Am I a new soul?

[deborah]

My beliefs are also not "uniquely my own".

But - but - this applies to everyone. :butbut: Every individual experiences reality in their own unique way. That's what makes us so unique - and individuals as you put it.


Charles - you agreed with what I posted above before; when it was posted in the science section last year. I dig up old quotes once in a while to refresh possible conversations that ended a while back. What's changed?

He even goes so far as to suggest that in the ACT of interpreting the universe - we are creating the universe. - Deborah

I am quoting someone else - ya know.

 

[tanguerra]

... while you believe that "we are creating the universe", I think you are excluding the fact that we are not the only creators...

Obviously the universe is not being created only by the thoughts of 6 billion or so self-important homo sapiens. Indeed I believe the whole universe and everything in it is sentient (to varying/differing degrees, naturally).


I, and others of course, throughout the millenia have had that ecstatic experience where we suddenly realise/participate in this joyful sentience and experience the glorious 'oneness' etc. of it all - ants, tea cups, rocks, planets, 'the lot'. To quote John Lennon (who must have had it too, to describe it so well) 'Limitless undying love, it shines around me like a million suns and leads me on and on across the universe....'.


What this 'sentience' is, what it is made of, how exactly it behaves, is it dark energy, is it God (however you conceive her), is it 'light', is it love, is it the soul, I don't presume to know the answer to with any certainty.

...once it (dark matter) is better understood, the basic principles will not be very different than what we understand with matter right now...

Archival, never assume!


I don't believe that once we ever work out what all this 'Dark Energy/Matter' is up to and how it behaves that it will necessarily be found to behave in a 'common sense' fashion like other matter/energy does now. The very point of the problem at the moment is that it does not behave like normal sensbile matter and energy that we are familiar with. We don't have any devices to measure it or detect it or whatever, yet we seem to be surrounded by it. Yes, we are hypothesising its existence because the effects of gravity on a macro level are hard to explain otherwise - the way that galaxies rotate and so on. There seems to be 'something' at the centre of the universe holding it all together. What exactly? Well, that's an intriguiging question.


Once upon a time it seemed to be perfectly common sense to believe the Earth was a flat horizontal surface and the sun went around it every day, passing through the underworld in the hours of darkness, then popping back up again in the east every morning. Turned out the truth was a whole lot less sensible or understandable or straightforward than that! We are in fact whizzing through space on a tiny little ball at high speed..... eek!


The more physicists look into the behaviour of quantums the more they find they behave way outside the boundaries of what would have been assumed reasonable 100 years ago. Clearly our theories need review.


However, not to go too far out into the cosmos and discuss the age, or otherwise, of souls...

My view is that somehow it might even be for this reason that a Soul/Spirit is forced to reincarnate, as I believe the "spiritual body" might run out of its capacity to renew itself just as the physical body does.

That is an interesting idea Charles. I quite like the idea of the incarnate and disincarnate kind of swapping roles over and over into eternity. It has a nice cyclical feeling to it, a bit like the body sleeping and the spirit waking and vice versa as we do each 24 hours, but in this case, over a longer time frame - like a tree replenishing its leaves every year. That certainly conforms to the pattern of behaviour of almost everything else in the universe. Swirls, circles and spirals.

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Deborah,

He even goes so far as to suggest that in the ACT of interpreting the universe - we are creating the universe. - Deborah

Yes, I agree... :thumbsup: I am quite sure we are co-creators, but I believe the vastness of the universe and its wondrous complexity comes from a Conscious Source which is FAR beyond our own. There is not only, according to my own experience, the constant influence of the consciousnesses of others who are incarnated, which also affect our process, but also the influence of spiritual entities such as spiritual guides or even "obsessor" (negative) entities, who also have a participation that is far more significant than most of us imagine.


Hi Tanguerra,

Obviously the universe is not being created only by the thoughts of 6 billion or so self-important homo sapiens.

Just out of curiosity: the spiritist lines believe the current population of Soul/Spirits incarnated or disincarnated but still connected to this our orbe to be of 9 billion.


Yes, I agree. There MUST be other greater forces at work, including, as you say:

This 'sentience', what it is made of, how exactly it behaves, is it dark energy, is it God (however you conceive her), is it 'light', is it love, is it the soul, I don't presume to know the answer to with any certainty.

