On the Monad
Introduction
1. This book is written to help make the ideas in Infinitization of Selfhood easier of assimilation. Of course, all things progress, and my ideas have evolved somewhat on several points over the last five years. Some of the answers to certain questions reflect the evolution of these ideas.
2. Please realize that we are attempting to think about what, in many instances, is literally unthinkable, but the effort so to do will stimulate the abstract mind and help to build the antahkarana—especially in relation to manas and buddhi, but also, for some, in relation to atma.
3. The questions posed for answering are meant to serve as seed thoughts. This is also true of the way in which they are answered. It is recommended that, as time allows, you ponder some of these thoughts and see what thoughts and intuitions come to you. Perhaps they will be different that what is presented in this book. If so, fine. No one can dogmatize about the Monad and the Self, and of course, THE INFINITE.
4. You will notice that as the book progresses, the Tibetan’s material is increasingly consulted. Large excerpts from His writings are extracted for the light they shed on our topic. As we bring our knowledge increasingly into application, the book uses more and more of the second ray (rather than the third).
5. Along with the book I have gathered from the Tibetan’s writings almost all the many references to “monad”, “monads”, “monadic” and “monadically”, as well as the results of searches on related words. Additionally, gleanings from the Secret Doctrine are included. The Tibetan has written extensively on this subject: now that most every reference is gathered, we can come closer to assimilating what He shared.
6. Don’t be put off by the verbiage. We are trying to think about things for which no technical vocabulary has been evolved. Therefore the coining of words is the attempt to precipitate a number of heretofore un-precipitated intuitions. It is a lot easier, however, than Infinitization.
7. Try to get through the first part of this work. The second part deals more with ideas that are familiar to the readers of the Tibetan and have, perhaps, a more practical application to the life of discipleship—IF, one understands what a monad really is.
8. This is a relatively brief work. For greater elaboration and clarification please consult Infinitization of Selfhood.
9. Capitalization (full caps, title caps and lower case) is used to keep three levels of being straight.
a. THE DOMAIN of THAT—the ABSOLUTE.
b. The Domain of the One Monad
c. The domain of the human monad.
10. When encountering a word like ‘M/monad’, it is to be pronounced/read simply as, “monad”; ‘E/entity’ is to be pronounced/read as “entity”. The capitalization before the word is to signal that the concept applies to both the relatively great and the relatively small. At other times, a word may apply to one or the other level, and then it will have only its appropriate capitalization.
11. When single quotes are used it can mean:
a. A quote within a quote—its usual significance
b. Or, in a more specialized way, it can signify the phrase, “so to speak”. We are dealing with many ideas which words cannot literally describe. So a word is used to give the reader a general idea of the meaning, but that is all.
c. For instance, if it is said that the ONE SELF ‘THINKS’, this form of single quotes means, “thinks, so to speak”, because we cannot really know anything about how the ABSOLUTE/ONE SELF ‘DOES’ anything. Verbs related to the ABSOLUTE will therefore be bracketed by single quotes.
d. Along a similar line, single quotes can also indicate that a word has been used by others or is being used by the author—imprecisely, and simply suggestively. It is the author’s way of signaling to the reader that he knows the word cannot really or fully express the idea or process which he is attempting to convey.
e. Single quotes also mean, “not to be taken literally”.
f. Also, if a word is being used in a special way, or a way which is unusual with respect to its normal use, then single quotes may be utilized to indicate this special or unusual use.
12. If one question and its responses prove too difficult or paradoxical, go on to the next. They are not necessarily causally connected.
13. You will find that, as the book progresses, it becomes, in a way, simpler—more practical and less philosophical. It is not recommended, however, that one simply skip the first sections and jump to the end, seeking matters “closer to home”. Much of perspective will be lost thereby.
14. Realize that if all goes well, studying these ideas will bring you closer to the World of Being, and will help to make the First Divine Aspect (of which the human monad is a reflection) a greater reality in your life.
15. Our purpose in this exercise is to made the M/monad real to us. All the new teaching is based upon a growing understanding of the reality of the Spirit Aspect. We can spend years reading the word “M/monad” over and over, and never come close to understanding what it really means, and what the experience of the M/monad may be like. This little book (and Infinitization of Selfhood) are meant to correct this unfortunate probability.
