Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00084)

>The Monad is not simple or unity as its name implies, it can be
>duad (Atma-Buddhi) or triad (Atma-Buddhi-Manas).

Here we have a problem with semantics. I interpret "Monad"
differently. I see Atma-Buddhi-Manas as a "ray" of the Monad
and not the Monad itself.

>As Atma-Buddhi
>it is "non-conscious", there is no duality, ..

Here again I have a problem. Possibly semantics. But Atma
is dualistic, at least insofar as I can experience it. The Monad
(which word itself implies indivisibility) is nono-dualistic.


Jerry S.