The following was a thread posted in a Michael Chat room. I felt it important to comment.
Thank you Ann,
I appreciate the integrity of your first person response. In addition to people invoking Soul Age as a mark of some kind of spiritual superiority, I often hear people pulling the “Michael said” card as well. Your words were well spoken. My compliments to you on your clarity and sincerity. I admire both because I strive for both. And more often than I care to admit, fail at both. 🙂
Two aspects I’d add from my perspective. First, regardless of Soul Age it is difficult to dismiss genuine kindness or real courage. Neither are a mark of Soul Age but stand as a reflection of the quality of the Person(ality). I try to acknowledge those qualities in people, to them directly, with my thanks and admiration; dnd reciprocate as I can. Those planks seem to be the best builders of a bridge to the heart of another person, no matter what their Age.
As to Soul Age and relationships, in my experience, it expresses itself as the degree to which one party in a relationship can first understand the other person’s philosophy (whether they agree with it or not). And the second point and perhaps more importantly, how similarly does each partner identify with the philosophical stance of the other? Where identification or dis-identification is the measure of Soul Age similarity. Here I am speaking about the expansive and esoteric qualities embedded in one’s philosophy, as a need to know an inner self. Usually, but certainly not always, the older the Soul Age the greater the pull toward spiritual introspection and therefore a need for self-understanding. When two people share that degree of pull, I would wager they are close in Soul Age.
The rest of relationship hinges on a) habit compatibilities, b) the willingness to cooperate, and c) the comfort each person feels in the agreed upon duties or roles each has undertaken. Then, again in my experience as a channel and counselor, a relationship between persons of differing Soul Ages can work just fine. At least, it will do so for the length of the growth agreement or karma or monad that they have between them. When it is complete, partners do sometimes reinvent the relationship. But more often than not, they both feel the stagnation, at least, and thus subtly compelled make moves to change the form of it. Those moves may be overt, like separation or divorce, but other times they are covert, like one or both have affairs or there are money issues, etc. If we are talking about friendships, there will tending to be a drifting apart, especially as one begins to recognize their true Soul Age coming into awareness. In other words, you can still love someone, but you don’t “relate” anymore.
As a Self-Deprecator, what I am about to say might seem like a personal indictment of myself as an Old Soul, but frankly for all of the broad label of “drama” put upon Mature Souls, many of them have lived with more responsibility and integrity (on a worldly level) than some of us sloppy Old Soul’s who have been so involved with “discovering our inner truth”, that we forgot about other commitments. As I said, I am not exempt so please know this is not meant as a blanket condemnation, but as a hard fought realism coming from a self honestly I have struggled to have. These observations are of course general about the nature of my own Soul Age; 5th Level by the way; and should be considered in that light.
Granted, the gulf of perspective between two widely differing Soul Ages, as AnnH pointed out in her example between Mature Soul and Infant Soul, has a larger inherent gulf to bridge for reasons I cited above. However, making any judgments to condemn are pointless and indeed counterproductive about who is right or who is wrong. To my mind, and I believe, AnnH conveys this tone in her response, Michael’s intent for this teaching has been an attempt to neutralize that form of 2-dimensional thinking. However, using the similar feature of discernment, which is what I read in your statement, is highly useful and vital to coming to terms with truth; not just seeking it. If this feedback has been in anyway helpful to you, I am glad. If not, then you are at least using that discernment function to test and discard that which is not.
As one Michael Student to another, keep on questioning!
p.s. Remember. There is no “Gospel According to Michael”! Thank TAO!