16. Specific benefits to be acquired:
i. The breaking of the lower ego.
ii. A merging with spirit.
iii. Vitalization and empowerment from higher energy sources.
iv. Intimacy with Reality
v. Intensification of Life.
vi. A rediscovery of the true nature of the self-as-Self-as-SELF.
vii. (Unthinkable and Unspeakable)
17. Please realize that, strange as it may seem, everything I am writing is “all about you” (or, better, ‘YOU’).
General Questions
1. What is meant by the term “Monad”?
a. The Tibetan often defines the Monad as “the One” or “the ONE”.
b. The Monad is the Universal One.
c. The Monad is the Universal Self.
d. The Monad is the essentially indivisible Universal Logos—the One and Only Definite Being. There, is, however indefinite BE-NESS.
e. The Monad both is and is not the SELF.
f. The Monad is the indissoluble Universal Unity.
g. The Monad is the One Pan-Cosmic Identity.
h. The Monad is the Cosmic Representative of ABSOLUTENESS.
i. The Monad is pure Intra-Cosmic Being but, both is and is not PURE EXTRA-COSMIC BE-NENESS.
j. Essentially, the Monad is the cyclically-recurring ‘RAY’ of the ABSOLUTE.
2. What is a M/monad?
a. In this text, the composite term “M/monad” will mean any Monad or monad who is lesser in scope than the One Monad. A “monad” is the term used for the highest aspect of human identity and, a “Monad” is the term used for an identity considerably greater in ‘status’ than the human monad but lesser than the One Monad. In reality, however, there are no essentially ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ M/monads.
b. Any M/monad (of great or lesser apparent status) is essentially identical in essence with the One Monad. In essence, all M/monads are One Monad.
c. Every M/monad (other than the One Universal Monad) is an emanation of the One Monad. Each M/monad no matter how confined in consciousness when compared to the One Great Monad is, (by progressively lessening degrees) an emanative extension of the One Monad.
d. In a way it is improper for a human being to say, “my monad” because the essential M/monad cannot be possessed; essentially any M/monad manifesting through any E/entity is the only presently existing Monad, the One and Only Universal Monad.
e. Yet M/monads in expression have greater and lesser scope, greater and lesser awareness and power.
f. The many M/monads are graded reductions of the One Monad, and the scope of each, its awareness and its power are reductions when compared to the scope, awareness and power of the One Monad.
g. These ‘graded reductions’ are, essentially, illusory (for the essential One Monad is irreducible, just as the ABSOLUTE ‘IS’ IRREDUCIBLE. In the Cosmic Process, however, these apparent ‘reductions’ are actual—i.e., they are ‘intra-cosmic realities’.
h. M/monads are essentially irreducible, substantial subjectivities.
i. All M/monads are perceivers.
j. All M/monads but the One Monad are, as well, perceptions. Essentially each M/monad is the Unperceived Perceiver. Actually-in-Cosmos, the many M/Monads are the graded Self-perceptions of the One Monad however essentially-illusory these Self-perceptions may be.
k. To be is to be perceived. Without the Self-perception of the One Universal Monad, there would be no many M/monads.
l. Thus all M/monads except the One Universal Monad are derivative—derivative of It. And even It (the Universal One) is derivative of THAT—THE NAMELESS INCONCEIVABILITY (though the ‘PROCESS OF DERIVATION’ is, from the cosmic perspective, forever inscrutable.
m. M/monads are Self-bounded subjectivities.
n. M/Monads are spirits—spirits issued from the Universal Spirit.
o. Every M/monad in Cosmos is an 8 (pronounced as the word, “I” usually is). All the terms below are pronounced as “I”, but equate to different ‘levels’ of identity.
i. “I” = ABSOLUTE INFINITUDE.
ii. “I/8” = INFINITUDE ‘BECOMING’ Finitude.
iii. “8” = Finitized INTINITUDE, THE-ABSOLUTE-INTINITUDE-in-Manifestation
iv. “I” (un-bolded) = the normal limited ego (limited Selfhood, the personal identity).
v. “i” = the instinctual identity, incompletely formed.
p. Any given M/monad is a specific Self-perception of a certain magnitude. The Self Who is perceiving is the One Monad. (For instance: the greatest Galactic ‘Gods’ are Self-perceptions of very great magnitude. A Planetary God is a lesser magnitude of Self-perception. A human being is a Self-perception of relatively slight magnitude). All these ‘G/gods’ are Self-perceptions of the One Monad. Non of these ‘G/gods’ is Self-perception entire.
