Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00108)

Oh NO! here we go again . . . round and round and round. . ..
on this "immortality" issue.

Jerry, you and Dallas have previously discussed this issue in such vague
terms, who knows what either one of you are talking about.

I think it would be much more productive for this Internet discussion
group to first discuss in
some DETAIL what HPB and the Mahatmas taught about
"immortality" and  try to ascertain what idea or ideas
they were trying to convey.

You or Dallas may or may not agree with the teaching
as given out by HPB and the Mahatmas.  That is a totally
different issue.

>From one point of view, I really don't care what you or
Dallas believe on this issue.  As a student of HPB's teachings,
I would like to see if I UNDERSTAND what she wrote and taught.
Again I don't have to necessarily accept or reject what she is
writing.  First stage . . . .at least for me. . . is to see if I can
grasp the ideas that are conveyed by her on this topic.

Whether these ideas agree with "Buddhism" or your
understanding of Buddhism is also a secondary issue.

Having said the above, I don't mean that I would not
be interested in your point of view and your comments on
what HPB wrote.  Certainly you may make certain points that
may help one to understand the underlying issues better.  But
as far as I can see you need to be much more specific in your
comments rather than giving out vague general statements like
"misleading" or "confusing".  I would say much the same thing
to Dallas.

In the SD, HPB writes about:

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all
speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception
and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is
beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya,
"unthinkable and unspeakable."

Notice her words "Eternal" and "Immutable".  How do these two terms
relate (if at all) to the word "immortal"?

These are the kinds of questions that it would be good to hear some
intelligent discussion about.  By using the word "discussion" I don't mean
"talking at each other", but ***real*** discussion in the best sense of the
word.


Daniel


----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Schueler <gschueler@iximd.com>
To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 6:15 PM
Subject: Theos-World How Immortal are We?


> [Dallas writes:]
>  >>Consider these:  You (and I and everything else) is an IMMORTAL
> MONAD -- a combination of Spirit, matter and MIND.
> Being immortals, we are in school -- the school of Life which
> functions for us incarnation after incarnation.<<
>
> Dallas,
>
> Well, some things never change. I have been gone for awhile, and you
> are still writing the same confusing and misleading stuff. Well, I won't
> be-labor this. We are NOT immortal, and HPB's use of this word
> has done a lot of mischief over the years. If this is a "school of life"
> then please let me off.  The only thing we need to "learn" is our Original
> Face in the Zen sense. Has it changed? Are we somehow improved
> by all this incarnating business? Can anything that is spiritually perfect
> ever hope to be "improved?"  If so, then I have to wonder how "perfect"
> it was in the first place.
>
> To say that we are immortal monads is exactly what Buddha called
> a spiritual heresy, and his entire thrust was to denounce this pernicious
> idea of a permanent individual atma.  Although most Theosophists adhere
> to this misguided idea, they don't have to. I certainly don't. I have
found
> that such ideas are misleading and take us around circles rather than
> in any meaningful direction. On the other hand, just such non-meaningful
> sojourns are the real purpose of life, and so please keep on enjoying
> yourself...
>
> My objection, in case I have been unclear, is not to criticize Dallas or
> anyone else for wanting to believe in an Immortal Monad (whatever the
> heck that would be) but rather in stating that such an anti-Buddhist
> message is Theosophy, when HPB and Olcott were both Buddhists.
> While such ideas may be how Dallas looks at Theosophy, it is not
> how I view it. So, I just want to let others know that other definitions
> of "Theosophy" are available. HPB's writings have to be taken in
> context. She was a Buddhist and did not believe in any immortal
> permanent and unchanging component.
>
> The whole notion of life as a school and us being immortal learners
> is exactly the exoteric stuff given out by many of the early Theosophical
> writers. However, it implies a linear ascent upward into Knowledge
> from, presumably, the depths of some kind of Ignorance. Linear
> progression always requires a beginning. This need for a beginning
> resulted in the scientific Big Bang, which has a lot of logical problems
> and pretty much begs the question of what went on beforehand.
> Who made us "ignorant" that we should now need lifetimes of
> experience to learn? God? If we did this to ourselves once in the far
> past, then we can do it again and again. If we unlearn just to re-learn,
> then what is the point?  Maybe it is just to enjoy life and have a good
> time?
>
> Jerry S
>
>
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.