• Registered: 2005-03-07

Topic: Chronological Age Vs. Real Age

I've come across a slew of practices regarding the ability to discern between the awake ones or asleep ones, vertical/horizontal, or OP/ensouled, etc., etc.

Of course, there is the higher truth of: "There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who know better." 

...That is true.  It is a higher truth coming from the heart center.  But without the appreciation of the lower truth, or illusion if you want, you put yourself in unnecessary danger.  You can't win a videogame by saying "It's only a game!" and throwing the paddle out your window.  The difference between my analogy and reality is that, in reality, quitting the game isn't as easy as whimsically complaining that it's illusion.  But back to the analogy: a good videogame player is detached, fully knows it's a game, and doesn't spas out every time s/he dies.

To the point: in John Baines' "Stellar Man" this week I came across the concept of Chronological Age versus Real Age.

Chronological Age=the physical of the body; Real Age=the sum total of moments you've spent with present-time awareness (meaing NOT abstracted into fantasy, rehashing the past, mentally simulating future conversations, etc., etc.).

So, in short, a person can be chronologically 80-years-old, but only 2-years-old in real age.

I've been applying this concept, via intuition, for the last few days and I've found it to be a better gauge of people than anything I've come across previously. 

I find it so useful not because it quantifies a person's spirituality (it doesn't--even tiny moments of presence in oneself can have wide impact), but because it shows a person's interest and commitment to spirituality.

Feeling out the real age of a person seems more reliable to me than feeling out their interest in spirituality because, well, I've personally found myself taking too many people's interest at face value only to later realize their interest was fake or intellectual.  Interest can be intellectual, but real age is only gained through turning the analytical mind down.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • From: Montana
  • Registered: 2004-12-27

Re: Chronological Age Vs. Real Age

I like this because it's not absolutist, it acknowledges that we are all growing and at different stages.  As opposed to taking the OP concept too far, which can lead to immediate judging and dismissing of people.

"Isolation, mis-education, and for the very clever there is looming liquidation."  -Catch Twenty-Two "Bad Party"
  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Chronological Age Vs. Real Age

thoughtcrime wrote:

....it acknowledges that we are all growing and at different stages.  As opposed to taking the OP concept too far, which can lead to immediate judging and dismissing of people.

That's why I like it, too. 

John Baines (in Stellar Man ) doesn't specifically identify OPs, but he does talk about being born with a cord to the central computer/collective unconscious. 

For those who haven't cut the cord, or who haven't begun gnawing at it, or who haven't at least begun discerning between information coming from the CU as opposed to from their Selves, can't have much of a real age--(unless they began a spiritual path and then gave up).

Also, real age is related to the communication between the body and your higher aspect (to John Baines: "spirit").  If you apply that def. strictly, and believe there are human beings without a higher aspect, then there are human beings without real age and without the possibility of attaining real age.

Without a higher aspect, the most you can do is attain a well-ordered, rational mind.  You can rearrange the building blocks of the mind into neat stacks that correspond with the most honest expression of consensus reality, but you can't transcend the mind or reach your own truth.

It would be foolhardy to immediately judge and dismiss those beings who are earnestly striving toward the clearest perception they're capable of.  Just as it would be foolhardy for an adult to assume that there are no worthy lessons to be learned from a child. 

I believe there are beings who haven't developed a critical level of individuality and so lack a personalized link with the infinite intelligence (their link is shared), but the concept of chrono. age versus real age can be inclusive rather than exclusive of those beings...

My theory is that as there is a path for the individually-enspirited being to ascend, there is a path for group-souled beings to ascend.  Their path probably includes purifying the level they're at.  The work of the individually-enspirited being is to clean the link between their lower aspect and their higher aspect; the work of the group-souled being is probably to cleanse their individual reflection of mind.

An OP may not have "real age" in terms of non-OPs, but they have real age in their own terms.

Dismissiveness happens because people are afraid of being vampirized.  But back to the game analogy: once you know who the vampires are in the videogame, you know how to negotiate them without getting your blood sucked.  And, being more realistic: once you know who the vampires are you can relate to them on the level they're at and maybe even learn from them about "vampire stuff."  OPs and non-OPs aren't mutually exclusive; both share the onus of an ego, both share the trials of embodiment.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Chronological Age Vs. Real Age

In pondering your post, an idea came to mind of describing age as a complex number, one that has a regular and imaginary part. The regular part corresponds to biological age, the imaginary to our metaphysical age that starts the moment we are born as individuated souls with the immediate potential for self-awareness.

I guess OPs would then have the same spiritual/real age as physical embryos. They are not yet born, still tied by an umbilicus to the "mother" (the soul pool). This makes sense, because unlike infants, embryos are growing rather than learning. Esoteric masters (stellar men) would have a very high spiritual age regardless of how old they are physically. And you could have old curmudgeons whose spiritual age is equivalent to that of a toddler. Artificial humans would not even have a spiritual part, and their age would not be complex.

You could therefore plot a person's age, or his/her progress through various incarnations, on an X-Y graph. Maybe the graph would be useful in showing when spiritual maturation happens at the most intense rates, what long periods of depression and listlessness do, etc... Just an idea...

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website