Past Lives

[Monica]

I think that most generals or other people leading other people, being in higher/est positions, are leading based upon their ideas, visions, and by pen. By various reasons, these people, are not the ones you would throw in the middle of the battle. But I don't know. It was just an idea that popped up into my head, when reading your initial post.

It can go either way. Some might truly believe in a vision of protecting their people, and be motivated by STO. Others might relish the power of controlling the lives and deaths of others, and thus be motivated by STS. In the case of the STS ones, the fact that they never actually go into battle themselves, while sending others into battle, is all the more reprehensible.

I wouldn't assume that every person with past lifetimes as a warrior or general is necessarily STS. Some may have been STO. Many were mixed. And the STO's may have gotten caught up in the events of their particular time. Their exposure to the STS aspects of war may even have helped crystallize their commitment to the STO path.

Monica, thank you for your reply. It certainly brought me understandings that I haven't thought of before, and different angles of viewing.

Thank you for offering your view upon this subject. I just quote the above part, but liked your whole thought on this. Personally I don't feel that "authority" imprinting applies to me though, in terms of searching and/or having a need to have an authority to look up to.

I was speaking in generalities, in answer to your question.

My upbringing was such that the first part of the childhood was spent in accepting and extremely loving environment. It was colored by service to others. That, in my belief, was a foundation that made a firm ground for what came later. The second part was spent in service to self environment, as I said. I learned a lot of things in that environment. The most difficult lesson perhaps is that in service to self environment you do not doubt yourself. If you are in the position where you have power over others, you act based upon a very firm, strong, powerful foundation that whatever you believe and think is right, is right. And you try to manipulate and/or control your surroundings and environment based on what you think and believe is right. You do not allow others to question you. In that environment there is of course no room for doubting the self. If you are not in the position of power, you subject yourself to this out of necessity, but try to free yourself as much as possible, in order to do what *you* (general "you", not personal "you") think is right. No matter position, you do not doubt yourself. Ever. I don't think that I learned this lesson.

Perhaps it wasn't necessary to "learn that lesson" because you no longer need that protective mechanism, since you are (presumably) no longer in an STS environment. (Just a suggestion to consider.)

I was raised in a very abusive household my entire childhood. I reacted in a very different way. There are many different coping mechanisms that children might use.

Some children withdraw, in response to trauma. Some might suppress the pain to the point of blocking it out as though it never happened, where it festers below the threshold of conscious awareness, until the memories are triggered later in life. Some who were falsely accused or punished might develop a fierce protective mechanism of self and an unshakable sense of justice. Some might respond by developing their own strength, becoming fiercely independent and self-reliant, sometimes to the point of 'needing no one' and blocking their heart chakra...unable to open themselves to love because they are afraid of getting hurt again. Some might learn to play the STS game of power and control over others, because it's necessary for their survival.

All of these are understandable responses to an abusive/STS environment. All are responses to catalyst, for the purpose of helping us balance and evolve. But each one of these can also lead to other imbalances, because the response might be taken too far in the other direction; thus, new catalysts may come about that refine and balance those qualities that were learned, all of which are now integrated parts of the self, but not the whole self.

In the matter of self doubt: To become so strong in one's self-worth that there is never any self doubt might have been necessary at one time, but it isn't necessarily ideal.

Doubting information that one receives, or doubting one's thoughts or emotions, isn't inherently unhealthy. Nor is it an indication that one has any less self worth.

It's simply a necessary part of discernment.

I can see how being in an STS environment made it necessary to never allow anyone to question self, because self was struggling for survival. But I can also see how that might be unnecessary or even an imbalance later. Other-selves are self. They are mirrors. When they question, that too have value. Why suppress or reject something of value?

To do so might indicate a hidden fear: a fear of losing one's sense of self. Again, understandable in an STS environment.

As long as something is avoided, there is an indication that it may be an aspect of self that is being avoided, and it might be beneficial to allow it to bubble up to the surface, where it can be examined, balanced, and healed.

Again, I speak in generalities, not at you personally!

The Chinese have a saying:

Enter by form, exit by form.

By fully exploring a certain aspect of self, whether it's self-worth or whatever, we can then let go of our attachment to it, because it too is but a part of who we are and not the whole self.

True self worth doesn't need the attachment to self worth, if that makes any sense.

Attachments to certain ways of thinking, such as "never ever allow anyone to doubt me" or "never ever allow someone to falsely accuse me" serve a purpose at times. But as we heal, those attachments fall away. We don't need them anymore.

I liked your point that there has to be balance. Too much certainity and/or too much doubt is an imbalance. I doubt things. I question stuff. But what I think is that this need to question and doubt things, originates from, is the initial doubt, where it all begins so to speak, and that is the doubt of the self.

I'm still unclear as to what you mean by initial doubt and doubt of the self.

You seem to indicate that any doubt is somehow a disservice to self.

Am I understanding you correctly? Can you clarify?

It seems to me that to categorize doubt as something "never ever to do" would be similar to categorizing anger as something "never ever to do."

Both are just aspects of who we are. Both have their purpose. Both are gifts from the Creator, to be used appropriately. Both should be integrated, rather than denied, in my opinion.

Yeah, I've had that thought too. Like: "We've had gazillions of lives, why imagine something that didn't happen, when there is so much material to choose between of stuff that *did* happen." And still I tend to do that too much anyway. As you said, too much doubt is not healthy. On the other hand, if I would believe myself to have been Cleopatra, I think that some doubt in that case is healthy. j/k

Agreed!

I would draw a distinction between genuine emotional connections and strong actual memories of being a famous historical figure, as opposed to fantasizing about a glamorous past life.

For example, Azrael just shared with us how he would look in the mirror and see Crowley's face. That sounds authentic to me. It seems to have substance, in contrast to a momentary whim "oh I think I was Cleopatra" because we found her story glamorous.

I find it amusing when some people remember only the famous past lives. What about all the times we were 'mere' peasants? Those lifetimes were important too!

I had a friend who was convinced she had been both Moses and Joan of Arc. Her personality was such that I found it quite plausible. Very enmeshed in the Bible, and a very strong, controlling person. But it is also quite possible that she identified with Moses in some ways, and that she really was burned at the stake. But she might have been some no-name peasant 'witch' who was burned at the stake. That part may have been true, but she might have seized upon the idea of having been Joan of Arc because Joan was a famous person who was burned at the stake. Joan of Arc has become iconic - an archetypal representation for all women who were burned at the stake by corrupt religious leaders.

It's understandable that any of us would identify more with the iconic personality, than with some peasant. The archetype is the same. The past life memories are still genuine. We just maybe got the name wrong.

So yes, I agree that a bit of doubt and discernment is necessary when dealing with famous personalities.

But the flip side of that is, that this is also the very reason there's no need to doubt memories of no-name peasants. That woman in the dungeon was a nobody. I have no idea what her name was. She wasn't anyone famous. But she was me. So I have no reason to doubt that.

The idea that I may have been a famous person - Ann Boleyn - carries much more room for doubt. I may have been any other queen who was murdered. It might not have been Ann Boleyn. I'm just not certain of that part. I just know I was some queen who was beheaded. Ann Boleyn is just one person who fits that description, so maybe I was her. Maybe not. Maybe my strong emotions when in Westminster Abbey were because of some unknown, not-famous queen in a corner, who was forgotten by history.