Also, Kingsrook and Lemniscate... both of you brought up some interesting ideas there (Kingsrook's funnel sifting / fractal concept, and Lemniscate's idea of a soul sharing multiple bodies simultaneously); I'm definitely pondering both of them.  For example I think the body sharing idea may be an extension of the OP situation, but maybe one where a soul entry/exit timeframe for body isn't necessarily a one-time "digital" thing, it's more of an "analog" level of presence in any given body at any given time.  Good stuff there; definitely things to chew on more.

The idea was that these "organic portals" are not truly "soulless" at the higher levels.  They're just soulless in this timeline, the one I'm currently in.  Whether it was at a traumatic point at any point in life, or some change in spiritual lesson plan based on early childhood events, or even a "nah, nevermind" choice made while still in the womb, at some point a soul *did* inhabit a portal's body... they just don't anymore in this timeline, because the path that soul needed to take was in a different direction.  In that soul's actual desired timeline, the body that they inhabit (be it equivalent to the organic portal body, or a totally new one) is very much ensouled, and is obvious as such.  Just not here.

Wait a second . . . this was one of those "spiritual braking" moments when something just "synched" . . .

Could a soul inhabit multiple corporeal bodies...? Could physical bodies share the same soul?

Here's why I ask:

I have had soooo many people swear that they know me (yet I don't know them). Sometimes it takes twenty minutes or more to convince them otherwise.

There are times when I'm driving along in the car, or doing something menial, and all of a sudden it feels like my "soul" or higher self, or soul at a more advanced stage "jacks into" my body, like I'm ready for it because of the decisions I've made or other synchronistic possibility (soul upgrade...?) and it was waiting for the right time (universal law dictating habitation rules...?).

This sensation is literally like you're being filled with more of your own self/soul, you become more aware, and it feels like "you've advance". Yet it's almost like you've been running on autopilot, and all of a sudden you're back at the wheel.

I know that I've looked in my eyes at times, and there doesn't seem like there's much life there. But most of the time they're teeming with life. I thought maybe I was just tired, but does a soul possibly go where it is needed? Or called? Could this also possibly explain the "dream state"? Could the process of meditation help to "anchor" the soul, which could be why so many successful meditators feel so "centered"?

This discussion brings to mind a certain scene in the movie "Waking Life" (the scene with Ethan Hawke) where he's wondering where all these "young souls" come from, what with the population explosion and all.  The idea has recently occured to me that maybe some people are actually fractured souls.  Rather than being a negative thing, like a lost paradise, it almost seems like things are being broken down into fundamentals, time and life are sifting things out, kind of like a fractal: smaller and smaller peices of a whole cyclicaly working themselves out at an accelerating rate. 

Thinking of these monumental times, I'm often referred to the symbol (and I'm sure this is nothing new) of a funnel or waterspout, where things are worlds apart on the event horizon but as they approach the singularity, things are speeding up and coming closer and closer. 

I guess I'm getting off-topic here.  But hey, with these types of discussions, about life and being and universe and absolutes, there's really no "off-topic," is there?

You never know, that creepy OP you see on the street today may be the brightest being you've ever met tomorrow, depending on what transpires tonight.  Always treat each moment with fresh eyes; you never know what might have happened while you weren't paying attention.

So I've actually meditated quite a bit on this issue.  And not long ago, a possible answer came to me (at least, an answer relative to my own Path, your mileage may vary, I'm sure you all know what I mean)...

That answer involved the upcoming singularity and during our approach to it, the rapid convergence of spiritual paths and timelines (and as this convergence is bidirectional, a corresponding splintering of timelines as well).  The quickening and merging of parallel universes and such.

The idea was that these "organic portals" are not truly "soulless" at the higher levels.  They're just soulless in this timeline, the one I'm currently in.  Whether it was at a traumatic point at any point in life, or some change in spiritual lesson plan based on early childhood events, or even a "nah, nevermind" choice made while still in the womb, at some point a soul *did* inhabit a portal's body... they just don't anymore in this timeline, because the path that soul needed to take was in a different direction.  In that soul's actual desired timeline, the body that they inhabit (be it equivalent to the organic portal body, or a totally new one) is very much ensouled, and is obvious as such.  Just not here.

The thing is, this kind of thing happens constantly, and has been happening since the beginning of forever (as all time is illusory anyway).  The thing that makes our current situation different and the OPs much more apparent is because of this convergence of timelines and this reunion of global consciousness.  This kind of thing has always been happening, but we weren't aware of it, simply because we're more aware now *in general* than we were before, and this will continue to escalate until the singularity itself.  Before this convergence, the alternate timelines where OPs would reside would generally be so far into the realm of the "invisible elsewhere" (thinking in terms of Hawking's 5D light cones here) that they'd rarely if ever even enter into our lives.  Now, everything is so much more connected on so many levels, that the veil on this very natural phenomenon has been lifted.

I actually see this as one possible interpretation of the idea of "the dead rising from the grave" at the end times.  In previous times, these pseudo-people would be "dead" to us, invisible by virtue of their previous souls having moved onto a different path.  Now, they're everywhere, and they feel "dead" to us, and we don't necessarily know why.

