Less noise – more conversation.

Kiran Trace: «Having a soulmate is horrible»

Her viewpoint is the complete opposite of all of society’s narrative on romance: Kiran Trace, internationally renowned spiritual teacher and human development expert, shares how the common conception of soulmates is not something great, but the absence of freedom.

Choosing another instead of God doesn’t allow for your being to evolve and pursue its true purpose – which would be to be free and autonomous. Instead, it keeps us imprisoned and addicted.

Kiran and I both have seen directly, how destructive soulmates on the very extreme end of the spectrum (so called twinflames) are. Why soulmates are like cocaine and horrible – listen to this week’s episode with my mentor and very close friend.

Of course we want to hear about your story, about your experience with a soulmate. Or maybe you just have a ton of questions all of a sudden after listening to us – find us on social media @reflab.ch or via email contact@reflab.ch. You can find more about Kiran on her website www.kirantrace.com.

7 Kommentare zu „Kiran Trace: «Having a soulmate is horrible»“

  1. burkhard schmalstieg

    Dear Leela, I look at Kiran’s photo.

    I see the fist and, to mee, it holds the enemy and keeps alive the epic struggle against him.

    In may imagination the hand opens and touches what life brings along today.

    My questions: who’s in charge of the fist and the hand?

    Thank you,

    1. Hi Burkhard

      I didn‘t get your question at first, like „what fist are you talking about?“. Then I saw the foto – and in my understanding, she‘s simply holding a stick to lean on. No deeper meaning there:)

      Anyway, regarding „who‘s in charge“: from
      my perspective it’s very obviously God. As there is nothing but God✨

  2. burkhard schmalstieg

    Hello Leela,
    I would like to follow up on your comment: „As there is nothing but God✨“ – positively speaking and my words: „all is God.“ Both sentences state absolute conditions. In neither of them something is left to be ‚ungodly.‘

    I prefer a pragmatic approach and hence I look for consequences. To illustrate what I mean by „pragmatic“ I draft this scenario:

    We have two children and, let’s say, both are around ten years old. Both know, what it means „to write a list“. They have learned doing so in school, and you Leela have taught them the meaning of the sentence: „There is nothing but God“.

    The task for them is: each goes to his room and writes on a piece of paper the list of the things that are in the room. Now, after the set time both return and show their lists.
    On paper 1 we read: „table, desk, a stool, a bed plus a lot of small items“. On paper 2 we find barely the word „God“.
    Out of the variable conclusions from the results of the experiment, I would draw these two for now:
    Conclusion 1, from paper 1: one can believe there is nothing but God. However, it seems to be suitable to check the context, in which one makes the statement.
    Conclusion 2: God is not always the suitable answer to the question: „What is there?“

    Best regards

    1. Hi Burkhard

      Thanks for this pragmatic approach – however, I don’t seem to get your point. Is it that context is important? Is it that there’s the option to look sort of on different planes (form / formless)? Is it that both is true?

      In my experience of reality, that is the case. All is God AND it looks like there’s walls around me, a computer in front, other people… How fun!



  3. burkhard schmalstieg

    Hello Leela,
    Thank you for your answer. Trying to clarify my talk I want to say:
    – Yes, context matters. Who speaks to whom and on what? How would it be appropriate to talk?
    – It is the speaker’s responsibility to reach clarity on what he wants. It is not the other person’s obligation to guess.
    – The „different planes“ you mention are not my primary concern. For me, important is the difference between what there ’is’ and what feeling I ’have’. Interior/exterior world.
    – In my understanding, by saying „All is God“ someone would want to say, he is speaking about God, in any way. I would take that as he is using an ’image’, not as he is showing me a ’picture’. He does not describe (!) something, but rather express a state of his internal world.
    – My „experience of reality“ is rather of ’something real’ instead of reality ’as such’.
    – I believe you would consent to me saying „God’s being is different from the being of walls, computers and people.“
    – However, preferably, I would focus on the different ways in which we use ’being’. Pragmatic as I am, 🙂
    Love, responded

  4. burkhard schmalstieg

    Liebe Leela

    ich schreibe weiter auf Deutsch – auch, weil ich auf diesem RefLab-Portal Deutsch als Umgangssprache für eine passende Wahl halte.

    Ich hätte in unserem Zusammenhang noch etwas zu sagen über die Idee ’Verantwortung’ und die beiden Gefühle ‚Trauer‘ und ‚Scham‘.

    Dennoch, ich möchte mich verabschieden aus unserer Unterhaltung und mich Dir dankbar erklären für das, was ich in dem Austausch mit Dir habe lernen können.

    Herzlicher Gruss,

    1. Hallo Burkhard

      Vielleicht lässt sich dieses Gespräch einmal an einem anderen Ort weiterführen, we‘ll see✨

      Bis dahin alles Liebe!

Kommentar verfassen

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.

RefLab regelmässig in deiner Mailbox

Podcasts, Blogs und Videos, alle 2 Wochen
nur Blogartikel, alle 2 bis 3 Tage