that is taking place through time "somewhere". It is an experience of information that is taking place somewhere. That somewhere is what source is.

'Somewhere' is just a story appearing.

Time is also just a story.

What is IS.

One without a second.... non duality means; just this that is.

'What is' can appear as stories about 'what isn't"!!

What is must have been brought to the point of being what is.

There is what is, but how did what is become what is? How did the story appear? What brought the story to appear?

The assumption is that what is became what is..... but it is simply being what is.

Not two.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: SourceTruth

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Well yeah, the focus of this js not on trying to distinguish who is a soul and who isn't, it is more about realjzing that you are the soul and that you are able to awaken in a way that the soulless ones don't.

And what have you done so far with this 'awakening'?

I have been able to realize that I have the power to become my own creator of my experience.

The weird and wonderful thing is.... there is no creator and no experiencer.

What is IS!

Could what is appearing be any different than it is?

What IS happening IS.

The assumption maybe that, there is a you separate to what is.

I see what you are saying, I have heard this before.

This is just an experience, that is taking place through time "somewhere". It is an experience of information that is taking place somewhere. That somewhere is what source is.

'Somewhere' is just a story appearing.

Time is also just a story.

What is IS.

One without a second.... non duality means; just this that is.

'What is' can appear as stories about 'what isn't"!!

What is must have been brought to the point of being what is.

There is what is, but how did what is become what is? How did the story appear? What brought the story to appear?

The assumption is that what is became what is..... but it is simply being what is.

Not two.

What is does not have to be what appears as what is to us, what appears to us is what came to be, tarting and emergin from what is.

a reply to: SourceTruth

Well, I asked you to give me a topic to discuss. Why can't you give me a topic to discuss?

and there it is, again.

absolute proof you cannot think for yourself.

The poster is asking you to share some of your own wisdom without parroting something else.

You reply by basically saying you cannot and need to be told what to say or talk about.

a reply to: SourceTruth

What is does not have to be what appears as what is to us, what appears to us is what came to be, tarting and emergin from what is.

You should check this out:
www.yodaspeak.co.uk...

a reply to: SourceTruth

You may be mislead to believe that the emotional aspect of sex is higher, but it is really not so.

How can you possible say this when you have not had the experience yourself?

I don't understand what those like you are doing on a conspiracy forum.

Huh?

So how can come here and try and explain what reality is when you cannot understand that people have a choice.

You are just another dismissive person.

Of coarse you can see that,

What eludes you is that what you see in others on an anonymous internet site is actually a reflection of yourself.

This forum is created for people who have unconventional ideas that don't fit with the mainstream narrative. I am one of those people with such unconventional thinking.

you still think you are special and what you are parroting is original.

when over numerous threads many have told you that its not.

If that is not good enough for you and you need to be shown then why do you think what you tell others is enough and when asked to actually say something original that comes from your own mind you need to ask what to say or talk about?

None of you seem to actually have any unconventional ways of thinking.

Yes, it may "seem" that way to you, as explained this is just a reflection of your own being while you delude yourself into thinking you are better than others.

so I will just say to anyone who reads this not to be swayed by the way that these kinds of people bash these kinds of topics, because they really do not know any better, and they do not know anything about these kinds of topics.

other than all the evidence in your threads that most know a whole lot more than you do about this concept.

again this is just a reflection of yourself and why its so obvious you need keep saying it is because its your own psyche is trying to walk you up.

If you cannot grow and change then its why so many have concerns towards you.

you are stuck/trapped while thinking you are free.

when asked to share your own wisdom you cannot and need a topic of discussion.

Everything I have talked about the matrix is unconventional thinking, so you are wrong.

Its someone else's thinking though, not your own.

Its a thinking that has become very mainstream in western culture in recent decades and in certain cultures has always been mainstream.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SourceTruth

What is does not have to be what appears as what is to us, what appears to us is what came to be, tarting and emergin from what is.

You should check this out:
www.yodaspeak.co.uk...

Very funny... "Yodaspeak".

a reply to: InhaleExhale
I wanted a topic I could analyze. I am an analytical person more then I am creative. I am still trying to gain more wisdom and understanding and develop intellectually, I am only 17 after all.

I am not saying that the matrix concept iself is original, but other things that the channel presented were original which reated to the matrix concept. The channel provided a lot of original information, I am not just talking about the matrix concept and some other concepts like soulless people, I am talking about other things.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: InhaleExhale
I wanted a topic I could analyze.

Really, can you show me an example of your analysis? Seems like you just believe everything she says.

Except for the money part of course.
Cheapskate.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: InhaleExhale
I wanted a topic I could analyze.

Really, can you show me an example of your analysis? Seems like you just believe everything she says.

Except for the money part of course.
Cheapskate.

Who are you talking about by "she"? We are not talking about anyone else in this thread.

a reply to: SourceTruth

I think he is talking about your Youtube mentor.

This may seem like a crass question but it is relevant. If you refrain from orgasm do you not have wet dreams? I'm honestly curious. When I was much younger I tried to do that but I had no control when I was asleep and dreaming.

a reply to: midicon

I have had them very infrequently and only very few times.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Do I have a justification for agreeing with her?

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Do I have a justification for agreeing with her?

No, what actual analysis have you done?

Justification is easy to do, for example
it's fun to be part of a group.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

In my other thread I have discussed it and in this thread I have discussed the topic of soulless people.

Lets analyze the concept that this thread is about. I will start with this:
If we do not know for sure that everyone has a soul, then we should not assume so.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
If we do not know for sure that everyone has a soul, then we should not assume so.

That's twisted wording.

Since we do no not know souls exist we should not be making judgements based on the idea of them I would say.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I am not making a judgement, I am actually arguing against making a certain judgement. Judging that everyone has a soul based on the concept of souls is the judgement I am pointing out. I am saying that we should not make this certain judgement.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I am not making a judgement, I am actually arguing against making a certain judgement. Judging that everyone has a soul based on the concept of souls is the judgement I am pointing out. I am saying that we should not make this certain judgement.

OK, I'll give you that.
But are you consistent?

Would you suggest that assuming you have a soul is as silly as assuming all others do also?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No, I wouldn't because it is self evident from my perspective that I have a soul. This is the problem, relative to the observer it is self evident that they have a soul but it is not self evident that others that the observer observes have souls.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No, I wouldn't because it is self evident from my perspective that I have a soul. This is the problem, relative to the observer it is self evident that they have a soul but it is not self evident that others that the observer observes have souls.

But you have said without a doubt that other don't because their eyes glow or there abouts and because of your pendulum telling you other don't.