Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00455)

Saturday, November 24, 2001

Dear Jerry:

If I say "Man" -- I need to define that further. I could be
speaking of the body, the mind, the conscience, his desires, or
his wisdom, Spirit etc....

The word MAN like MONAD is divisible. I use Monad as a
collective. I also use it to indicate the basic and original
source of CONSCIOUSNESS which resides in each human.

I am never quite sure what you mean when you use Monad. Unit,
yes, Certainly.

But UNIT OF WHAT ?

The Highest is linked to the lowest, figuratively.

If we go "out of manifestation" then MONAD could imply the whole
ABSOLUTE with no possible definitions that we might apply to IT.

But I fear we two are still swimming in a sea of indefinite
definitions.

Dal

=================================

-----Original Message-----
From: G S
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re to Dallas

<<<<Dear Jerry:
I think the problem is that a MONAD on one plane is a departure
point for diversity on another.>>>

Dear Dallas, I think that the real problem is that a monad is an
indivisible unit, and when you divide it into parts, you are no
longer talking about a monad at all. If you really stop to think
about exactly what an indivisible unit is, then you will conclude
that there is no such a thing anywhere in manifestation. All
manifested things are components. So, monads, by definition, are
outside of our 7 plane system of space and time. It is their rays
or expressions that are within manifestation, and these rays are
NOT monads.


<<<when I use the word MONAD I assume pretty much the following:
We are either dealing with the PRIMORDIAL MONAD or with the
Manifested MONAD.>>>

I think that many of us old timers can agree on what you are
saying here. However, the concept of a manifested monad is
illogical and also impossible. And I fear it is misleading and
confusing to new students. Why? Because a manifested monad is not
monadic. Now, I fully realize this language problem, and have
called this manifested monad the I-Not-I Monad, even though it is
a triad and not a monad at all. But by saying I-Not-I everyone
can see that is it no longer a true monad. I am not arguing about
your ideas, but rather your choice of words in one of your past
posts that leads us to reify ideas/concepts.


CUT