In order to not be elitist about the whole thing, I try to remind myself of this concept whenever I get initially creeped out by an OP.  That way, instead of continuing to be creeped out or feeling egoic in any way, I try to silently honor the soul of that being who, while not currently in that blank body in front of me, once very much was there, and that thus for at least a little while this body did shelter a real soul and had definite meaning.  What remains may be nothing more than the walking dead, an organic machine left behind while still running, running on the inertia of the quickening pace of this time of ours... but that wasn't always the case, and to the extent that there was once deliberate meaning in that vessel, I say Namaste to the Creator that Meaning.

Elitism: entitlement; special privileges; double standards; unwritten rules; nepotism; meme(ism); favoritism

The individual is the antithesis of the group's heirarchical structure which supports one group's values over another opposing set of values.

Only the individual can survive without a structure; specialization is a key factor in the structure that forces the individual to be less than the whole.  Individuation is the only hope for this perceived  freedom.

Self employment: the only realistic key for the individual to escape the matrix.

Heaven’s on our side – that’s something I happen to believe it … but at the same time, I guess it’s not something I hold onto – I don’t have any expectations in that way, and I take responsibility for myself – and I also have a sense of responsibility towards the world as well …

Reading K or listening to what he’s saying can certainly make people feel uncomfortable – and especially if it’s just the text that’s being read, he can come off sounding like a know-it all – and unless one’s looking into what’s being relayed for him/herself – the message – it is just a theory.

One of the reasons I think why K’s messages seem to be so unsettling is because they seem to be so contradictory to everythings we’re used to reading/hearing – and another reason might be – if someone’s never really looked into a mirror – and they decide to look through someone elses prompting, especially if they’re not accustomed to looking at all the fine details – well – that can also be unsettling.

What did you think about what K was saying about choice ? I think it’s pretty interesting. And what about the notion of thought as a response to memory – always old – never new ? I thought that was pretty crazy when I first thought about it.

The overall picture of what K says is really simple – I mean, REALLY simple – but in the explanation, it comes off sounding complex. I guess because there’s a need to be very precise and clear.

Belief is a nice thing – it’s comforting in a certain sense - I know it. But belief alone – in and of itself – to say that it will bring you god/goddess/all that is … then why is the world still in the state that it’s in ? As a species, I think we’ve had all sorts of believers for thousands of years … I know there’s theories that say we’re being manipulated by alien forces – and that’s part of the reason that we’ve been in this rut for so long … maybe – I don’t know – it could be true. But the fact is that we have this problem on our hands – taking responsibility for ourselves as individuals – to me – seems to part of a viable solution.

If someone believes in God/Goddess/All that is – does that belief project an image or an idea  - something predetermined – perhaps based on cultural or religious bias onto what God/Goddess/All That Is, actually is? Is God/Goddess/All That Is a product of imagination ? or to put it differently – can God/Goddess/All that is be approached or reached through thought? I think these are fundamental questions that are worth putting to oneself.

So how can someone find out if there really is God/Goddess/All that is – if there exists the actual thing – not the thing created by the mind ? I don’t have the answer to that question – K is someone who alleges to have been in communion with God/Goddess/All that is – and that’s a pretty serious allegation. I’m out for the truth – I know there’s other people like me out there as well. I also know that no one, including K, Lazaris.com, Montalk.net, Jesus, or my uncle Behrouz can give me the truth – that’s my own job.

It's a theory. If it explains your observations and experiences better than anything else, keep it until something better comes along. If it presents ethical problems or does not match your experiences, then put it away and focus on what makes more sense.

Note:

http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=3435

Crossing The Bridge Of Belief

From:

http://www.lazaris.com/publibrary/pubbridge.cfm

you're saying things which are striking chords with me - about lust for knowledge (storing info) vs. spiritual journey (part of which, to me, equates to 'continuous insight' which means no holding onto something after the fact) ... and judgement - holding an idea to someone rather than just observing what is in the moment ...

check this out - it's an excerpt from J. Krishnamurti - (in case you or other peeps are not familiar with him, this might be refreshing - it basically sums up some of his teachings):

"Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security -- religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice, he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence."

Perceptions are linked to a much deeper sense than those I can catagorize consciously. I can observe the energy transfer and decipher in which direction it flows: in or out. My own shadow stands as the guardian to the door to the collective unconsciousness. I can ask, "Please self, let me be a conduit for the kind of energy that can balance and ground me. How can I serve this union of opposing energies?"

In some cases, well in many cases, I, and my guardian shadow make the difference. I have enough energy--as a matter of fact it is abundantly supplied-- to fill any void. If it shall be determined, I can at least attempt to put in the spiritual effort to heal my enemy. I know not whether it is myself or the other, but through the inner self is the source of the bond. I would like to believe that I have drawn those who lack the energy to spark their own soul. It is not for me to judge after I observe, but all I can do is serve with my abundance, and that will make whatever difference is due.

