Bring4th

Old Soul is a term thrown around a lot in some circles.

But what does it really mean?

would it corrrespond to a Wanderer? someone who has so much more experience to draw upon in terms of the biases formed from many many more lifetimes (compared to a typical 3d native).

or would a long-time 3d-repeater, who is on the cusp of harvestability also demonstrate the characteristics of having lived more lives than the norm, and has accumulated a lot of experience that way, relative to the norm.

has anyone ever described you as an old soul? and did you take it as a compliment lol.

- -

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL that picture X'DD

I think an old soul has had many lives, here or elsewhere. Location is not pertinent is it?

I'm new on Earth, but i think my soul needs dentures.

(11-28-2014, 02:14 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Old Soul is a term thrown around a lot in some circles.

But what does it really mean?

I think it might refer to the state of "soul consciousness." But I don't think it's a simple answer as my working theory is this whole existence is like a dynamic soup and not linear. There may be an entity who just graduated from 2d—perhaps a pet in the "last lifetime" who has individuated and is now starting to navigate 3D. This might be considered a young soul. Old and young would not, in my opinion, refer to time (which is a 3D construct) or number of incarnations or time incarnated. On the other hand, you may observe a mentally challenged individual who has an enormous capacity for love, higher than a 2D being such as a dog (pet). This person, as a supposition, might be a 5th density being trying to balance the intellect (wisdom) with compassion. I think it's a mistake to get too entrenched in labeling; however, it's fun to speculate on these matters.

do animals love less? to me it seems their hearts r more open.

(11-28-2014, 03:06 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]do animals love less? to me it seems their hearts r more open.

If you are referring to what I said, I don't think they love "less." But loving seems to me like an upward spiral, encompassing more and more information. If you can still love, for instance, while bearing the knowledge of what humans do to each other and other beings and the planet etc., it is another layer beyond loving as a pet does or an animal, who does not have the direct awareness of these particular things which incite judgment, sadness, anger, etc. Neither kind of love is better or more, just derives from a different set of parameters and experience.

I feel protective of animals because they're soul babies.

(11-28-2014, 03:23 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]I feel protective of animals because they're soul babies.

I feel protective as well. More so than I do for humans. I feel they (animals) are innocents and we as humans have collective responsibility for what we have done and are doing to the planet and other beings.

I feed the animals (deer, javelina, bunnies, squirrels, birds, etc.)—not so much that they can't or won't forage—and provide water sources on my property. I have had people criticize me for this. But I so disagree with what they say about not feeding wildlife. We have taken their habitats away for one thing. What's wrong with giving back a little? The local watering hole for the animals was built over by a developer. Humans in general just don't seem to really care about beings other than humans.

I, personally, am thoroughly disturbed by the increasingly common idea that animals are "more worthy" of care than humans. I think both need care, deeply, in their own ways and for that reason I am equally a guardian of humans, animals and plants for I see we are all One and all are deserving of care and compassion. I don't understand why one has to be elevated above the other.

I do not see this division between humans, animals and plants that others seem to see. Humans were once (and in many ways still are) animals, and animals will, in time, become like humans in their sentience, and I believe the same is true for plants.

I absolutely agree that humans have a collective responsibility, I have no idea why this means humans are in whatever way "less deserving" of care and protection.

---

As for old soul, young soul, souls are timeless, so really there is more "complex" souls and "simple" souls. Complex souls are still working on a large amalgamate of experience. Simple souls have synthesized all their experience and are starting from a simpler point again.

(11-28-2014, 03:23 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]I feel protective of animals because they're soul babies.

maybe they are...but another possibility that i consider is that animals could actually be humans that are trapped in animal bodies, unable to speak, bc they're being punished for something they did when they were in a human body. just a thought...bc so often when i look into an animal's eyes i feel like i'm looking at a human temporarily trapped in an animal's body

That is reflective of some traditions of karma which suggest that one who "falls" too far in consciousness will then go in to a "lower" bodily form to understand the level they have taken themselves to.

http://www.michaelteachings.com/manifest...l_age.html
http://www.michaelteachings.com/older_not_better.html
http://www.michaelteachings.com/soul_age_index.html

Cheers!