q. The Universal Logos/One Monad has (or, better, is) all intra-cosmically possible points of view. No M/monad, in itself, has or is all intra-cosmically possible points of view. Any given M/monad is only one of the intra-cosmically possible points of view, but such a point of view may ‘contain’ many other subsidiary points of view, just as a M/monad of greater scope ‘contains’ M/monads of lesser scope.
r. A M/monad is ‘born’ because the Universal Logos chooses to ‘see’ some of Itself rather than all of Itself. Thus, in a way, every M/monad is a reduction of the Self-seeing/Self-knowing of the One Monad.
s. Divisibility (and with it) all M/monads arise because the Universal Logos, as it were, ‘shuts its Eye upon certain aspects of Itself’. If the Universal Logos’ only Act of Perception were to ‘see all of Itself’ and only all of Itself, no M/monads would ever be generated/emanated. All that would exist would be the ‘Ego-consciousness’ of the Universal Logos (which, true, would be a kind of ‘reduction’ of its true Being)
t. Any M/monad (other than the One Monad) is a narrowing of the focus of the One Universal Eye, thus is, in a way, a partial ‘closing’ of the “All-Seeing-Eye”
u. Every M/monad is a product of an illusory process—division. There can be no real division in Cosmos (or, for that matter ‘IN’ THAT—the BOUNDLESS IMMUTABLE (hence INDIVISIBLE) PRINCIPLE, hence. In fundamental fact, no mathematical operation (alternation of quantity) can be performed upon THAT.
v. All M/monads are ‘born’ of the Universal Logos’ ‘Will to ‘see’ less of Itself than It can’. Yet for all the less and less of Itself that It sees—it continues, paradoxically (and on its own level) to ‘see’ the entirety of Itself—just as a greater torch remains lit even after it has lit lesser torches. The One Monad ‘sees’ less and less of Itself through the agency of the progressively ‘less-far-seeing’ emanated aspects of Itself—i.e., all M/monads other than Itself.
w. A M/monad is essentially immortal and ubiquitous in Cosmos. The seeming conclusion of its immortality is caused by a Universal Pralaya, and its ubiquity is pragmatically (though not essentially) curtailed only by the multiple layers of its own perceptions. When these layered perceptions are shed at the ‘end’ of a Cosmos, the ubiquity of every M/monad is revealed to have existed throughout the duration of that Cosmos.
x. Every M/monad other than the One Monad is “the One Monad ‘in semi Self-forgetfulness’—the “All-Seeing Eye” in constricted vision”.
y. A M/monad is a single perspective within the One Perspective (which is inclusive of all points of view). The M/monad is a single eye within the Universal Eye.
z. The essential M/monad is indivisible, non-individual but participates in individuality. Apparent individuality is a transience.
aa. All M/monads are numbers and numbered. They are the prototypical numbers from which all aggregations are constructed.
3. What is the origin of the One Monad—the Universal One?
a. The Universal Monad is a the cyclically and eternally recurring ‘RAY OF THE ABSOLUTE’.
b. This ‘RAY’ ‘FLASHES FORTH’ at the inception of every new Cosmos. As there have been and will be an infinitude of Cosmoses, there have been and will be an infinitude of ‘FLASHINGS FORTH’ of the RAY.
c. The One Monad is the one and only Representative of THAT which is utterly indescribable—the BOUNELESS IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLE. An infinitude of names could be assigned to THAT and each would be a lie. The sum of them would also be a lie. Yet, one must think and speak of THAT if one is to speak in depth of all that is Not-THAT.
d. The Universal Monad is the Efflux of PURE BE-NESS—WHICH IS THE INDEFINABLE, the ULTIMATELY INCONCEIVABLE.
e. Paradoxically, however, the Universal Monad is the one and only Illusion—the Great Illusion (though essentially, It is not, because, essentially, It, like very other E/entity which emanates from Itself, can be none other than the NAMELESS BE-NESS—i.e., THAT-THAN-WHICH-THERE-IS-NO-OTHER).
f. Thus, the Universal Monad is BE-NESS-as-Illusion; INFINITUDE-as-Finitude.
g. The origin of the One and Only Universal Monad is REALITY, ITSELF—however much that REALITY is THE ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE (to us or any intra-cosmic B/being).
h. The Universal Monad is the first definite limitation upon ABSOLUTE IDENTITY.
i. The Universal Monad is the first definable Individual—issuing from INFINITE INDIVISIBILITY.
4. Wherein does the limitation of the Universal Monad consist?
a. The Universal Monad is essentially the ‘RAY’ OF THE ABSOLUTE.
b. The RAY OF THE ABSOLUTE and the Universal Monad are identical in essence with the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE, the ONE BEING/NON-BEING, BE-NESS.
c. The Universal Monad is Finitized BE-NESS endowed with One Set of Destined Potentials, whereas the ULTIMATELY-NAMELESS is INFINITIZED BE-NESS embracing all possible potentials, the infinitely-indefinite ‘number’ of which can be suggestively (though hopelessly) conceived as infinity to the ‘infiniteth’ power (∞∞)
d. The limitation of the Universal Monad exists because all possible potentials do not inhere in It, but, rather, only One Set of Consummately Related Potentials Destined for Expression/Actualization as Universe.
e. God, the Universal Logos, the One Monad is not absolutely free, (during the Time of a Cosmos) to actualize/express all possibility, nor even to conceive of all possibility, because Its Time is limited and conception takes Time. God, in this sense, is a Limited Being, though Its SOURCE is BOUNDLESS, IMMUTABLE, INFINI-POTENTIATED.
f. The limitation of the One Monad is seen in the ratio 1/∞∞ or ∞∞/1. We can see, therefore, that One Monad is about as close to an infinitesimal as any one thing can be, without actually being it. (For more about the “infinitesimal” and the process of “infinitesimalizing”, please see Infinitization of Selfhood.)
5. Is there one Universal Monad, throughout ENDLESS DURATION, or are there an infinitude of Them?
a. The Universal Monad appears cyclically throughout ENDLESS DURATION.
b. This Universal Being is, in a way, always the same and yet always distinct.
c. In as much as It is the eternally-cyclically-reappearing Representative of the ABSOLUTE, It is always the same. It is the ABSOLUTE-as-Definite-Entity, forever, throughout ENDLESS DURATION.
d. In as much as the ‘INSTRUCTIONS’ ‘IMPARTED’ from the ABSOLUTE (the Algorithm for the Cosmos-to-Be) are unique for each Cosmos, the Universal Monad is distinct from every other Universal Monad—distinct in Its Purpose.
e. Of course, It realizes Itself to be a cyclically-reappearing Entity, Whose ESSENTIAL IDENTITY is forever the same as all ‘other’ Universal Monads Who have issued forth, cyclically and forever, from the ABSOLUTE.
f. Yet as a Definite and Finite Being (which the ABSOLUTE is not), there is no need to think that It (the Universal Monad) must have an infinite memory of all previous happenings in all previous Universes. As a Finite Being, the Universal Monad could not, by definition, ‘contain’ such an actual infinitude. The reason is as follows: no infinitude is actualizable within the confines of a finitude.
g. The Universal Monad is a non-evolving Being, which does not ‘profit’ from Its infinitudinous past, nor will it ‘profit’ from its infinitudinous future, for Its true Nature is the ABSOLUTE PERFECTION of the INFINITESSENCE (the NAMELESSNESS, the INCONCEIVABLE, the IMPENETRABLE SILENCE).
h. There is no such thing as infinite gain, as, in ESSENCE, It (the Universal Monad) is, IN ESSENCE the totality of ABSOLUTE PERFECTION.
i. Every Universal Monad, thus, is Self-contained, and independent of the ‘influence’ of any other Universal Monad.
6. What is the Relation of the Universal Monad to Time, Space and Motion?
a. Time is a measurement of duration relative to a particular duration which serves as a standard of measurement.
i. The Ultimate Standard of Duration is the ‘Regular?’ Cycle consisting of the Duration of a Cosmos and the (succeeding or preceding) ‘Duration’ of a State of NO-COSMOS.
ii. Eternal Time is the infinite ‘span’ of the summed durations of all cyclic appearances and cyclic disappearances of Universal Monads/Cosmoses.
b. Motion is the ETERNAL PROCESS by means of which the Universal Monad/Cosmos cyclically appears and disappears. Motion is the appearance and disappearance of infinitudinous Universe-Events (i.e., the Events which are Universes). This is the Fundamental Movement—that there is and then is not, and then is, etc., ad infinitum, a Cosmos/Universe/Universal Monad. All lesser motions are derivative of this Archetypal Perpetual Motion, and all lesser motions, as well, are fundamentally based upon the dynamic of appearance/disappearance.
c. Space is the Self-awareness of the Universal Monad.
i. Space is always a perception. Where there is no perception, there is no space.
ii. If we ask, “Is space infinite?”, we have to ask, “Is the Self-perception of the Universal Monad infinite?”
