Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00233)

> DALLAS: But the real effort was to redirect everyone's attention to such
> concepts as:
> 1.	the immortality of the Human EGO, the SPIRITUAL IMMORTAL SELF,>>>>
>
>
> JERRY: I do not subscribe to any such "immortality." I believe that you
got this
> idea (and many others) by taking Blavatky's words out of context. I do not
> think that your continual promotion of this immortality business is doing
> anyone any good.

Jerry,

I don't believe Dallas has taken this idea "out of context". I think it may
well be you who does not seem to understand the context in which Dallas and
HPB (and indeed the Mahatmas) write on this subject.

I don't have any doubt that HPB and the Mahatmas were thoroughly acquainted
with the doctrine of anatta as taught in Buddhism. We find them applying
this same doctrine to the personal self (rather the non-self of the
skandhas) over and over again. Yet being aware of this they still
emphasised the nature of the Individuality and 'immortality' of the
Spiritual Ego (as distinct from the personal ego) - even an 'Individuality'
of the Monad which lasts through the great Paranirvana (MahaPralaya) and
emerges again at the next MahaManvantara.

For as long as you/we project the qualities of the personality onto the
Individuality these more complex and deeper doctrines of Theosophy will
always remain obscure. I think we need to get beyond dictionary and
exoteric definitions which is all 'lower manas' mentality and try to
understand the deeper meaning in these teachings.

If you really believe Dallas has taken these ideas out of context then
please bring forward what HPB and the Mahatmas *actually* say on this
subject and offer your own explanation of what it is they really mean.
There are a number of very knowledgeable students of Theosophy on this list,
I am sure they would welcome a genuine discussion on this important topic.
We need more than just disparaging statements about fellow students and
their views.

...Peter