theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Jerry- Is the soul immortal?

Apr 03, 2006 06:37 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


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










[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application