Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00046)

Jerry Schueler <gschueler@netgsi.com> writes
>Having done (in my own way) the same
>>as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that there is a
>>discrete difference between monads, even those who have never been
>>incarnate on our planet, and who may never be.  Curiouser and
>>curiouser, said Alice.
>>
>>Alan
>
>
>The logical problem with your conclusion is that the divine Monad (and
>I am only addressing the divine Monad) is supposed to be perfect.

Ah. "Supposed to be."  Much depends on what you understand by
"divine."  In my theology/osophy the number of such monads equals
One, so there can be no differentiation in the first place.

>If any differences exist whatsoever, then one has to be "better" in some
>way than another, and thus the "lesser" can't be perfect.

Why should this be so?  Although we seem to approach the matter from
differing standpoints, given your argument, why cannot they be perfect
*and* different.  is there, for some obscure reason, only one sort of
"perfect" ?

>  The only
>way that I can see for "perfection" or "completeness" to be assigned
>is for all to be absolutely 100% identical.
>
>Perhaps your "different" monads were "rays" rather than the
>divine Monads?

You will see in another post that I don't receive the doctrine of "rays" -
so we are on a loser here!  My experience of what I recognise as
monads is their singularity.  That includes the highest level of me.

[Gibbers quietly in corner, waiting for men in white coats.  Wonders, "If
they arrive wearing pink coats, should I be worried?"]

Alan :0)
---------
Simply Occult ..........
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l