Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00048)

> I suggest that the physical brain is an extension of the ehtereal 
> soul.  The physical body is largely a replica (with some variation) 
> of the ghost form.  The physical brain is that external physical 
> portion of the ethereal soul in the ghost form which allows the 
> ghost form to interact and process data within the physical 
> environment.
OK. But the ethereal--the linga Sarira, in the original Sanskrit, 
applies to all organs.  That is, every organ has an ethereal 
counterpart. So, in that sense, your definitions would have to be 
extended to that every organ has a "soul."

> Saying that one is 
> worthy or unworthy of immortality could be likened to saying whether 
> one is worthy or unworthy of being born.
I think you mis-read my thought.  I wrote:

"I don't know off 
hand exactly what he thought of the soul in terms of immortality.  
If he includes memory and personality--ie those things we accumulate 
through our ordinary earthly experiences, then I would question why 
one would think that most of such experiences are worthy of 
immortality."

So, it is not whether the person is worthy, but whether the experiences 
are worthy of being immortalized.  I am here playing with a non 
materialistic viewpoint which would have nothing to do with physical 
immortality, but with the individual's experiences.

> The 
> Christian Bible actually uses the word in two different contexts.
>
> 1. SPIRIT - the singular cosmological supergod (or third person of 
> the Trinity in the Christian sense), which is omniscient, 
> omnipotent, omnipresent, being eternally infinite and infinitely 
> eternal; the active life force within all things, binding all of the 
> matter of the universe together
>
> 2. spirits - ghosts of the dead or disembodied demons; a rather 
> degraded context usage of the word 'spirit'
Spirit is a confusing term because of the variety of meanings given to 
it.  Yours above are just two of many usages.  I have also seen the term 
used as a synonym for life.  Blavatsky applies Spirit to that which 
belongs to Universal Consciousness.  Something in tune to your idea, 
though I suspect that you two would disagree on the details.  However, 
like you, she also does not believe in a personal God.  Your first 
definition--the active life force in all things fits the Sanskrit Akasa, 
but Hinduism does not have a threefold infinite personal God.   They do 
have a Trimurti: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, but this gets into 
metaphysics I have never seen touched upon in Christian theology. 
> When I had mentioned the concept of 'spirit', soul and body to a 
> Theosophist teacher, he did not understand the differentiation of 
> context between 'SPIRIT' and 'spirits'.
You will meet people with all kinds of notions in the TS.  People who 
call themselves Theosophists have a lot of different ideas which may be 
patterned after one or another Theosophical writer, or none at all.  As 
far as beliefs go, Theosophists are not like Christians.  They are not 
expected to believe or not believe in anything as a qualification for 
being a theosophist--except for a commitment towards universal 
brotherhood.  Sounds like the Theosophist teacher you met is one of the 
duds I mentioned earlier.  Theosophists who have read and understand the 
writings are pretty scarce.  But then again, most people who call 
themselves Christians don't study the Bible either.

> I make a similar differentiation, but my concept terminologies are 
> nonetheless different.  I would rather term the differentiation 
> as 'conscious soul' and 'subconscious soul'.  Or rather, that part 
> of the soul which is awake versus that part which is asleep.
Fair enough.  Plato, of course, did not have the modern psychological 
movement from which to borrow his terms.  So, he devised his own: 
rational and irrational soul.  Blavatsky uses the terms: "spiritual 
soul" and "animal soul" to pretty much the same meaning.   In 
Blavatsky's writings you will also find the Sanskrit terms: kama-manas 
and buddhi-manas which also carry this idea, but from an Indian view 
point. 
> I also believe that matter is 'evil', although I do not 
> define 'evil' in the same way that you or others might.  I do not 
> necessarily attach moralistic notions to the word 'evil', at least 
> in this context. 
Nor did Plato.  The moralistic notions of evil came out of medieval 
Christianity.  Augustine was mainly responsible for this association, if 
I recall correctly.

> Rather, I consider things like earthquakes and 
> hurricanes, plagues and famine as 'evils' in the world, although 
> they are not immoral, nor are they necessarily steered by human 
> choice.  The elements themselves sometimes express 'evil'.
>  
To the extent that they cause suffering, I think Plato would agree.

> I view physical matter as 'evil' due to it's deathly and temporal 
> nature.  When spiritual life energy converts into physical matter 
> (for all physical matter is first composed of spiritual energy), it 
> takes on a deathly form of decay.  When the fluidity of spiritual 
> energy becomes lost or lessened at the subatomic levels, it 
> therefore converts into physical matter by reason of its subatomic 
> rigidity.  This incurred rigidity therefore causes the onset of 
> death and decay.  When the rigidity is removed, then the death cycle 
> ceases.
Ah, the interchangeability of spirit and matter. A very Gnostic concept 
you have here.