(11-28-2014, 03:36 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]I, personally, am thoroughly disturbed by the increasingly common idea that animals are "more worthy" of care than humans. I think both need care, deeply, in their own ways and for that reason I am equally a guardian of humans, animals and plants for I see we are all One and all are deserving of care and compassion. I don't understand why one has to be elevated above the other.

I do not see this division between humans, animals and plants that others seem to see. Humans were once (and in many ways still are) animals, and animals will, in time, become like humans in their sentience, and I believe the same is true for plants.

I absolutely agree that humans have a collective responsibility, I have no idea why this means humans are in whatever way "less deserving" of care and protection.

You have misinterpreted what I said. I respect all life. No one said animals are more worthy of love than humans.

You may, however, criticize me for my sadness at the way humans treat animals, the planet, plants, all sentient beings including themselves; and my disdain for ignorant and egocentric human behavior. In this respect animals are innocent, as they do not destroy in this manner. This is why I feel more protective of them. It is my inability to be more far-seeing and accepting that I feel this way, and in this you may take issue.

This does not make animals more worthy of love. In my world it makes me want to protect them from human behavior—this is just my feeling and perhaps my foible. And just because this seems to be the general way of evolution—1D to 2D to 3D etc.—and that plants will be animals will be humans, does not mean I have to like it or even accept it. There are certain perceived ways in which the universe may operate, but I think for myself, and if I don't think something works well or is the "best" way, I'll take issue with it—even to an infinite creator. Ra, "God," Buddha, any entity at all is only guidance to me, not ultimate dogma or rules.

Aha I don't really have any issue with you, I was more thinking out loud, it is ideas that frustrate me, and ideas are owned by no one. I believe that you exist the way you do because you provide a particular type of balance to all the rest of infinity and the same is true for myself and all things. Any way you choose to be will accommodate that balance. I honour, respect and love you and your unique, peculiar shaping as all things. I can even really only disagree with the understanding that it is my ego that is disagreeing, but my "higher self" or perspective that is more macrocosmic can see that I am you, and you are me, and you are expressing something that is also true for myself, but I am not choosing to be as conscious of those parts as I am other parts. I do create myself through willed ignorance but that is not something that is done to suppress myself but rather I choose parts in the making of my creative structure and organized organic emergence in to the fields of infinity.

Continue to take issue, to think for yourself, to have free will and push up against the boundaries of reality. I glee in such things.

(11-28-2014, 03:48 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]That is reflective of some traditions of karma which suggest that one who "falls" too far in consciousness will then go in to a "lower" bodily form to understand the level they have taken themselves to.

There may be some congruency on that with Ra's description of the Lamurian race.

Quote:10.15 ↥ Questioner: [I] was wondering about the advent of the civilization called Atlantis and Lemuria, the way these civilizations occurred, and where did they come from [inaudible] civilizations?

Ra: I am Ra. This is the last question of this work. The civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria were not one but two. Let us look first at the Mu entities.

They were beings of a somewhat primitive nature, but those who had very advanced spiritual distortions. The civilization was part of this cycle, experienced early within the cycle at a time of approximately five three oh oh oh, fifty-three thousand [53,000] of your years ago. It was an helpful and harmless place which was washed beneath the ocean during a readjustment of your sphere’s tectonic plates through no action of their own. They set out those who survived and reached many places in what you call Russia, North America, and South America. The Indians of whom you have come to feel some sympathy in your social complex distortions are the descendants of these entities. Like the other incarnates of this cycle, they came from elsewhere. However, these particular entities were largely drawn from a second-density planet which had some difficulty, due to the age of its sun, in achieving third-density life conditions. This planet was from the galaxy Deneb.

'advanced spiritual distortions' yet from a 'second density planet'? Hmm.

I always thought an old soul and the wanderer were close to the same thing. I always thought that the difference is that an old soul on earth is native to earths vibration, while a wanderer came from somewhere else.

thats my opinion

i think all souls are the same age: infinite

(11-28-2014, 05:46 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Continue to take issue, to think for yourself, to have free will and push up against the boundaries of reality. I glee in such things.

You can count on that.

