Help
Sign In
summer
June 2009 
Eric's Take on the Whole Soul Ordeal
michele
Current drop of water theory
Or what is a soul.
A soul is the energy of life, and as such all life has a soul. Plants, Amoebas, Trees, even Cockroaches. A soul comes from the "big pool" (Michele's "oneness") it is a huge "ocean" of energy made of untold billions of "molecules" of soul energy. Each and every living thing needs this energy to be alive but each molecule is too small to leave the "ocean" alone so they form "drops" made of millions of "molecules" of soul energy. Each "drop" is unique, a perfect strange mix of "molecules" never to be repeated again. Many of the "molecules" have been a "drop" together before but there are always some new ones replacing the ones that have moved on, either to a new drop or a new form of energy. Many move away because it is time and many just get lost in the stirring currents of the "ocean" of soul energy. They are all on a journey to a new form, sort of like uranium loses electrons and becomes something else. The only way for them to move on is to become a life and live it. In the living they change, grow...? Maybe shrink, giving something of themselves to this life.
Souls have a collective memory as well as an individual one. Much like "star trek's" Borg they are more powerful when they work together. Some souls are broken and can never work as one. But most work well together. They remember past lives so when two people meet in life and they have a lot of the same "molecules" as a prior "drop" they are attracted some are "soul mates" some great friends and rarely some are mentally connected twins. These twins are closely tied almost half and half "drops".
Some souls were always people and know nothing but short life spans, while others were 200-1000 year old trees, 500 year old turtles. These longer living "molecules" of a "drop" if in human life are long thinkers, and very different from the short thinkers. "Live in the moment" could very well be something a person who had a lot of "molecules" that were a fruit fly last time round would say. While "we only borrow the land" might be a quote from someone who has a lot of "molecules" that were a tree last time. The funny thing is both quotes are "good" as we see them today. This explains the need to be many different lives before moving on to the next state of energy. It also explains why we can't know what we need to do in order to move on. Some of our "molecules" might move on if they experience being a monk, while others might need to be an axe murder. Both paths could be taken in the same life and everyone would say "what a strange thing to do for a monk." But it may be what gets the most "molecules" to move on.
New soul energy comes from some other existence. This happens rarely just like old soul energy moving on. If in your life just one of your "molecules" moves on you should be amazed, elated. Most of us will just go back to the pool drift around a bit, mingle and start again.
Eric
Access: Public
Eric - you know that (after my step-dad) you are the man I idolize most in this life. That said, please tell me where you are getting this grapich, detailed vision of the soul pond.?!…
He’s already in bed… but he’s had this theory in some form since the dawn of Eric time. It’s kinda quantum mostly, but it seems that this “selective process” where some of the drops move on aligns with “enlightenment”… if there are enough clumps repeating, they elevate to great consciousness, ie. the enlightened ones.
I think there is some truth to this belief. It isn’t exactly my belief, but parts of it can fit nicely.
Luckily we will all know soon enough, huh? LOL
Does God fit in anywhere here? Do we choose which molicules go into our drop or is it random?
one day, Erico…YOU shall surpass that limits of your mind (and ego as well), and THEN….the REAL YOU will BEcome so much more…and THEN….just wait. IT Will blow you SO damn completely away.
Judy, the whole theory formed over many years, starting around age 8 I think. The big refinements came from relationships with females. A Jehovah’s Witness I sat next to in band class in 7th-9th grade. We talked about religion all the time.A bad long drawn out break up after high school. At the time I also had a boss who believed that <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Does god fit in my theory? Well it was always that the pool of energy was what people call god. Hence it is Michele’s oneness. The cool thing about theories though is you get to change them when things do not fit. And recently I am beginning to think that the god you all talk about might be higher than the pool. I have no idea where god would then fit, but it just seems if “molecules” move on then there must be more but even the whole “molecules” moving on part is very new.
Do you get to pick the molecules of your soul? Not entirely, water by its molecular make up (from old high school knowledge) is sticky that’s why drops curl up on the counter I think if I remember right it is because the outer ring of electrons has 4 free electrons and wants to have 8 or multiples of 8 so they are attracted to each other that’s why I chose water as the example. So back to your question, some parts you hold tightly together in the pool others are drawn to your parts and still others are drawn to other drops in the pool. In the final drop there is some form of randomness always, and some form of sticking together even if you wanted apart. But also some form of choice as well.
Eric
Eric says: The pool of energy can have a will, a mind, and an intellect. I don’t see God as a person. It’s just a theory, it could be wrong.
And I say: Eric is my husband, and he’d rather play off of us than start his own thing. : )
I’m really Interested in the thought of the monotheistic religions… because I guess my picture in all three (as I’ve researched them, and did the entirely Christian thing for four decades) stills holds the Truth in an Impersonal God. In so many ways the pool of energy could be transferable here. We get into a whole new puzzle here… do we maintain our current individuality in the final destruction of the planet and the dissolution of the American picture of a heavenly afterlife? Since God is within each individual, is maintenance of a nonmerged deity even logical? Luckily, spirituality needs hold NO logic… so all theories can be pondered here : ) Go for it….
I see Eric’s explanation/description as very similar to everyone else’s. He might use different words to describe or have different pictures in his head but we all agree on the fundamentals. There is a higher power/God or we are the higher power God or a part of such. We are all one. There is somewhere that we go. Energy exists in some fashion. Love makes the world go round. We as humans don’t have the capacity to fully comprehend everything and I am sure we certainly don’t have the vocabulary to describe what we feel regarding such indescribable things so instead of seeing the differences, we should look at the commonalities because I think that if we look past the words, we will find we all have more in common than we think. If we get distracted by the minute details, we lose the point.