I think it is all of the above... :thumbsup:


It is interesting that, in 1846, Frenchman Allan Kardec published a book called The Spirits' Book, allegedly from spiritual communications, in which he was already mentioning the Universal Cosmic Fluid, of which ALL things are made, long before quantum physics began to have any notion of the Planck Scale and the Quantum Field.

 

[archival]

I could be wrong, but what I think Deborah is suggesting is that each of us, in our interpretation and understanding of the universe, creates our 'own' universe. Each of us is a creator and through the interaction with others, our creation may or may not be changed.


As for a source that exists outside of each of us that may hold influence ... we all, for the most part, seem to sense this. What it is may depend once again upon our interpretation and understanding of the universe. Having said this..........


.... .... as for assumptions, every leap is made with an assumption, my leaps are made with my assumptions. My hope was that my end of this discourse was a little more interesting and a little more complex than a flat earth and a sun which rides a chariot across the sky. I am a simple guy, and complex configurations only make sense to me through an analogy where I can 'see' the equation. I still believe that for answers we need to look to what is around us. As naive as it might sound, I think that the answers are already here, they just need to be seen, to be recognized. As for dark matter, really ... who knows ... it is just my idea that once they do understand it better, there will be relationships to what we presently know in which make the possibility of understanding possible, or, through the understanding of dark matter, it will make more sense of what exists around us due to such understanding, regardless... I do believe that there will be a connection ... something unseen yet, like the park bench. I am not talking about superstition, but observation. Comparing quantum physics now to 100 years ago is not comparing quantum physics now to 10 years ago, even though we will probably be saying the same thing 100 years from now. It's all building blocks.:tongue:


Deborah, there seems to be a great many books I need to read!:thumbsup: And maybe much of what I put out here will change once I do. So .... I add this disclaimer: what I suggest in this forum is only my understanding now and I put out ideas and questions in the hope that I might find answers to a better understanding, as well as the hope that I might aid in the discourse.

My question here has always been: what kind of energy is "thought"? Not just the chemical/electrical interconnections of the brain, but "thought" as energy form, to the point where it is capable of affecting matter at quantum levels.

This, this is a very interesting question!!! At this point I don't even have any guesses. But I can promise you that I will be thinking on it! :thumbsup:

 

[deborah]

Hi Archival,


I enjoy your posts - very much. I get excited when someone really - really wants to learn and they are willing to research, think deeply and dive deep into the possibilities. Therefore - I have a tendency to share every book I have read that has helped me. : angel :laugh:


Your questions and reflections are awesome and I for one - thoroughly enjoy your posts.

I could be wrong, but what I think Deborah is suggesting is that each of us, in our interpretation and understanding of the universe, creates our 'own' universe.

- Exactly.

 

[tanguerra]

Hi archival,


We are all just kicking around our own ideas here. Nobody's is better, nobody's is right, nobody really knows. That is the beauty of it. We can surmise about these things 'until the cows come home' as we say here. Do you guys use that expression too?


We can certainly take opposing viewpoints and often do! It's all good fun, so please don't be cross. I was just using a metaphor to illustrate that the common sense view is not always the right one, no matter how obvious it might at first appear. I was not trying to suggest that you think the earth is flat! Goodness me no!


One of the reasons people are so excited about quantum physics, particularly those with an interest in the 'new age', is that it seems that the thoughts of the experimenter are really, actually, measurably affecting the outcome of the experiments. A scientist can make a light come on on his machine, showing that a particle/wave is behaving a certain way, by 'wishing' it to be so - which is weird, right?


This means that our thought waves actually, physically, really have an affect on the outside world. Now, this is not news to Buddhist or Hindu or many other traditional spiritual scholars (they are all saying 'told you so') but it is revolutionary to the Western view of the world. It does not seem to make 'sense'. But, yet, it is the case nonetheless.


So, what is this energy that we appear to be swimming in? It permeates everything, but we can't detect it yet with our instruments. What is this 'stuff' that surrounds us that responds to thoughts? Is it soul, is it God, etc? Perhaps, as Charles suggested, it is 'all of the above'.