> I also do not believe that the will is the 
> mechanism of salvation, for I view the fallen and ignorant will as 
> being inherently weak and decieved.  I believe that 'spiritual 
> consciousness' is necessary for one to access the heavens and to be 
> lifted up out of the hells.
And the Alexandrian Gnostics would agree with you that the fallen and 
ignorant will is inherently weak and deceived.  The point of their 
teachings was to awaken the person from ignorance into spiritual 
consciousness so that they may effectively use their will.  There is 
first thought, then realization, then action.

> Nonetheless, the Roman Catholics espouse that, since Adolf Hitler 
> himself was baptized, and such baptism was performed by the 
> authority of the Roman Catholic church, therefore Hitler's baptism 
> cannot be overturned by any acts of genocide which he had 
> committed.  He is therefore a saved man in heaven, whether he likes 
> it or not.  Baptisms performed by Catholic authority cannot be 
> undone.
>  
Poor Clement would have been horrified at the idea.  How the Church 
theology as changed since his time!

> Again, I differentiate between the 'conscious soul' and 
> the 'unconscious soul'.  I believe that 'spiritual consciousness' is 
> necessary for heavenly salvation, as opposed to an act of the mortal 
> will, weak and ignorant as it is.
I think you and Plato are expressing the same thing, but just using 
different terminologies.  As for the Gnostics and Christian 
neo-platonists, remember the key to their ideas is the gnosis--the 
spiritual realization.  Still, even with spiritual realization to guide 
one's life, there is still no enlightened action without the exercise of 
an enlightened will.  A common metaphor in this literature is the ideal 
of the soul becoming heavy with matter and thus sinking deeper into it.  
Their purpose was to awaken their followers to this and teach them to 
lighten the soul so that it returns to spirit.  But, unlike you, they 
did not believe in physical immortality.  Though I vaguely recall some 
Jewish-Christian-Gnostic group which did.  I'll see if I can find them 
again. 
Best
Jerry










Vincent wrote:

> "Recently, I had a psychology professor try to tell me that what was 
> meant by the soul was really the physical brain.  Obviously, going 
> by her definition, I do not believe the soul is immortal.   Under 
> normal conditions, the brain rots with the rest of the body at 
> death."
>
> I suggest that the physical brain is an extension of the ehtereal 
> soul.  The physical body is largely a replica (with some variation) 
> of the ghost form.  The physical brain is that external physical 
> portion of the ethereal soul in the ghost form which allows the 
> ghost form to interact and process data within the physical 
> environment.
>
> "Descartes, if I understood him correctly, has the soul as the mind--
> the mechanism through which we perceive the world.  I don't know off 
> hand exactly what he thought of the soul in terms of immortality.  
> If he includes memory and personality--ie those things we accumulate 
> through our ordinary earthly experiences, then I would question why 
> one would think that most of such experiences are worthy of 
> immortality."
>
> I do not view immortality as inherently good or bad.  I view it 
> rather as a natural potential of our species.  Saying that one is 
> worthy or unworthy of immortality could be likened to saying whether 
> one is worthy or unworthy of being born.  It has little or nothing 
> to do with worthiness.  When the psyche and the body is brought 
> under full submission to the universal SPIRIT, immortality 
> automatically occurs.  You may disagee with this of course.
>
> "The early church Fathers had the soul as an immortal part of us, 
> which distinguishes us from the animals.  Descartes also made such a 
> distinction, likening animals to little mechanical toys incapable of 
> feelings.  The justification for vivisection (dissecting live and 
> fully awake animals) was for years justified based upon this  
> notion."
>
> I believe that animals have souls as well as human beings.  The 
> consciousness of animal souls is merely less developed.  You may 
> refer to my post 'What exactly is a soul?'
>
> "Paul, on the other hand, made a distinction between body, soul and 
> spirit.  There is a theologian who used to live in this town and, 
> for ten years, I used to meet him for lunch every Tuesday at the 
> local Chinese restaurant.  Needless to say, we talked mainly about 
> theology.  I remember asking him what he thought Paul met by soul 
> and spirit.  He replied that he thought the two words were 
> synonymous.  My own opinion was that by "spirit" Paul meant a force 
> which gives life to all creatures, and is therefore not unique to 
> humanity.  "Soul," I understand him to mean, the immortal part of 
> each individual. I would be interested in hearing what other 
> explanations you have heard from your local theologians."
>
> I have found that the terminologies used by Christians and 
> Theosophists for the term 'spirit' are extremely different.  The 
> Christian Bible actually uses the word in two different contexts.
>
> 1. SPIRIT - the singular cosmological supergod (or third person of 
> the Trinity in the Christian sense), which is omniscient, 
> omnipotent, omnipresent, being eternally infinite and infinitely 
> eternal; the active life force within all things, binding all of the 
> matter of the universe together
>
> 2. spirits - ghosts of the dead or disembodied demons; a rather 
> degraded context usage of the word 'spirit'
>
> When I had mentioned the concept of 'spirit', soul and body to a 
> Theosophist teacher, he did not understand the differentiation of 
> context between 'SPIRIT' and 'spirits'.
>
> "The neo-Platonists took Plato's notion of the soul being duel: that 
> is, it has a irrational and a rational aspect.  They say that the 
> irrational soul leads us into sensuality--towards the physical and 
> selfishness, while the rational soul leads us towards the spiritual, 
> away from the material and back to its spiritual source.  The 
> mechanism which determines our choices is the human will, which is 
> independent of the soul yet can guide our choices."
>
> I make a similar differentiation, but my concept terminologies are 
> nonetheless different.  I would rather term the differentiation 
> as 'conscious soul' and 'subconscious soul'.  Or rather, that part 
> of the soul which is awake versus that part which is asleep.
>
> "The Gnostics borrowed this idea and expanded it to show (as Plato 
> did) that the source of evil is with matter--the opposite pole (i.e. 
> other side of the same coin)."
>
> I also believe that matter is 'evil', although I do not 
> define 'evil' in the same way that you or others might.  I do not 
> necessarily attach moralistic notions to the word 'evil', at least 
> in this context.  Rather, I consider things like earthquakes and 
> hurricanes, plagues and famine as 'evils' in the world, although 
> they are not immoral, nor are they necessarily steered by human 
> choice.  The elements themselves sometimes express 'evil'.
>
> I view physical matter as 'evil' due to it's deathly and temporal 
> nature.  When spiritual life energy converts into physical matter 
> (for all physical matter is first composed of spiritual energy), it 
> takes on a deathly form of decay.  When the fluidity of spiritual 
> energy becomes lost or lessened at the subatomic levels, it 
> therefore converts into physical matter by reason of its subatomic 
> rigidity.  This incurred rigidity therefore causes the onset of 
> death and decay.  When the rigidity is removed, then the death cycle 
> ceases.
>
> "The early church fathers rejected the Gnostic ideas in favor of 
> evil as a separate and independent entity (i.e. the Devil).  They 
> also rejected the notion of will as the mechanism for salvation in 
> favor of Grace, which they could use to account for the wiping away 
> of original sin (the Greeks did not have a notion of original sin)."
>
> I believe in the existence of a literal entity called the 'devil', 
> but I do not attribute the sinfulness of mankind to him.  
> The 'devil' is merely a fallen angel (if one believes in angels) in 
> the Christian context.  I also do not believe that the will is the 
> mechanism of salvation, for I view the fallen and ignorant will as 
> being inherently weak and decieved.  I believe that 'spiritual 
> consciousness' is necessary for one to access the heavens and to be 
> lifted up out of the hells.
>
> "Clement argued, for instance, that the original sin (of Adam's and 
> Eve's eating the forbidden fruit) can only be wiped away through a 
> dispensation received at Baptism.  But Clement also argued that 
> Baptism only erased sins committed before the time of Baptism."
>
> I view baptism merely as a traditional symbol that expresses the 
> concept of cleansing.  It has no inherent salvific value.  
> Nonetheless, the Roman Catholics espouse that, since Adolf Hitler 
> himself was baptized, and such baptism was performed by the 
> authority of the Roman Catholic church, therefore Hitler's baptism 
> cannot be overturned by any acts of genocide which he had 
> committed.  He is therefore a saved man in heaven, whether he likes 
> it or not.  Baptisms performed by Catholic authority cannot be 
> undone.
>
> "Now, with all of this said, my opinion favors the Hellenistic 
> notions of a rational and irrational soul, which means that we are 
> capable of working out our own salvation through the correct 
> exercise of the will.  So, in that sense, I am probably more of a 
> Gnostic then you are  :-)"
>
> Again, I differentiate between the 'conscious soul' and 
> the 'unconscious soul'.  I believe that 'spiritual consciousness' is 
> necessary for heavenly salvation, as opposed to an act of the mortal 
> will, weak and ignorant as it is.
>
> Blessings
>
> Vince
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>