BTW, Eric, you need your own Gaia account. lol
Eric says:
Daniel, I would like to say I am glad to see that you picked up this blog to join the group with. It is nice to see I peeked the interest of someone new. I think we would need to agree to disagree on the whole personal god part of the theory. I just can’t see a “brainy” larger version of us out there taking any interest in what we do. I can see that Jesus being the son of god, sort of works as a personal god thing. But to me he was a person and not a god. Defiantly a really out there spiritually awesome type person. But still a person.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
As for the entities part. Each molecule in the pool is an entity. Each with its own memory, style, and ideas. Each wants to incarnate a living thing with the sole (ha ha) purpose of learning something and being of help to us. We were created with the purpose of being brought to life so that the pieces of the soul can learn. In essence we are the vessel of their mortality so that they may continue in the journey to …. What I do not know. They are not like a parasite using us, but a loving entity guiding our lives while not interfering carefully staying an observer, and a student or scientist viewing an experiment but not interfering with the outcome. The love they have for us is huge, almost indescribable. For without us there would be no hope for them. Yet they are a part of us as well as a separate. So when you give yourself to god you give it to them in you to guide.
As for getting my own account I would rather just be the guest when asked or when Michele is sick or tired.
Erico, Erico, Erico….tsk, tsk, TSK.
And Michele says : )… like I have to identify myself in my own blogs or something, hilarious. In some ways, to Eric’s defense, he was staying out of Gaia profile-wise in respect to my individual contribution… in that we do NOT come from the same spiritual space, but we do come from the same God (not philosophically but Eternally), and the same home/family/life. He didn’t want to limit me, or quiet me, or argue openly in a public forum… and he respects my right to limit that. But, I’m over it. I think you’re right. Eric is ready to fly free.
that was a beautiful wifey thing y’just did there, michele. And, Erico…you had better BE givin’ yer wife a really sweet ass kiss after that there, bud. she did ya’ good.
Eric, for the record, Robert loved your theory. He doesn’t follow Gaia as a rule but happened to sit down while I was reading and since he is faining intrest right now, he asked me to read it to him. He liked it so much he actually asked me to print it for him? Huh I have no idea what for. Just know, he agrees with you and I get where your coming form but dont think it is quite as simple as that. Close, I just think we have more choice in it but don’t remember it once were here :)
p.s. Its time for your own account. at least change the picture when its your words then change it back.
Since this is Eric’s blog and he is blogging his belief, it is Eric’s right to see God anyway he wishes. Thisincludes how he views drop and molecules. Visitors have the right to disagree and say their own beliefs but it is extremly rude to discount someone else’s beliefs on his own blog. You have the right to blog whatever you wish on your own page and one would hope that readers would respect your views as well.
Michele here again… I’m rolling on the ground laughing… ‘cause I thought this was MY blog space… and wow, we have about a hundred topics going here. Should I break ‘em out for you so we can go it individually? I’ve noticed reincarnation, karma, personal and impersonal God, Jesus as Creator (like the first six days, that one is new to me… I’ve never run into it), the complexity and/or simplicity of the Divine, benign Creator or loving God… there are more, but that’s enough. Anyone have a suggestion on where we start? I will happily pull up a new blog, or we can just keep the comment line going!!! (And, judgment is generally considered a spiritual thing to avoid, if at all possible. It’s easiest to do point-counterpoint with “this is what I thing, or how I see it” as a starter.) Thanks!
Oh, and Rich my darlin’, do we really need anyone kissing my ass in this space?.. at least it’s Eric! Can I borrow your donkey profile pic? : )
M - I think it was a “sweet-ass” kiss as opposed to a sweet “ass kiss.” Correct me if I’m wrong Captain (ps - Chelsea pointed out that the other yellow duck - the one we didn’t put a beard on with permanent marker - was “floaty” so that moniker would also be up for grabs?)
I’m sorry, did I just add another topic to the blog!?…
So Rich, what do you think? Judy wants to know if you prefer Captain Quackers or Floaty for your nickname… I’m thinkin’ maybe you should choose some other day (perhaps more options will come to light, yikes).
Sorry, but Chels reminded me it was “Qackers” - no “u”.
We have a few things to think about… and luckily, in my emails bin, I still have all of Daniel’s words to ponder. Eric wrote a new response and left it for me to post. When I came to post it, Daniel had already come through and removed himself. Daniel, if you’re still watching, which I doubt, you are perfect in the way that God created you and the views you hold now for exactly what they are to be for all of our evolvement. Sprititual debate should always be a place where everyone is valued for their individual thinking. Each individual holds and forms the self, and must allow others to do it as well… and we all work to learn how that looks.
Eric’s reply self deleted without posting. How wild and freaky! Sorry Eric! That was totally a Eternal thing somehow.
OK - it seems to me that statements like “rude” and anything implying “should” or “shouldn’t” are judgments. When D posted all that stuff, I just ignored it - I actually didn’t read it. Too many words, too many quote marks. Not interested. I would suggest - since most of the family have weighed in on this particular blog and should get this message, that we practice what we are trying to teach - nonjudgment. As humans we are so used to being told we are wrong. This is a place where we can be right - regardless what we say - regardless if it is complete objection to what anyone says - so long as people maintain a minimum level of courtesy - direct the commets at the ideas, rather than the author - shouldn’t that be just as acceptable as anything else. Granted, I didn’t read what D said, maybe he called E a sissy - in which case I say - well, K says I’m not supposed to be sarcastic, but I hope you get the picture. These are just words here. Some people are very adamant in their beliefs. That is not going to grow if they can only talk and so only listen to others just like them. Hmm?
PS - please don’t yell at me for this. Thanks!