I just read through this whole post and found it extremely helpful. So thanks to you all for participating!
I have some lingering questions in regard to those souls that are very committed to being on the "spiritual path" but are not necessarily in the spiritual state. I live in a place where being spiritual is the hip and in thing, almost to the point of spiritual snobbery. I've noticed a large amount of serial seekers that are always involved with some kind of spiritual teaching, usually non-dual. These souls seem to spend a great deal of time in intellectual debate about the teaching, the teacher, whether they agree, what is wrong with it, what is right with it, etc, etc. I'm feeling that these souls are largely individuated 3rd? I ask this because of the intellectual approach, which is obviously very Uranian. What also strikes me is that these souls appear to be doing this kind of seeking for their own growth and not for the service of others, it is like a lifestyle choice for them. Therefore, there is still an element of ego attached to their spiritualization. The part that is in constant debate appears to also be in doubt, unsure of what to trust or what is the right path for them. I feel that a soul firmly planted in spiritual 1st would experience their spirituality more from an inner emotional context, and therefore not feel the need to debate around the houses (or sound superior), and be more able to discern from an emotional and intuitive context what the right path is for them?
I am also curious about how the evolutionary states play out with the guru path. For instance, I know some souls that have been involved with a guru but once they realized the relational dysfunction among the devotees, and the aggrandizement of guru which they no longer bought into, they left. I imagine these could be individuated 3rd and possibly spiritual 1st? There are others that notice the dysfunction and stay, and this is curious to me because I see different reasons for staying. Some seem to enjoy it, like a rebellion, for instance proclaiming that they don't identify with the worship of the guru, are not dependent or vulnerable, yet perfectly at home in some way. I'm assuming this is an individuated 2nd soul? Again, I can sense a lot of heart in many of these souls but the devotional piece is clouded by an unsure ego. I know a few others that are fully aware of the dysfunction, aren't necessarily rebellious, but stay out of love and devotion because they feel that the guru somehow "saved" them. However, I still feel that in these cases the devotion is somewhat misplaced because it is not being fully recognized as coming from within, but rather projected onto a guru that in some cases has taken advantage of the devotee. Would this be individuated 3rd?
Finally, the EA teachings strongly emphasize the humility, desire to serve, and also seeking of spiritual self-improvement in spiritual 1st souls. If I am correct in my understanding, this type of soul would primarily be seeking to evolve by following their own path of service, whatever that was to them, and trusting in and being guided by their own soul. To me this could be anything and doesn't necessarily mean having a guru (which is more understood as coming from within), but at the same time it could also be about having a guru. However there would be a clear integration and recognition of the capacity in which the guru was serving the soul. Any thoughts on this piece would be appreciated since I often feel that souls are often perceived as being in the spiritual state when they are devoted to a guru, yet most of the souls I've come across that have one seem to be largely in the individuated state. I also feel that since we are moving into the Aquarian Age, the traditional guru (Leo) path may be about to phase out as more and more souls embrace equality.
Many thanks and blessings,