Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00594)

PETER: your sarcasm notwithstanding - I am sure you know as well as I do
that it is HPB who refers to the Monad at times as a 'unified triad', and
sometimes as 'dual' but she takes care in many places to explain herself.
This has nothing to do with the finer points of Daniel's logic.>>>

JERRY: Yeah Peter, I know that Blavatsky explains herself. Unfortunately you
and Dallas do not. Dallas has flatly stated many many times that atma-buddhi
IS a monad, and thus demonstrates that he doesn't know what a monad really
is. Its supposed to be the very opposite of an aggregate, but then you know
that too, don't you? And his statements have nothing at all to do with
logic, but with the Herculean attempt to give atman permanency....... [and
on and on...]<<<

Jerry, I have always felt you have a lot of experience and knowledge to
share with your fellow students. I still feel that. You also raise some
very interesting questions which I find valuable to reflect upon even if I
do not always agree with your viewpoint. Thanks. I mean that. I find what
Dallas writes is of great value. Recently Morten has joined in with some
very refreshing comments. I thank them too.

I also feel that in your latest post to me you have cleverly twisted my
words and distorted my viewpoint (and Dal's) out of recognition. That's a
shame. As for "explanations" I have, in fact, offered a number of these
in the many posts we have shared on this subject over the last month. I
have also observed Dallas patiently offering these to you in one form or
another over a period of years.

I am busy now until after the weekend. If I have any more to say on this
subject I will do so after that.

best wishes,

...Peter