Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00242)

<< > [Alan] With all fraternal respect, I want to know what *you* think - I
can look
 >up all these quotes anytime.  I asked for *subscribers'* opinions.

> [Eldon] The question here may be ambiguous. Are you asking Dallas (and
everyone
 else) what they think really happens, regardless of what they may have
 read about it? We all have our own differing ideas. It's a different
 question if you're asking what the term "second death" means according
 to source Theosophy.<

As usual, there seems to be much that is true in your post.  Then, of course,
there is the terminology I hadn't noticed before for some reason:  "source
Theosophy."

I suppose I shouldn't complain.  Perhaps ~source Theosophy~ is well-meant and
actually something of a retreat from the former hard-line position that only
HPB's and closely related writings can be considered Theosophy.   Are there
now some things which can be regarded as "non-source Theosophy"?  Would non-
source Theosophy be regarded as having a higher status than mere "theosophy"?

I don't know . . . now that I think about it, maybe source Theosophy has
something to do with the "second death."

>From my perspective, second death might refer to a preponderance of souls
leaving the reincarnating stream after the "Fifth Round" because (in more
"psychmaturational" language) there is no reincarnational mechanism remaining:
neither any Fourth-Level (of consciousness) "unsprouted kama seeds" "ensouled"
by Fifth-Degree Self-awareness . . . nor even a modicum of volitionally
developed Sixth Degree Self-Awareness ensouling the dispassionate "mental
material" of the Fifth Level and operating as an "Untransformed Remainder."
In short, individuals may psychomature through the fifth "Seven-Year Cycle"
and have the potential to fully delude themselves that they really ARE their
animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, and mental natures . . .
but unfortunately (or fortunately) there may no longer be even an attached
trace of untransformed "Undifferentiated Consciousness" to compromise a prompt
and complete return to the One at the death of the physical body and all its
emotional and mental "evolutes"--i.e., one doesn't get to return for another
try after the second death.

>From this point of view it seems to me very important for "returning" that an
individual become dissatisfied with Fifth-level mental nature and begin
exploring the possibilities afforded by the Sixth-Level (~Buddhi-Manas~ or
~Theosophical~, used in the proper way) consciousness.  Intuition, mystical
apprehension, "clear Seeing"--call it what you will.  Most likely, one does
not "develop" a higher Level of consciousness, of course; one merely takes
another step in Self-awareness and the new Level of consciousness becomes
available.  Also likely, even the advancing Sixth-Degree individuals will
necessarily at first lose all Self-awareness in Buddhi-Manas consciousness
(because one would have to be at the theoretical "Seventh-Degree" to ensoul
this level of subtlety); in any case, these "God-inspired" (Theosophical)
moments will probably not be of long duration; nevertheless, when the
individual goes back to the normal daily life of utilizing Fifth- and lower-
levels of consciousness, a newer, stronger, untransformed Remainder of Self-
awareness will have been established.  Just as it may not be merely the desire
nature, but rather the desire nature still ensouled by the next higher Self-
aware ~upadhi~, which pulls one back for countless reincarnations, so too, may
the "rare extra incarnations" be dependent upon also getting and keeping the
Awareness that we are not our conventional learning and mental operations.

So anyway . . .  my opinion is that I can only take it as a very bad sign--and
perhaps even a possible indicator of second death--when individuals point to a
book rather than their own transcendental natures and call it the "source" for
their Theosophy.

(Let me hasten to add, however, that I do not believe Eldon is actually guilty
of this, no matter what terminology he insists upon using. . . .)

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle