Thanks for all your comments! And I look forward to everyone's feedback in this thread as well as any additional thread/post I may initiate or participate with. BTW: Really great work TOM!
Ok, just a quick overview of where I'm coming from. I have watched and listened to all of Tom's videos and radio interviews. I also have recently acquired the Trilogy and have finished reading Book 1 and am now in 2.
For what's it worth, I have several decades of fairly intensive spiritual, religious, metaphysical and paranormal studies under my belt. Over the years I've studied a wide range of OBE material, videos, audio, etc, (including Monroe's works), and have also had personal success in OBE's myself (Note: "OOBE" might be more accurate but not as efficient as writing OBE while still retaining the same meaning...LOL).
However, I am not strong in some physical sciences and mathematics. Yet I do have a pool of very close friends and family who fill in these gaps for me when needed.
In general, after reading "Autobiography of a Yogi" many years ago I became fascinated with the degree of accomplishment or apparent progress (siddhis, wisdom, love, etc) that some of the yogi's and masters in that book attained. But the immortal Babaji stood out from all the rest. What Babaji seemed to represent , if true, was a person (apparently once mortal like any one of us) who came into an understanding, either through techniques, tools, inner work, etc, and achieved one of the highest levels, if not the epitome of human potential and accomplishment.
So I researched and eventually sought out only those people who were still alive and claimed that they studied directly under Babaji. Two of these people, whom I meant in person on numerous occasions, stood out to me, but one was not too far away from my home. I discovered that this individual meant eight physically immortal masters while in the East and was striving to become a physical immoralist as well.
Without delving too much further into this story/history, suffice to say that the issue of "physical immortality" established some roots into my psyche. Of course I am not trying to broach or debate an "unreal" scenario. More below...
I have delved into Theosophy rather considerably over the years. I do not find them to be of much help in regards to this topic.
Also, there is a slight but significant difference between Ascended Masters and physically immortal masters. For example, if a person dies and only thereafter achieves the power to return in a physical form (learning this ability in the inner worlds while their physical form is dead) they are not the same as those who achieve this immortality ability while still incarnate in a physical form. A subtle but necessary distinction.
Re: Ted's comments
It didn't appear to me that anything in TOE (as I have been exposed to thus far) contradicts the concepts I have set forth. I was trying to make a personal and practical connection to ones conscious journey (as it pertains to our volitional sphere of influence) when I used the word-symbols "immortal and immortality". Whereas word-symbols such as "without known end" or "Infinite" can be a bit impersonal. And as Ted has alluded, a bit too vast to consider practical.
Maybe I should just read the entire trilogy before responding further. But I think it will be interesting to respond to some of the comments from my current awareness/understanding.
These are wonderful observations from Ted.
"If you had, you should have noted that the TOE presented is a scientific model of a real system. That real things are neither infinite nor immortal is discussed."...
"Forget the immortal part and substitute without known end, just as infinite is not real. None of you are really subject to physical death. Remember, virtual reality, return to/merge with your activities in NPMR, merge back into the totality of your higher self. Remember that Tom has described manifesting a physical body in a PMR visited by OOBE."
I guess I see everything as real ("thing" is a misnomer since everything also has to include the unreal or nothingness and beyond). But not everything seems practical, or attainable, or even able to be experience... Of course who knows? The bottom line is that one can apparently either actively (consciously) do and experience something, or not. And apparently some people have the ability to retain their physical form indefinitely (for all intents and purposes of what that word implies). Of course I'm not trying to argue whether or not anyone would actually want to remain in a physical form for 10centillion, centillion, etc.
As an observer starting the TOE exploration according to TOM, I ask myself, (absolutely NO offense intended), how is it that a student of TOM's such as Ted state what he is saying above as if it is experiential fact, (which seems to be the most relevant means of validating "fact")? Is it reasonable for Ted to say that, "None of you are really subject to physical death."
? How can Ted say this and also be accurate? In order to say this even on a fundamental personal level of fact (not to mention truth) wouldn't Ted need to have proven that he isn't subject to physical death? And how much more complex does it get when you assume to speak for others in this matter via a perceived consensus reality model?
As I read TOE I also note that there appears to be cumulative speculation involved. Some sections are obviously incomplete and speculative, but we are led to believe that we must wait until the next section in order to discover the validity of what TOM is trying to convey. In fact we must read the entire trilogy.
Yet is not this very process a beLIEf system in and of itself? Of course letters are cumulative and make no sense unto we have a recognizable word. And words do this to express concepts, the same with numbers, etc.
So maybe this cumulative perspective is the best we have for discerning fact and truth. Yet for a consensus model to be valid we must agree on the letters before any word can provide a meaning. And we must experience something before we can ever agree to a consensus. (A sub-set cannot understand a larger set...hmmm...maybe. There may be a micro/macrocosmic realtionship to ALL things that happens in the NOW which transcends considerations of conscious "progress")
Of course intuition, clairvoyance and clairaudience, etc, can discern truth without words or numerical symbolism. I know this from direct experience myself. And I also know that many people have the ability to travel in the inner worlds (OBE) and come to different conclusions, abilities, etc.
Back to the immortals. It doesn't seem unreal or ridiculous to consider that if there is such a thing as conscious progression, then the ability to progress denotes that one must never lose the ability of any experience once experienced. They may discard it, as if it has no immediate value towards their forward journey, for instance, however mastery (for lack of a better word right now) cannot be mastery if anything is lost.
So it seems reasonable to me that to die against ones conscious will (which happens as we chronologically age and die, or die in accidents, or through illness, or through murder, etc) is an unconscious death urge of an immature consciousness. While a mature conscious that is truly progressive would always have the choice to remain physical prior to chronological death. Again, this doesn't mean that they would want to. But only that they CAN.
And the issue that there are more mature conscious beings in broader or higher sets than our 3D sub-set may be totally inaccurate...
I'll keep reading the Trilogy...