A Few Thoughts on Skepticism and Labels

I've often wondered how this all might look to someone who is not already familiar with spiritual/mystical kinds of teachings. There's a good chance it might just come across as a bunch of woo-woo, New Age absurdity. If you're one of those skeptics, or if you're married to one, I have some thoughts I'd like to share with you along the lines of suspending disbelief and seeing what happens.

To start things off, Lisa of MommyMystic offered this thought-provoking comment to an earlier post:

"As for the indigo/crystal theories, we will have to get a discussion going on this sometime. I believe there is something going on with this generation, and that many of the writers about these shifts are seeing something, but I have some issues with the 'they are here to save the world' theme. Also, based on Eastern theories of reincarnation, I'm not sure these things are necessarily new, just noticed more now."

I often wonder about this same thing. Years ago when I was teaching public elementary school, I came across a book about Indigos. Curious, I read the book, recognizing some of my students in the descriptions. Though I didn't single out the students who seemed to possess Indigo traits, this perspective was an interesting lens through which to view them, and I think it helped me to be a better, more sensitive teacher to all of my students.*

Even if Lucas is not "A Crystal Child," I feel called to be a better, more mindful and conscious mother when I look at him through this lens. What harm can I possibly do by treating him with respect and sensitivity? If you've been reading for a while, you know that I don't treat him like a king with carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. He's still a two-year-old. He has to learn boundaries and limits just like any other toddler.

But if I notice that his energy is ruffled when mine is ruffled, and therefore, I work harder to clear and calm the vibe I emit, I'm doing him more good than if I ignore the possible connection and get further irritated by his bad mood. If I listen with respect to his stories of talking with my deceased grandmother or his spirit friend, Ella, I am empowering him to be himself. If I were to dismiss this as mere imagination, or otherwise disregard his truth, then I'd be teaching him to put other people's reality and truth above his own. He would begin to doubt himself, and eventually, I'm sure he'd stop sharing or even having these experiences. In my opinion, what a shame that would be. What richness lost.

Do I have to call Lucas a "crystal child" in order to show him this respect? Of course not. I actually don't refer to Lucas as a crystal child outside of this blog. Mon from Holistic Mama made this fabulous point about labels in her comment on Tuesday's post:

"I see the labeling as part of the wider problem. It might be a 'good' label, but the viciousness and narrow-mindedness all stem from that same place, the need to narrow, to limit, to draw boundaries."

It's a great point, and one I struggled with a lot when I began writing about this on my blog. Here was part of my response:

"When trying to point to a vaguely common set of characteristics in order to expose people to the idea of a markedly different kind of child/person/group, I don't know how to get around labels. I use the labels in my blog because I want the people who are curious about this phenomenon to find me.

I do believe we can begin to slide down a slippery slope of ego identification when we start singling out children, especially our own, as having certain qualities that others do not possess. But it's no different than the mom of the beauty pageant preschooler bragging about her child's beauty, or the father of a star soccer player boasting about his son's agility. That line between honoring our children's gifts and being prideful is a very thin one. I think a key indicator of ego creeping into the picture is when we notice ourselves comparing. Anytime we find ourselves thinking in terms of better or worse than, we know ego is in the middle of it.

So, getting back to the original point, if Lucas doesn't really have these gifts, but I'm still treating him as if he has, while checking myself to be sure it's not about ego or making him better than anyone else, there's really no harm being done.

But what if, by contrast, he does possess these qualities, and I ignore them? What if it really is true that more and more children are being born with psychic abilities and acute sensitivities to the energies around them, and we all do nothing other than try to urge them to be "normal"? Here is where we run into a problem. When we discount the experiences children share with us, they begin to doubt themselves. When we belittle them for being "too sensitive" or tell them to toughen up, we impair their ability to love and accept themselves as they are, causing them to forever seek outward reassurance that they are lovable. When we tell those children bursting with energy and curiosity to be still and be quiet, and then we drug them with Ritalin when they don't, we dull their natural vitality, and then we watch it turn to anger or depression.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The costs of ignoring this phenomenon are great, while the costs of accepting it are nil. The benefits of ignoring it are also nil, as far as I can tell. The benefits of accepting and nurturing these gifts remain to be seen. I think they'll be very positive, but I can't know for sure. It's clear to me that my best bet is to roll with the Crystal/Indigo bandwagon.
 

My last point about this phenomenon is in response to Lisa's point about it not being necessarily a new thing. Those of you with a lot of knowledge of the history of mysticism and spirituality will know much more than I can offer, and I hope you'll share what you know in the comments. The following is only a possibility, coming just from my own thinking.

I'm sure that "mystics," or people with these kinds of psychic gifts and sensitivities, have been around since the beginning of humanity, but are perhaps incarnating more frequently and in greater numbers these days. It does seem that there are many more spiritual "masters" today than there were, say, even 200 years ago. I would imagine many went underground (those who weren't killed) around the time of the witch hunts and for generations afterward. Maybe with the growing consciousness on the planet these days, as more people share their ideas and philosophies through globalization, it's becoming (a bit) safer for these mystics to speak of their gifts.

One could argue that, with this growing global consciousness, a percentage of those becoming more conscious are also becoming parents. Those parents are looking at their children in new ways. They are sensing in their children more of a connection to the divine, because they, themselves, are feeling more connected. That's a possibility, but I've met plenty of children who seemed to possess these gifts without the benefit of conscious parents.

Why are they here? Are they here to heal the planet? Save the world? Who knows?

But does it really matter?

Do they need to "be here on a mission" in order to be respected, honored, and nurtured? I don't think so. Confident, compassionate, open, respectful, and curious adults will make this world a better place. Honoring each child for who and what they are, so that they can grow up unfettered by self-doubt, fear, hatred, or boredom, is one very important way we can all help save the world.

I'd love to hear what you all have to say about this!

*Update and sidenote as of Sept 2009: Many of those Indigo students I taught 15 years ago have begun to resurface in my life over the course of the past few months. It's like I've set off some sort of homing signal in writing about this stuff! Gotta love Facebook!