OtherkinPhenomena: Forum

Full Version: Forgive me if I wheel around a bit...Souls?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
You know, I was thinking about posting about this in public, then realized that it could go into territory which could put me outside the realm of safety.

I've just been pondering over the last week or two, whether anyone has a soul or not. Concomitant with this is the question of, if "I" am simultaneously all beings who exist and who have ever existed or will ever exist, why am I seeing through this set of eyes (only) right now?

I've been doing some work with hierarchies, as well, in my schoolwork. Apparently they were hot in the 19th and 20th centuries as ways of organizing information, based on a biological model or "tree of life". The idea of evolution was probably newish, then. This also, though -- of course -- mirrors the concept of hierarchies of spirit. Which is very traditional, at least in Western cultures.

I'm in trouble. I'm actually thinking that I have a soul and that my soul is daemonic in nature. In this, I'm really obviously breaking from Buddhism. So far as I'm aware, all branches of Buddhism hold a doctrine of anatta/anatman (depending on the language of reference), or "no-soul"/"no-self", meaning that who we are is constructed and not essential, the core of the self being "BUDDHA-NATURE" (bleh...)

The further I get into Buddhism, the more it seems that people are covering for historical points of divergence from reality, within the doctrines. What do I mean by this? I am uncertain this is the term, but what is brought to mind is the term "apologetics." But I have no Abrahamic faith...so far as I can tell; it's arguable that Satanism is Abrahamic and just oppositional; but then it's also arguable if I am Satanist or not. (Maybe I need to create a new term, like the Deists did for Christianity.) But if the term "apologetics" (in any case) refers to later authors and scholars covering holes in the praxis...what do I mean by praxis...if the term "apologetics" means that something was found out to be wrong in the original doctrines and later authors and scholars try to bend things to seem right and still hold onto those holes...ehhhhh...and say "It's all good, they meant it this way"......

If the fundamental beliefs ("givens"/"doctrines") of a religion do not hold to reality: no matter the quality of thinking and scholarship that follows, if the present thought is descended from ideas which are inaccurate to reality, there can be little trust that the thoughts descended from those fictions are therefore true.

And you go holy ****ing **** Chord, where are you going with this, right...

(I bleeped myself, I apologize.)

I seem to be trending more Hindu. And more postmodern. The core of everyone's self being essentially the same thing -- the idea that if everyone reaches "enlightenment" that this enlightenment will be the same for all, regardless of difference (of which it is said there really is none) is a belief more easily held in cultures which are not metropolitan and global in nature. I've come to the realization that what's going on with me is that my frame of thought is at least postmodern -- though I wouldn't have gotten there without an introduction to postmodernism in one of my last completed classes. (Postmodernism in art and postmodernism in philosophy are two different things {they cover different time periods}, but I gather that the former {which I was exposed to} is influenced by the latter.)

The Hindu thing...is more of an overlay of this kind of tree-of-life idea where maybe we do all come from the same Source, ultimately, but what I am may hold a persistent pattern between reincarnations. That is, maybe a constant for me in this series of lives is actually there. I know it has nothing to do with race or class or social position or exterior appearances (all of which modify the input coming at one, and what one is subjected to; not what one does with that information), but it's possible that whatever I am, I have been it for a while and I cannot look forward to not being it in the future. Yeah, I may be reborn male or female or intersex or whatever, but that doesn't mean that who I am at core changes. Whether you're born White or South Asian or African or Middle Eastern doesn't change your core. It changes your experiences.

That is, maybe there are multiple "Buddha natures" (thus implying the existence of souls {possibly organized group souls {distinct from physical lines of descent} via a branch of a "Tree of Spirit"}) and my Dharma is to live in line with my own Buddha nature which I should be consider distinct from Buddha's Buddha Nature. That puts me in line with Hindu thought. The core essence of what I learned in World Religions (*cough*) about Hinduism is that the goal of life is to live life being as fully yourself as you can (though of course that doesn't help things when other people are telling you what you are, say, because of birthright or caste or color or sex).

And why daemonic? Granted this is separate from OFS's definition of "daemonic," but...I just don't feel, at core, human. At the soul level, I have a hard time believing that everyone else is the same as I am. Do I feel "evil?" It depends on whether someone's recently caused me to feel so, or not. Am I "evil"? Probably not. Unless you are some kind of strongly religious person who feels that "Satan" is the "God of this World" (which I have heard repeated in my house recently; echoing the Satanist e-list owner who used to say the same thing) and that the majority of the world is therefore evil. (And the doctrine which says this, somehow escaped being touched by it. But let's not go there.)

I've also been doing some rather scary homework recently on looking at pro-censorship websites...which can cause a person to feel pretty alienated, too -- especially with this organized Ultra-Right-Wing stuff (I'm so Left-Wing that I'm probably uncategorizable by now; Democrats have consistently shown weakness, and I don't subscribe to the basic fundamentals of Socialism -- it's very 19th Century. Anarchism is unsustainable, and I have seen no model of Communism I'd want to live under). The biggest issue is that actually stepping forward and claiming demonhood is probably suicidal -- for ANYBODY who honestly means it -- because people in general don't seem to think very clearly. Some people hear "Demon" and their brains shut off. Like people used to hear "Gay": brain shut-off. "Communism"? I wonder if the same thing used to happen for (the N-word)? The problem seems to be that people hear they have the right to Freedom of Speech and they think it means for them alone and no one else, or that they can use their Freedom of Speech to tell other people to shut up (and expect to be taken seriously). That's not how a democracy works.

What I mean by "Demon" is not what most of my country means by "Demon," largely because the latter term is the idealization of everything hated and feared by a specific (majority) section of the populace, and for some reason people seem to think that if they don't like you or if they fear you (even if that fear is based on myth or otherwise not justified), it's okay to hurt you. Because people are that way.

I don't want to be like that. If what it means to be "human" is to be a NeoConservative bordering on fascist cult member (if you're a NeoCon not bordering on being a fascist cult member, I'm relatively OK with that; if you're fascist, I'd just rather not engage; and I've been in and out of online cults before), I'm not that. But these people have the highest stake in claiming superiority, which seems to be an opportunistic sport right now.

Anyhow...didn't mean to get into the politics, but it's rather scary.

I...eh...should be getting ready for bed, about now.
As long as you're not sharing your personal identity as a demon with anyone outside of safe 'kin places, what does it matter what mainstream America thinks a demon actually is? There will, unfortunately, always be assholes in every group. But that doesn't mean you should ignore or hide this aspect of yourself if it's important to you. It just means you have to be careful who else has that information about you.

Granted, I understand wanting to fit in and be accepted, we all want that. So it's a fine line between self-acceptance and sharing what you believe with those closest to you.
Hello Eli,

Thanks for the response. One of the fears that has come up with me, though, is the question of what happens if an untreated, mentally unstable Far-Right-Wing person gets into the Presidency. I do not feel assured that I will be spared from the Eye of Mordor, should that happen. People use "demonization" to justify killing each other all the time, and this is with people who do not, actually, call themselves (or think of themselves as) "demons." For what seems to be the slight majority of my life, now, I've been having issues with other people's issues and interference over my "loving the wrong things" (a quotation of the thoughts of my 14-year-old self...I didn't speak much, then).

At the same time, I can't have as strong an impact on my world as I would wish if I deny my own identity, as that introduces fear, and fear cripples my creativity. It's not possible to live as a whole person when a person is scared to face their own truths. If I wish to live as a creative person (which I feel is my role in life), I need to be a whole person. Myself, to the best of my ability.

So I kind of have a dilemma...
Reference URL's