One day soon I hope we will be able to answer these questions more definitively. Until then, we can only speculate.


We live in interesting times.

 

[archival]

Deborah, thanks for the information on the books! When I wrote that I need to do a lot more reading, I meant it. I posted before that I still feel like I am in the woods on a path worn, but unknown. The suggestions of books and insight really is like markers to help me find my way.:thumbsup:


tanguerra, not cross on this end. No worries! And yes, we do use the phrase, 'till the cows come home'.


I have always been enthusiastic and curious about being here, being alive. Keep this in mind with my posts!

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Archival,


I think you are just about to get "hooked"... :thumbsup:


Hi Karoliina,


I believe this interconnection or entanglement of us all is what is at the root of the spiritual teaching of "love thy neighbor as thyself". We are all interconnected and responsible not only for own own spiritual evolution and progress but for that of all others as well. We can only truly "grow" if we do so collectively. ALL of us. It is for this reason that many Soul/Spirits, when non-incarnate, continue to work from the spiritual realms as spiritual guides to assist us all in our development... :thumbsup:

 

[tanguerra]

We are all interconnected and responsible not only for own own spiritual evolution and progress but for that of all others as well. We can only truly "grow" if we do so collectively. ALL of us. It is for this reason that many Soul/Spirits, when non-incarnate, continue to work from the spiritual realms as spiritual guides to assist us all in our development...

Yes, absolutely Charles. Souls are busy doing what souls do whether a body is involved or not.


So, just to kind of drag this back on track to Milkdrops' original question: how do you know if you are an 'old soul' or a 'young soul' - personally to me this is a non-question, as there is no such thing - time/age/such distinctions being meaningless in describing the immaterial and timeless. We have discussed the whole 'why don't we run out of souls as population increases' question.


However, if we reframe it slightly it is still an interesting question. There may well be souls who have spent more time incarnated on Earth than others. How do you tell? Does a lack of memories indicate a 'newbie' soul?


Although to remember past lives is not all that uncommon, to have no memories at all is certainly not an indication that this is the first visit. Most people are just busy getting on with their lives and don't have the time or energy to worry about this stuff. The vast majority of people don't remember anything, or if they do, don't realise it, don't care or don't think about it and don't believe it, let alone discuss it with anyone.


I was reading Hans Ten Dam's book 'Exploring Reincarnation' I think it was (another good one to add to your reading list Archival) and he was talking about those people who under hypnosis were asked to remember their first life on this planet. Many went back to stone age times, many to Atlantis, many to ancient Egypt / Greece / Rome. A smaller handful only went back a thousand years or so. None regarded this life as their first. Now, this could be because only those with enough 'baggage' are consulting a past life therapist in the first place, so it is hardly a random sample. But while of course it is possible, I would say it would be pretty rare to be a complete 'newbie'.


What would be the characteristics of a 'newbie'? Well, it is interesting to speculate. Perhaps a certain 'angelic' or naive quality? Perhaps a certain clumsiness in managing a body? Perhaps a complete lack of the sort of physical and social skills we take for granted because we have learned them slowly, painfully, over the course of hundreds of lives? I don't know. What do others think?

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Tanguerra,

What would be the characteristics of a 'newbie'?

In my view it is those who are still far more attached to their "lower chakras", to their lower instincts, such as aggression, rage, betrayal, theft... They would be those still attached to the more "animalistic" instincts rather than those with more "elevated" thoughts, emotions, sentiments and actions such as loving, caring, consideration, charity and so on...

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Karoliina,


I agree entirely with both you and Michaels Teachings... :thumbsup: :cool


I still have some doubts, however, as to whether such "new souls" in human form may not have their origins in even more primitive forms of life.


In my view, I also believe that "souls recently in human form" have their focus on instinctive survival, and do not direct much thought towards "higher" issues. To answer Milkdrops's original question, I believe the mere fact of being here on this forum debating and being interested in spirituality and more abstract concepts is a clear indication of a more "evolved" Soul... :thumbsup: : angel

 

[tanguerra]

Certainly, casting my mind back over my own 'back catalogue' there was not a whole lot of abstract thought going on for the most part. The behaviours on the whole were probably fairly instinctive and emotional. Matters of survival and so on were probably uppermost. Life was usually more difficult back then.


