As you do, I feel it’s a matter of how close one gets to soul.
However, I don’t mind the use of the term “old soul”, it just seems to fit some people. I have an old soul amongst my children. It’s the best way to describe her, and one can see she’s been in-tune with her soul at a young earthly age. I have encountered other old souls as well, and they are unmistakable. They seem to stand out in some area of their life. And so, as you mention, they may be close to soul in some areas of their life, but, not in all. Seems like chakra development to me.
Thanks, again, for the article.

I’ve studied the Michaels Teachings… What I’m able to gather from this is we experience a Cycle… So we go through the “baby” soul age all the way through the “old” soul age and then back again over and over for eternity… Time is an illusion and the soul probably finds great joy in manifesting in different bodies as different “soul ages” for a reason… We are all one, created in unconditional love and have infinite wisdom. We are all the same energy… We just choose to manifest in various bodies/personalities to assist others..

Hope this helps!

Warmly,
Julia

[...] ran across a blog post about old souls and I started thinking about the terms used. I’ve also read other things about the ideas of [...]

There is so much about ‘soul evolution’ that we just aren’t aware of. We don’t go from level 1 to level 100. I really want to add on points written here, but I find I have nothing to add other than: Just be you! Don’t aspire to be like Jesus or Buddha! Their path was and IS different than yours! There’s no clear – cut, drawn roadmap to follow for ‘the best results possible’.
That’s one of the good things in life: Walking your own path.

Yes I can see where you’re coming from…it is disrespectful to judge someone based on a lesser “spiritual performance” because of blocks LOL. Not to mention ridiculous. And you wrote some interesting points here about power and strength. Thanks for commenting!!

Also, letting events break them does not mean they are younger or less wise. We all have different life lessons to learn, different challenges, different strengths and talents and specialities, and also different blocks and restrictions that limit us. What breaks the one does not break the other, and the other way around. Who knows, maybe being broken even is exactly what they needed to experience at this time or was even a life lesson planned all along.

There are SO many factors. I wouldn’t judge someone’s wisdom based on what we can see. Who are we to know.

@Anna: thanks for this post. I don’t know if there is a linear soul evolution or not. Honestly, I don’t care to know *shrugs*. I agree with you that what counts here and now is not how evolved, old or wise we are, but how much we get in touch with our soul and tap into the wisdom of who we really are.

It tends to annoy me when people talk about younger, older, more or less evolved, spiritual, or conscious people. Based on what I see in my practice, those people who make a big fuss about being oh so spiritual and highly conscious are ironically those who have the lower soul vibration rates. When I see in my practice how much some souls suffer from blocks that we cannot see, it seems really disrespectful to me to judge their “spiritual performance” as “less”. Where is compassion?

Sorry for ranting. Love to everybody.

Rosine.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment.

Maybe it is a question of words. What I wanted to convey in this post is that no soul is inherently more wise than another because we’re all pieces of source. But of course some remember the spiritual wisdom more than others. So maybe I feel it is not so much a question of learning, but remembering.

This post was an antidote to things I’ve read and heard from people who feel that being a self-described old soul makes them somewhat superior in wisdom and character. I think that is a sort of conceit.

Yes, it would be good to read Michael Newton’s books again, with an open mind.

If you read “Conversations with God”, the “God” reminds us that we’re all not here to ‘learn’, but actually remember who we are.

Michael Newton’s books makes a distinction between more ‘evolved’ souls and lesser ‘evolved’ souls, but he did state that in his findings, that has nothing got to do with the number of incarnations.

So it really depends on how we define the words ‘old’, ‘young’, ‘evolved’, ‘learning’.

A person who is ‘wiser’ and ‘evolved’ as a human doesn’t indicate that he/she is an evolved soul.

At the other end of the spectrum, someone who behaves in an unevolved manner may not be an unevolved soul. It could be a gracious soul who has volunteered to take on a difficult role.

I agree with you that soul growth is not linear. I myself am not convinced that time is linear. For all we know, we may be sent back to pre-historic ages to learn certain lessons. Or remember. We may progress, then regress.

I think what Michael Newton was trying to imply is, that some souls accumulate more lessons than others and retain their lessons better. After a certain stage of learning, some gets ‘promoted’ to guides. Your guides have to come from somewhere right?

I think to do a good critique, we have to be aware of both sides of the story. Why don’t challenge yourself to finish all Newton’s books and see if you still feel the same way. Personally it is one thing to believe what a self-proclaimed teacher says, and another thing to believe thousands of case studies. Not by his own opinion, but by the answers that come from thousands of souls, tapped to remember their higher selves.

We have to remember that positive or negative implications of words are judged by us humans. In the spirit world, there is no judgement.

Only love is real. My two cents.

COCTEAUBOY WRITES: I just wanted to chime in and say that The Michael Teachings uses “soul age” to describe the maturity of the soul, not the literal age of it. So two “old souls” who have reached a certain level of capacity for learning how to choose, and choosing how to learn, may have very different “ages” in terms of number of incarnations, amount of time on the planet, etc. And as far as The Michael Teachings are concerned, there is no real conclusive point of enlightenment, because even The Source {Tao, God, whatever) of all of this is also supposedly learning.