Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00175)

Thanks much for your insightful comments.

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>