I think in 3D with the veil, both old and young souls act alike.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I've read that young souls have trouble integrating with others. They are "wild" for lack of a better term.

Does an old soul feel tired of life?

---

(11-28-2014, 02:14 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]

Funny, I'm in INTJ. I'd have a party if there were other furries there.

Greetings sisters and brothers,

As a Wanderer and a Walk-In this notion of being an old or older Soul has frequently been on my mind...

As the beginning of creation is a mystery to even those of Ra, I obviously don't know if one Soul can be older than another.

Even before I discovered any contemporary Channeling, this notion of me being an old Soul was quite prominent in my conscious mind.

I had an astrological reading a few years ago from a chap in the US who said that I was an old Soul, but this is clearly impossible for me to know whether or not this claim is true.

I am however fascinated by this question, but the conclusion I am currently most comfortable with is that 4th / 5th / 6th density Souls are more evolved or developed than 3rd density Souls, but this does not necessarily equate to being "older" in terms of time that we are currently familiar with.

It is always possible that all Souls started existence together and that some Souls just happen to have evolved or progressed quicker than others.

Very interesting question, but like so many other ideas in 3rd density, we almost certainly will not know the answer to this question in this current incarnation.

L & L

Jim

Agreeing with Jim, that old Soul and young Soul equate to how evolved or developed the soul is.

We all know that all souls are the same "age" essentially since we all come from source, but I think old vs young vs mature vs baby soul refer to our experience within a form of incarnation outside of the All Source. Older souls are farther developed and their true energetic selves have had more experience as higher evolved entities within the progression of densities and sub densities and octaves etc... All wanderers are of course old souls for they have more experience within the incarnational illusion.

I have been called an old Soul quite a few times and an indigo child a couple of times and all it did was reconfirm what I already "knew". I suppose in a way, i took it as a compliment, because it was nice to hear that, rather than the usual interpretations of myself through being misunderstood. Though, we are all so so so old anyways, anything else are labels. We have all been around for so damn long!

---

Ya, what I said, or I could have just quoted this..

(11-28-2014, 03:36 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]As for old soul, young soul, souls are timeless, so really there is more "complex" souls and "simple" souls. Complex souls are still working on a large amalgamate of experience. Simple souls have synthesized all their experience and are starting from a simpler point again.

---

(11-28-2014, 12:55 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]But I don't think it's a simple answer as my working theory is this whole existence is like a dynamic soup and not linear.

Everyone into the Ra material or the like is probably an old soul.

As an anecdote, in Destiny of Souls, Dr. Newton says that just about everyone who came into his office proclaiming that they were an "old soul" actually fell toward the youngest end of the spectrum (from the point of time/space that he viewed the relative 'age' of the soul in the incarnation they were experiencing). Of course he also said that he had a bias toward younger souls in general because he usually saw people who were in extreme emotional distress and karmic entanglements, and truly "old" souls have less of that stuff going on, or at least are able to handle it on their own at a higher capacity.

Also I believe that souls probably age/learn at a different rate, so that some "young" souls may be more mature than "old" souls, so age really is pretty ambiguous. I guess we just need better descriptive words for the dichotomy... semantics fail us on this one.

I can sometimes act immature, so if I were a young soul it wouldn't surprise me. But I feel like an old soul. I don't have a lot of garbage going on in my life, but I am tired of life.

An animal has no crown chakra. They have no veil. As such they are only a portion of consciousness rather than an individual, yet they have the capacity to experience suffering as an individual. They can also experience joy as an individual.

It might be easier for you to comprehend them as the many eyes of a single individual, the many senses. In this way they can view our transgressions against them from a multitude of perspectives as opposed to our singular less aware perspective.

It is the crown chakra and the veil which allows us to believe we do no harm to those we harm. It is this belief in separation that allows for a less whole perspective, and keeps us segregated within the lower perspectives. It is also the "guardian angel" that decides if we have gained enough understanding to be allowed access to infinity.

I find it useful to accelerate awareness rather than sit back and wait for the illusion to force me to be aware of what needs to be known. Each to their own I guess.

---

Ha, so in reality the soul of the animal may very well outdate your own.