I observe and I serve.  The elite(the entitled) are the opportunity awaiting me to test my compassion. I want to serve them appropriately, for I know they lack an understanding of the path, not a soul.

That actually brings up another internal conflict thas has been bothering me for a while, my lust for knowledge vs. my spiritual journey.  This doesn't seem like a conflict at first, but more and more that phrase from the Tao Te Ching has been grabbing me: "a scholar learns something new everyday, a man of the tao forgets something new everyday."

Funny, I’ve pondered this problem recently. I think the point is, that non-thinking and not-knowing aligns you with the source/Tao while thinking oftentimes blocks the flow. But the framework of reality we live in and its stumbling blocks, is made of structures that are sometimes better handled through reasoning. I think it’s important to differentiate between knowledge of principles and knowledge of pure data. The first enables one to handle circumstances more effectively while the latter tends to confuse the mind with senseless content. Of course, you need to "know" some data to analyze and then recognize principles, but after having got insight, the data can be forgotten. Maybe Laotse was thinking (or not-thinking ) about that.
Phew, haven’t been writing English for some time – the words don’t come out as fluent as I wished them to do.

Learning about the OP theory opened my mind to the possibility that it's ok to close myself off spiritually to certain others around me.  It has made a notable improvement in my life.  My state of mind is much more stable and I can keep the "dogs" at bay much better than before.

In fact, I think that some of the folks I used to "hate" I now see eye to eye with better.  Perhaps it's a matter of accepting people for who they really are instead of what I would have liked or expected them to be.  When they are coworkers, I don't have the option to not deal with them, but I do have the option not to pour my spiritual "guts" out to them.

I'd have to say that I don't care anymore if an individual person is an OP or not (I used to wonder "who are they, which ones?").  I really couldn't care less.  I'll reach out or help others in whatever capacity I feel is warranted or appropriate.  People are people -- like it was said in the above postings, anyone is a vector of attack -- you have to take it situation by situation.  I think that relying on categories would result in a much worse situation.

So, thank you Montalk for your writing on OP's, and I agree with you, Limukala, that it's best not to go around labelling and categorizing.  I agree with you too Lyra that it's important to honor observations whether or not they seem "nice".

Thanks for the great thread!

At the very least it is a slippery slope with a lot of potential for elitism (you gotta give me that much at least).

Well, you can't blame the theory for its misapplication.   That's a phrase I got from montalk, pertaining directly to the OP theory.  And there will be people who misapply it, using it exactly as you described.   It all comes down to addressing the misuse of the theory with specifica individuals who misapply it, as the situation arises.

I didn't say "OPs don't have auras."  I said "To note that somebody...has no aura, (for those who can see energy)...and other possible OP traits..."  Possible being an operative word here.  Although in my personal opinion, I'm thinking that those who have no aura might be above and beyond the whole OP thing.  It could be a whole other ball of conspiracy wax.    Seriously, so who knows.  But  for those who can see energy, it can be one of those "suspicious indicators" when they notice that some people around them aren't emitting any energy.

Exactly.

Well, depends on what your definition of "denying" is.  If I'm understanding you, I think what you're talking about is the idea that a person will write people off and not bother to even talk to them....ie, push their ideas onto them ....because they've mistakenly "judged" people to be soulless OPs when they in fact were just a soulled "asleep" person.

The assumptions here being that A) we're somehow responsible for awakening people - which we're not.  And B) There are only two options for how to even approach this subject.  Either sit back and do nothing, or go around "trying" to "awaken" people, which is really a form of pushing one's belief onto somebody, and trying to steer them in the direction that we see fit.

In my opinion, the best way to go about "trying" to "awaken" people is to utilize the third option:  Put what you believe out there, maybe in the form of a website, book, article, radio interview, TV show, etc. and allow people to come across it, listen, and make up their own mind.  But we're not here to try to push awakening on anybody.  Each person is responsible for their own awakening.  All we can do is put what we know out there in a non-freewill violating manner and let them come to us, and make up their own mind.   And if you do that, then there is no potential for somebody to be "denied."     

Exactly - not that anybody should be advocating fear with the OP theory anyway. 

Agreed!

I totally agree.   People sometimes mistakenly think that by stuffing themselves full of information that they are somehow more knowledable.  But what's the use of all that information if it serves no purpose and can't be put to a good use?   Most of it is just brain clutter that serves no real purpose.  But people will sit there and soak in several hours of televised "news" and read the papers every single day, thinking that they are somehow better off for it.  In this day and age we have information overload.   Filtering is the key here.  Taking in only that which is of personal importance, and that which can lead to greater awareness.

With OPs, again, very few people can probably tell what's truly going on with people.  So all we can do is guard and save our own energy, against ALL energy feeders, be it "OP" or "souled person."  Because you're also right in that everybody has the potential to feed and drain somebody else's energy if they're not aware of how they're behaving.  That point was covered in the OP article I believe, if I remember correctly, that anybody can become a "vector of attack" and energy drain if they don't watch themselves.