My very earliest one though, where I recall being some kind of cave person, was sitting on a hill side gazing at the brilliant night sky and thinking, fairly dimly to be sure, that there must be some sort of meaning to all that, although I had no idea what it might entail - just a certain sense of awe.


In my Native American life I was much more inquistive about it all - certainly on the couple of occasions when I have had a sort of dialogue with my former self, as I have recounted elsewhere, I was very curious about it all. However, complex matters such as abstract ethical concerns (like vegetarianism for instance) and so on were also fairly foreign to me, certainly in comparison to myself now.

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Tanguerra,

Certainly, casting my mind back over my own 'back catalogue' there was not a whole lot of abstract thought going on for the most part. The behaviours on the whole were probably fairly instinctive and emotional. Matters of survival and so on were probably uppermost.

I believe the process is/was pretty much the same with all of us... :thumbsup:

 

[archival]

Only on the internet could a group of people come together and have such a conversation on a daily basis! How incredible is that!!


A couple of observations and a couple of questions. tanguerra, you have mentioned a couple of times about there being a discussion on the lack of souls for the number of physical bodies. I may be lost here, but I am not sure I see this as part of the discussion... if you could explain further, I would really like that. This takes me to one of my questions, since I think it brings up something very interesting. Are the number of physical bodies the factor to the souls incarnate, or vise versa? By the suggestion that there may be a lack of souls or even by suggesting that there is no lack of souls for everybody to have their fair share seems to suggest that we each do not have our own soul which comes back into a new physical form, but that the physical form is the source of self and there will be divvied up a fair share of soul. Which is really considered the source of self?


What really is the self, and what really is a new soul? Let's say for the sake of argument that each soul has been present from the very beginning. But what if that soul, regardless of previous life experiences is not able to tap into those experiences, and like someone suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's, is not able to access those earlier memories. If the idea of self is based upon the present experience and what you know or remember at this moment, then not having access to information beyond this moment makes you, in a sense, brand new. You can still be old while experiencing everything new. Is it experience or memory which dictates age?


And, once again, I am going to jump on the other side of the fence. If we are in agreement that there is such a thing as infinity, and we are in agreement that we are a part of that which is a part of infinity, then why couldn't there be a soul which just now incarnates, or has only incarnated a couple of times????? With the number of souls, is there a set number or is there an infinite number? Could it be perhaps a number we can not imagine which is not infinite but does not have to coincide with the number of the population?


1,000, 10,000, 1,000,000 years from now, the population may or may not be more or less than what it is now. If we are talking about a concept of infinity and we bring in the idea of evolution of soul, then why is it not possible for there to be new souls cropping (incarnate) up in this very early stage of evolution? If infinity is real, then we are only at the most miniscule point on the time frame. And even if we are not talking about abstract infinity but the physical time frame which we believe to be due to science and observation, then we are still talking about a very, very, very small portion of a very, very, very large ruler.


Karoliina, wonderful quotes that you have brought in! And even more for me to add to my ever increasing reading list, tanguerra!


Charles .... yep! Hooked. Still pondering on this end!

 

[Karoliina]

Archival,


See here: The Increasing Human Population vs Soul Population Debate. :thumbsup:


Karoliina

 

[michaldembinski]

What really is the self, and what really is a new soul? Is it experience or memory which dictates age?

A good question that has set me thinking.

If we are talking about a concept of infinity and we bring in the idea of evolution of soul, then why is it not possible for there to be new souls cropping (incarnate) up in this very early stage of evolution?

Souls cropping up... I'm into the concept of soul evolution. A continuum from the basic atom all the way up to God. My analogy would be droplets of water making their way into a rivulet that turns into a stream, which turns into a river, which flows into the sea. We, humans, are at the 'river' stage; for some (new souls), the 'river' stage has just begun. Which is not to say they did not exist - they did, but as streams. For old souls, the river is in mid-course, or nearing the estuary. Whereupon the river flows into the ocean, to become one with God.


Michal

 

[tanguerra]

What really is the self, and what really is a new soul?

