posted October 23, 2008 03:13 PM         

Let us not forget that, in our becoming aware of ego, we must carry on the same processes we have observed but while applying the fruits of thinking that come from our newly acquired observations. Label with a love for labeling. Identify with a love of identification. Let us not dispense the blessed with the whole. 'Tis futile and unreasonable anyhow. The physical temple cannot host the gift of life without ego.

posted October 23, 2008 06:36 PM         

I've met a fw people that think that they are indigo children because they are "against" the status quo - yet they demonstrate the most unskilled behavior - far from loving....

I think there is a big difference between trying to challenge the old order to bring about a new one and being just plain rebellious and angry.

posted October 23, 2008 10:07 PM         

I like this post. I find it a struggle everyday to keep my ego in check. I have adopted the philosophy that enlightenment, is an on going process, its not something you arrive at and then bam your done, because if your not going forward you going backward. And the minute you allow yourself to think you are doing good is just when the Universe pulls the rug out from underneath you and you end up flat on your face.

posted October 24, 2008 03:26 PM         

HSC, lovely post. Honest questions and you raise a few difficult but essential points, I think.
How would prefer your spiritual superiors engage you? Being your superiors, should that decision best be left to them? Would you entrust them with a diagnosis? With treatment? By what standards would you gauge they're superiority? Are you sufficiently refined to even recognize a spritual superior?

posted October 24, 2008 10:10 PM         

-------It is natural to feel distinguished when surrounded by nondescript and/or obnoxious people, whose concerns are limited, for the most part, to popular culture and personal acquaintances. What you do with this feeling determines whether or not you pass the test. Do you wish to raise them to your own height, or are you comfortable looking down on them?--------

This is so true. I guess each of us have to set our own ideals in this lifetime to accomplish. And they are unique to each and everyone of us based on our own life paths of enlightenment. I guess thats why I have a hard time looking at others and saying whether or not they are an old soul or not. I think as we come to end of this Age and the dawning of a new that we are all striving to be one with the Divine, and as we have gotten closer and closer, or farther and farther away in each lifetime the manifestation of that is clear to others.

posted October 25, 2008 10:40 AM         

OnewithMars - I'd suggest googling Indigo Children --supposedly they are children who are born into society that are highly advanced souls. they are connected to each other via a "web" they are slightly psychic and have a trait of challenging the current status quo. My personal belief is that there have always been people who are more aware and have exibited spiritual traits more than other people. If Indigo children exist - they are not new only the adult perception of children has changed. I think some people are just more fortunate at birth and have better opportunities to advance spiritually.I used to believe in reincarnation, but now I'm thinking that humanity is advancing (some of it) while spirit remains unchanged. so I guess the idea of old souls is questionable to me as well.

posted October 26, 2008 04:30 AM         

Let me be clear. Its difficult for me to discern what constitutes an old soul. Certainly, there are qualities which strike me as more evolved than others, though I rarely trust my own judgement in this... Yet, it would seem to me that some of these apparently evolved qualities co-exist, in the same human being, alongside some qualities which I would consider decidedly unevolved. So, it would seem that, in this earth school, we are taking different courses, and some of us excel in some subjects, while we do poorly in others, -- or, perhaps, we have taken the advanced courses in some subjects, and have yet to reach the beginner or intermediate stages of some others. I think we often assume that we are more advanced in a comprehensive sense, when we may only be more advanced in one small sense. We all have things to teach and things to learn from one another, and I don't know if a perfectly well-rounded soul has ever walked on this earth, who did not have something to learn from the rest of us.

There are many who I would look at and say, "This person is my spiritual superior," and, yet, I would not imagine that they were infallible, or even less fallible than myself when it comes to making deductions about my own path. These people, who I am yet willing to call "masters", cannot even agree amongst themselves on a single path or way of cultivating spiritual awareness and energy. And we find, even among the gods, a most diverse group of personalities, with widely varying curiculums. From this point of view, the god who teaches Severity is not the same god who teaches Mercy, Beauty, or Understanding. And, yet, there is one God who teaches all. So, I tend to incline towards this idea that God is in everything, making sure that each person meets with the teachers and lessons that he/she is ready for at a given time. Although this is how I see it now, I do not deny that, if/when the time is right, I may very well learn to see it differently. But, then, wouldn't that also be part of the curiculum?

posted October 27, 2008 10:46 AM         

Are we young or old?
Do we evolve?
Or do we simply forget?

I expect that there is much many of us forget, that our souls once knew, as we sink deeper and deeper into the ignorance of the world, this denser reality.

But maybe, also, we did come here to evolve, it wasn't just as simple as a "fall from grace" which resulted in us ending up here....maybe....just maybe we needed to come here as to become higher beings endowed with the powers of creation, we needed to come to a place such as this, for without having experienced a reality such as this one, the snowflake would not be able to fully comprehend it's own uniqueness.

Just thoughts floating around in my head.

posted October 27, 2008 06:35 PM         

quote:

---

I think it would help this discussion if we could take the word "superior" out of it all together. Old soul has nothing to do with superior. This thread was started on that concept but that is totally immature. I am not so insecure that i can't contemplate the concept of conversing with an old soul without worrying that somebody has something more than i have. How much further can this thread get from a spiritual concept.
One day i would like to have a meaningful spiritual conversation with someone here on Linda-land. Pretty stupid desire eh?

---

I find this insulting and ironic.

Funny how the person who claims to be so intent on keeping things spiritual and equal, is the one insulting other knowflakes; saying that their contributions are meaningless and materialistic. As I see it, you have bought into a popular New Age dogma that denies the existence of any kind of hierarchy. "And I'll say it again: popular opinions -- private lazinesses." ~ Nietzsche Although it is certainly true that, on some level (call it pure spirit), we are all perfectly equal, and no soul is superior to any other soul in any sense whatsoever, on any level that we can actually talk about, and in any sense in which we actually exist as individuals, this is not the case. Yes, the first grader is just as special as the guy with the Nobel Prize, but, if he cannot admit that the latter has experienced and accomplished more, exercises a greater sphere of influence, and is in possession of something (wisdom and expertise) that he does not possess, then, the first grader will never reach the second grade. I suspect your apparent inability to allow higher levels is either ignorance and indoctrination, arrogance, or some combination of these. If, on the other hand, you are merely reacting to the word "superior", then your objections are purely semantic, and not really expressing anything besides your own personal taste. "We often reject a proposition when it is really the manner in which it is expressed that is unsympathetic." ~ Nietzsche So you dont like the word "superior". Good for you. But dont imagine that this word is as dirty in our minds as it is in yours, and that we cannot have a spiritual conversation without discarding it. I would argue that it is your own insistence on politically correct terminology which is really hindering the progression of this conversation. You just threw out the baby with the bathwater, and focussed on the one thing that could be miscontrued to mean something negative. You did that. Not us.

There is no Pisces without Leo.

posted October 28, 2008 04:04 PM         

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.