Scion said:
Nevada, I agree about not baby-with-the-bathwatering it on the New Age... but any time I get the whiff of moralizing or veiled Xianity, my hackles rise.
I hear you. I've been known to make sweeping statements myself while in the throes of a rant.
In case there's any confusion, I was responding to all, but probably more so to some of Holmes' statements, which I agree with:
HOLMES said:
the term new age is looked down up on by lots of people as being mystic babble, to some cult mass thought, who knows what else,,
but in truth it isnt' new age,, it is old age just coming back out again as we are no longer limited by the things like heretical thinking that came from looking at other things besides the bible and the church.
<snip>
now as we reach the age of aquarius, and the term indigo is thrown around,,
we are looking for active peace instead of passive peace..
There are so many things that make up what we call the New Age Movement that it's difficult to separate out what might be of value from misconceptions, misinterpretations, and the various money-making schemes that have arisen to take advantage of its popularity.
And yes, the term "New Age" refers to the Aquarian Age, which really is more of an astronomical occurrence (I presume) interpreted astrologically. There's nothing "New Age" about astrology, since it's been around since recorded history. "New Age" is simply a way of referring to a period in time and it's attendant astrological influences. ETA: But just as no one should let interpretations of their Sun sign run their life, I don't see why we should let the Aquarian Age versus the Piscean Age change how we live our lives.
Feretian said:
From Wikipedia:
Origins
The term Indigo children originates from the 1982 book "Understanding Your Life Through Color," by Nancy Ann Tappe, a self-styled synesthete and psychic, who claimed to possess the ability to perceive human auras. She wrote that during the mid 1960's she began noticing that many children were being born with indigo auras. Today she estimates that 60% of people age 14 to 25 and 97% of children under ten are "Indigo."[1][3]
Maybe there is a change in the predominance of aura colors. Who's to know? Theosophists talked about the Rays and Root Races, and for all I know they were onto something too, though I think they erred in ever attempting to equate root races with ethnic races. Rudolph Steiner talked about Earth Epochs, which I'm more in agreement with, though I haven't read much about his ideas. It does seem that the idea of Indigo and Crystal children could tie into that. But we can get too carried away with such ideas in using them to categorize individuals rather than epochs or generations -- and even when speaking about epochs or generations there are always exceptions.
I think there is such a thing as an aura, because I think I've seen them -- quite a lot actually. I think my mom had an indigo one. She was born in 1923, and never, ever struck me as aggressive or warrior-like, by the way.
I think it's a big mistake to start making assumptions about people based strictly on aura color and single them out because of that, or strictly on behavior, and single them out as Crystal or Indigo based on that.
It's always more helpful to single people out as individuals and appreciate them for the unique and sometimes magical beings they can be.
As an example, it's one thing for me to say that I usually vote with a particular political party, and another for someone to take one statement I make about politics and in their minds or in speaking about me to lump me in with a particular party and use that to make all kinds of assumptions about me that may have nothing to do with who I am or how I vote.
Is making assumptions about someone's aura color any less ridiculous?
Milfoil said:
Its true that in certain places in the world, we do have greater freedom to believe what we want and follow that (not everywhere though). The New Age thinking has been part of this but I don't think its fair to attribute all such freedom of beliefs to that alone. There is a whole cultural movement away from restriction of any kind since the 2nd world war which has underpinned this in many areas of life.
I agree completely.
Milfoil said:
If Indigo Children were mentioned, suggested or prophesised in just a couple of places historically, not necessarily by that specific name of course but in such a way that we could tie up existing belief with new ideas, I would have more faith in the whole idea.
It seems, however, that dispite the world's long history of prophesying the coming of different messiah's, only the greedy west seems to want lots of them and NOW!
As if somehow, yet again, we can abdicate responsibility and someone else will come along to solve all our problems for us.
You've hit on a third thing to add to my list of what bothers me most about the New Age Movement:
Nevada said:
The main things I have a problem with in relation to New Age are 1) when people are deliberately gullible because they don't want to face the more negative realities of life, and 2) when people use it as a means to charge people money for what is essentially nonsense
3) waiting for a savior, or the New Age, or extraterrestrials in spaceships to save us from the messes we've all made, to help us make peace, to feed everyone, etc.
Milfoil said:
WE are the Indigo Children - by our actions WE will be known. Every person here has the capacity to change the world a little bit, every day. But, of course, that means actually doing something, offering something, resisting something, giving something up or changing something in our lives doesn't it?
Exactly!
As Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Maybe each person needs to add to that, "no matter what color my aura is."