Ah archival! Some big questions here! I shall do my best to share my perspective for what it's worth. I am actually struggling to write a book on this topic (among other things) and I have given it a bit of thought as it happens.


In my view, the 'self' is made up of a combination of the body, the mind, the soul and what I am calling the 'ego' - meaning that 'I am' sense of self which everyone has somewhere in there. Other people may use other terms for these things, but those are the words I chose, because I thought they were clear and simple.


All these different aspects make up the individual. The body is pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It exists in the material world, it is born, it ages, it dies. You can see it, touch it and so forth.


The mind is that bit which thinks and evaluates, learns, understands and is eternally curious. People who have experienced NDEs report that it continues at least for a reasonable time after death. They certainly report thinking and evaluating and considering their predicament. My view is that it is somehow independent of the body. It is not to be confused with the physical brain any more than feeling of emotion should be confused with the physical heart (although these organs are somehow involved - I don't believe they are the authors of these experiences - more like the receptors or translaters).


The soul is that which exists outside of time - that which is the 'magic' bit, the 'other' bit, the mystical element, the immortal bit. Other people call it consciousness, awareness, spirit, God - I don't really mind what you call it. I call it the soul.


The ego - well that is the bit that says, 'hang on - but I am me!!! I am not part of the universe. I'm an individual! I am not just my body. I am'. The ego is that sense of the individuality of the self distinct from everything else in the world - self-awareness and self-definition. Throughout the ages, even though I may have a different body, different attitudes, thoughts, emotions, gender, circumstances and so on I always have that feeling that 'I am'. I certainly 'recognise myself' throughout all those experiences - even if I (now) am a little shocked at my own behaviour (then) on occasion. My actions certainly seemed perfectly congruent to me then. The ego might be a product of the mind. I am still pondering on that whole bit!


All these elements are deeply entwined and highly interactive. Take one away, and everything changes.

Are the number of physical bodies the factor to the souls incarnate, or vice versa?

I think it is both. It is difficult to have one without the other, eh? It takes two to make an incarnated soul. If we start trying to make a cause and effect equation here, chickens, eggs, destiny and so on we will get into another tangle.


But, long story short, I have read in various books on the topic of "life between lives" regressions that people say the soul is kind of hanging about 'in heaven' waiting for a suitable body to become available and when the 'time is right', they are ready to incarnate and down they go into a new body (round about between 3-6 months into the pregnancy on average).

 

[archival]

woohoo!


I do love provocative conversations!


Karoliina, thanks for the link, helped to make much more sense of the conversation here for me. Also showed me that many of my leaps over the stream could have been accomplished by crossing over bridges built by others.: angel Still like the exercise though. But... what I still haven't found yet, is the evidence I can wrap my mind around concerning the set number of souls and why those souls have to have been reincarnated before at numerous times. I do realize that I can be very persistent when trying to understand something, so please be patient with me.


Here is what I am having difficulty understanding... why isn't it possible for there to be souls which has always existed from the very beginning (not just now being created) yet only just now incarnates? If we are looking at the whole physical time frame (not talking about the concept of time which exists outside of the physical), we are still just on the tiniest portion of the very small fraction of the first inch/centimeter of a very very long ruler. To me, it is like suggesting that all parts of an avalanche where part of that avalanche from the initial slide, disregarding that most of the avalanche parts are picked up on the way. All the parts already exist on the mountain, but did not become part of the avalanche until later, during the course of the slide ... some parts were there from the initial start, some from the very first moments after the initial start, and others later on with yet others to be included even later. Hopefully, you all recognize that I am a big fan of metaphors (particularly those which have a visual element) to get my idea across ... if this makes it more confusing, I will try to be more clear in the future.

My analogy would be droplets of water making their way into a rivulet that turns into a stream, which turns into a river, which flows into the sea.

I can see this! But do you think we lose a bit of our "self" as tanguerra has explained so well and which we all seem to believe to various degrees?

In my view, the 'self' is made up of a combination of the body, the mind, the soul and what I am calling the 'ego'

The ego is that sense of the individuality of the self distinct from everything else in the world - self-awareness and self-definition.

When we become part of the river, are we then the river and not a part which makes up the river?

Quote:
Originally posted by Archival: "Are the number of physical bodies the factor to the souls incarnate, or vice versa?"


Response by tanguerra: I think it is both. It is difficult to have one without the other, eh? It takes two to make an incarnated soul. If we start trying to make a cause and effect equation here, chickens, eggs, destiny and so on we will get into another tangle.

(tried to put a quote within a quote with disastrous effects, sorry.)
This is a very interesting tangle, regardless! And something I would really like to ponder on. Perhaps we can start a new thread on it?

 

[michaldembinski]

Here is what I am having difficulty understanding... why isn't it possible for there to be souls which has always existed from the very beginning (not just now being created) yet only just now incarnates?

The droplets have taken longer to become a river. But now they are very much a river.

When [do] we become part of the river, are we then the river and not a part which makes up the river?

The analogy is simplistic, but I think it works well in explaining how I feel. We cease being the river when our souls finally evolve into Godness (absolute consciousness, total will). The river is the way to Godness. Who knows what might yet become of our consiousnesses on our way? When do we become the river? On reaching a first human incarnation. We are made up of billions of atoms; each has been spinning around its tiny nucleus for billions of years (amazing that!) I postulate that each atom has tiny amounts of consciousness (just as it has tiny amount of positive and negative charge). These are the 'drops' that eventually flow into the river.

But do you think we lose a bit of our "self" as tanguerra has explained so well and which we all seem to believe to various degrees?

This is the crucial question. We are all attached to the notion of "self" and have a strong personal belief based on personal experience that it is "I" that has returned, upon which is founded the notion that "I" will return again.


But I think that the self, which Tanguerra nicely sums up as "the 'self' is made up of a combination of the body, the mind, the soul and what I am calling the 'ego' ", does change from lifetime to lifetime an evolutionary way.


I feel I am a middle-aged soul, in mid-course down the river. Like Tanguerra I have had some very strong 'cave man' memories/dreams. And memory/dreams of stages along the way; Roman Provence, Elizabethan England, Germany during the Seven Years War, (what is now) Belarus in the early 19th Century, France in the late 19th Century, the USA in the first half of the 20th Century.


Where I find the biggest problem in understanding it all is the physical (or even metaphysical) process whereby the consciousness of James Martin, dying in a hospital ward in the American Midwest after a crash in 1956 became the consciousness of Michal Dembinski, a baby boy born to Polish immigrants in London, England, a year later.


Michal

 

[tanguerra]

We are made up of billions of atoms; each has been spinning around its tiny nucleus for billions of years (amazing that!) I postulate that each atom has tiny amounts of consciousness (just as it has tiny amount of positive and negative charge). These are the 'drops' that eventually flow into the river.

Nice Michal, and I thoroughly agree with you. It is a good metaphor and poetically put.

why isn't it possible for there to be souls which have always existed from the very beginning (not just now being created) yet only just now incarnated?

It is possible Archival, I just think it is quite rare is all I am saying. There are a bunch of people out there who all think they (or their children) are these 'new souls' because they don't remember anything about previous lives, or because they feel attracted to spiritual matters in general. I just think that it is unlikely and not a good or reliable way to detect 'newness'.


I love talking about all this stuff too and it is great to have people to discuss it all with. Goodness knows there are few enough people in real life I can talk to at this level! I wished for years I could find someone to talk to about it all. Now I have a whole community. It is a great joy to me.


I was at a birthday party only the other night and the topic of the soul came up. There was a woman there (a PhD in art history seemed to give her great intellectual arrogance for some reason) who maintained that the soul thing is all a big con, imagination, fantasy, compensation against the fear of death, etc. etc. The only scientifically acceptable viewpoint was that we are pieces of meat, driven by our genes to survive long enough to reproduce, end of story. No other point, purpose or explanation was required for our existence, mystical feelings, supernatural experiences, whatever. The brain was responsible for these delusions when it had a malfunction or a chemical imbalance or whatever.


I said I thought that was a rather extreme view, being on the opposite end of the spectrum of the other extreme view "nothing is real and it's all an illusion". She looked at me as though I was crazy, not being used to being contradicted, and not being used to someone calling her firm belief system an extreme view, or even one possible theory of many. She got extremely huffy with me when I tried to point out some other popular and ancient viewpoints in between these two extremes, suggesting I had no idea what I was talking about and was totally ignorant on this subject. I was going to beg to differ, but I thought it was probably not worth it, so I just talked to someone else about something else instead.


I figured why waste my breath when I have all you guys to talk to eh?

 

[elese]

My friend (who believes in past lives) has said to me that he thinks I am a new soul.
I have always considered myself unusually nieve. Does anyone know how one can possibly tell if a soul is that of a new one with no previous past lives? are there perhaps ways to tell or read that individual?


Any input would be appreciated thx.

Personally, I believe that a "new soul" starts at a much lower life form. You, however, might simply be an inexperienced soul, or rather one who has not lived quite as many lives.


But don't just believe what someone tells you. If you believe you are a new soul, by all means. But if you're just saying htat because your friend thinks you are and you don't believe it, then it's deffinetly not true.


Good luck with the soul-searching!


~Elese

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi everyone,


Was away over the weekend so missed our "daily debates"...

The river is the way to Godness. Who knows what might yet become of our consiousnesses on our way? When do we become the river?

Yes, but I don't think we EVER lose the individuality of our consciousness. We, as Soul/Spirits, are eternal.


Concerning bodies vs souls, I feel we are restricting the such to our own known realm of reality. I believe the number of souls vs the number of possibilities of incarnated forms in the "multiverses" must be almost infinite, so I see no problem here; but whether new souls are or not being created all the time is, I believe, a mystery not even the angels can answer for sure... :thumbsup:

 

[michaldembinski]

I was at a birthday party only the other night and the topic of the soul came up. There was a woman there (a PhD in art history seemed to give her great intellectual arrogance for some reason) who maintained that the soul thing is all a big con, imagination, fantasy, compensation against the fear of death, etc. etc. The only scientifically acceptable viewpoint was that we are pieces of meat, driven by our genes to survive long enough to reproduce, end of story. No other point, purpose or explanation was required for our existence, mystical feelings, supernatural experiences, whatever. The brain was responsible for these delusions when it had a malfunction or a chemical imbalance or whatever.


I said I thought that was a rather extreme view, being on the opposite end of the spectrum of the other extreme view "nothing is real and it's all an illusion". She looked at me as though I was crazy, not being used to being contradicted, and not being used to someone calling her firm belief system an extreme view, or even one possible theory of many. She got extremely huffy with me when I tried to point out some other popular and ancient viewpoints in between these two extremes, suggesting I had no idea what I was talking about and was totally ignorant on this subject.

Sounds to me like the classic New Soul! Domineering, impatient, not a good listener, lacking spiritual awareness. I've argued with people like this as well - as you say, a waste of time. Why? I'd suggest that they have not experienced death and reincarnation as human beings.

What would be the characteristics of a 'newbie'? Perhaps a certain 'angelic' or naive quality? Perhaps a certain clumsiness in managing a body? Perhaps a complete lack of the sort of physical and social skills we take for granted because we have learned them slowly, painfully, over the course of hundreds of lives? I don't know. What do others think?

No, it's not a body thing, more an attitude thing. New souls are disinterested in the planet's future, do not get emotional at the sight of a beautiful sunset, for instance, have little empathy with those that get in the way (even marginally) with their ambitions. But that's not to put down new souls. They have drive, they push humanity onwards in the material sense. Old souls are not all good either - the Nazis (lots of old souls there!).


Michal

 

[Karoliina]

Michal,


I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, I think that younger souls (having still had dozens of previous incarnations) are usually not that interested in spiritual matters - but they are often very dogmatic in their beliefs that they usually take for granted. But I think there are people with less past lives that can still enjoy a sunset (wasn't the example here into art history - I'm sure she appreciates experiences like that), and be compassionate and gentle. Also, there are older souls that are not so interested in things like that, imo. I believe we choose different kind of personalities and features for every lifetime, which makes each incarnation unique and allows variety for every soul age.


Karoliina

 

[Kolchak]

But, a thought... If everything follows fundamental patterns (which seem to be the case) and if the self is devised of energy..life..consciousness, then it might be possible for energy..life..consciousness to branch off with new buds, like plants, seeding off to produce a new line. Separate, yet connected by the initial shoot. Is it possible for the soul..consciousness to have offspring?
According to string/M theory, everything is connected. I am again bringing this to a post in the hopes that someone out there has some knowledge of this theory and can bring some possible insight to this new science which I think may be related.

What do you want to know about M-theory? Strings can be split or combine to form new strings in the theory, but keep in mind that nothing that string theory predicts has ever been (or is likely to be) confirmed. Essentially if it predicts anything that is not observed, one could always claimed that the non-observed events take place in another universe. This does not sound encouraging to me.

 

[Kolchak]

Hi Tanguerra,
In my view it is those who are still far more attached to their "lower chakras", to their lower instincts, such as aggression, rage, betrayal, theft... They would be those still attached to the more "animalistic" instincts rather than those with more "elevated" thoughts, emotions, sentiments and actions such as loving, caring, consideration, charity and so on...

Are you sure this is right? I have been reading the discussion of "new souls" versus "old souls" and I am not sure I am convinced that you can tell just by how someone behaves. Aggression, rage, betrayal and theft . . . there are very few people I know who will not react in those exact ways given the right circumstances. Likewise, there are relatively few people who behave in extremely noxious ways without some stimulus that causes them to do so. How one behaves often depends more on the situation than on the person. Loving, caring, etc. Those things are pretty much basic to everyone.

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Kolchak, and welcome... :thumbsup:


Actually my view is not of "new souls" vs "old souls", but rather that all soul/spirits are at different spiritual evolutionary levels. Personally I believe all souls were created together, perhaps also at the moment of the "Big Bang", but how evolved a soul/spirit might be is far more dependant on each one.


In this, there are many here on the board with different views, but to me a soul/spirit is "more evolved" when it holds "higher feelings and instincts" than those who are more connected to their "lower feelings and instincts".

 

[tanguerra]

Hi Kolchak,


Yes, this is one of those discussions we keep having and it is a tough one. There are no real answers that can be proven in any way, but it is interesting to kick ideas around. So there is no 'is this right' because nobody really knows for sure (although many have strong opinions, naturally).


If the purpose of the soul is to evolve towards love, then one would think that we would gradually get better at it with much practice over the course of many lives and it would begin to show in our actions.


Yes we are constantly tested by trials, tribulations and the bad behaviour of other people. We are always free to react to these unfortunate events as we choose.


If we are approaching some kind of mastery (and I agree with you there are very few who would fit this description) the idea is that we have learned to moderate our impulses to lash out, become angry, take revenge and so forth when something goes wrong. The ideal form of behaviour (in most cultures) is to extend love and compassion, even when we are injured. I agree with you this is very difficult!

 

[Lia1992]

I don't think there are anymore new souls on earth, either. You could be a young soul, but I doubt even that as you are here.


I believe younger souls tend to live by the rules, respect authorities, look for fame and fortune etc. whereas older souls are more eccentric, not interested in money and career - being even "lazy" etc. It it important to note, however that it's not any better to be an old than a young soul.


These are just genralisations, but I guess my point is that I don't think anyone on this planet is going through their first incarnation, and very few people coming to this forum are even very young souls.


Karoliina

That interesting because "more eccentric, not interested in money and career - being even "lazy" etc" fits me very well: I don't believe in money (in fact, I envision a society beyond the needs of money, work, borders etc) and I am more interested in following my hobbies and interests than a career. I'm also interested in ideas for a better society. Does this mean I'm an old soul or a "middle-aged" soul? And how old can souls become? Could I reincarnate to the end of this universe just to have fun on this Earth if I wanted to?

 

[SeaAndSky]

Hi Lia,

Just a cautionary note: There are many that classify soul maturity in terms of characteristics they like or admire and soul immaturity in terms of characteristics they don't like. From what I have read in various sources, soul maturity is mostly manifest in increasing compassion, empathy, self-control and competence. Also, soul age and soul maturity can be two different things, just as one can find a very mature child and a very immature older person. Some seem to advance more quickly than others. This is all, of course, just from things I have read.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I'd beware of any claims that what would normally be termed character defects or immaturities indicate an advanced soul.