iii. Since the Universal Monad is, by definition, finite, (being a definite ‘something’ and having been ‘generated’) then Space is also finite, as, if that which is finite perceives itself, the perception/reflection which arises is also finite.
iv. It follows that the entire Cosmos occurs ‘within’ the Self-perception of the Universal Monad. More accurately, the entire Cosmos is the Self-perception of the Universal Monad.
v. Space is, therefore, not an objective fact; it is a subjective apperception of the One and Only Universal Being. (Let us not forget, however, the Extra-Universal BE-NESS).
vi. The old question, “Where does Cosmos end and the void, emptiness (or non-Cosmos) begin?”, has no meaning, because there is no void. There is only the Self-enclosed Perception (really Apperception) of the Universal Monad/Logos. Any-thing else does not exist, including a void.
vii. Space, therefore, is not (as commonsensically conceived) a void, in which the ‘Thing’ called the Universe is ‘located’, in one ‘position’ or another. There is no objective space. There is only That which is ‘Self-perceived’, and it has no ‘location’ relative to anything else because there is not anything else.
viii. So such a question as, “How large or small is the Universe relative to the ‘space’ within which it is enclosed?”, is based upon a misconception, and an ignorance of the fundamentally psychological/perceptual nature of Space.
ix. The Universal Monad ‘occupies’ no space. Pure Being ‘occupies’ no space. It is only when Consciousness begins that Space begins.
x. What then are the ‘boundaries’ of the Universal Monad/Cosmos?
aa. There are ‘boundaries’ (of a kind) or limits, because the One Monad is finite, and Its Self-perception is, therefore, necessarily, finite.
bb. The Universe, however, has no ‘edge’. There is no ‘outside’. There is no way to escape from the Self-perception of the Universal Monad. There is no other ‘Thing’ than It, and so there is no ‘other’ that can lie ‘beyond’ it; there is no ‘beyond’.
cc. The only possible ‘outside’ to the Self-perception of the Universal Monad, is the INDESCRIBABLE INFINITUDE (THE INFINITIESSENCE) which the Universal Monad can never ‘contain’, because the INFINITESSENCE, ESSENTIALLY, is the Universal Monad. But this INDESCRIBABLE INFINITUDE is no thing (i.e., IT is the NO-THING).
dd. It may be that the Universal Monad’s Self-perception (i.e., the Universe) is so ‘curved’ that wherever one ‘journeys’, one is always, inescapably ‘within’ it. We may speak of “curved space” to describe the Force which will not ‘allow’ an E/entity (a thought-being) to ‘escape’ from that which generated it. The Universal Self-perception may be so ‘constructed’ that an ‘edge’ to it can never be found/discerned. All travel, even apparently in a straight line, is ever deflected from an ‘edge’ which does not really exist. This ‘edge’ does not really exist because there is only the ‘Self-perception’ and no thing else. An edge is always between two things. Where there is only on thing, there can be no edge.
ee. All things within the One Monad are Its own Self-reflections. All E/entities or things live simply by the fact that they are, as it were, ‘being thought’ or being Self-reflected by the Universal Monad. In fact, all E/entities (since they, essentially, are the Universal Monad) “live and move and have their being” within their own thought or their own Self-reflection.
ff. It is impossible to think of E/entities venturing ‘beyond’ That which conceives them, accounting, thus, for their very existence. No matter what they do, no matter ‘where’ they go, they will always be ‘within’ the Great (and finite) Self-Image of the Universal Monad.
gg. If one has to speak of the ‘shape’ of the Self-perception, the Self-image of the Universal Monad, one can only, in the language of paradox, speak of a finite sphere with no discernible circumference. Clearly, every finite sphere of which we may know has a discernible circumference, and every infinite sphere (which we might propose {though hardly conceive}) would be infinite through the fact that it could never have a circumference. However, the ‘shape’ of the Universal Monad’s Self-Image and thus of the Universe, is suggested as a finite sphere with no discernible circumference because:
01. It is the finite reflection of finite (though great) Being—the Universal Monad.
02. It ‘seems’ to give ‘space all around’, as does a sphere—i.e., it seems to those that “live and move and have their being” within the Universal Monad that they can ‘travel’ unrestrictedly in all directions.
03. By Its Nature as the ‘Only-Thing’, it deflects any of its E/entity-Contents from the perception/discernment of anything like a circumference, limit or bound, because any discernible, detectable circumference would suggest that ‘some-thing-other’ could exist ‘beyond’ it—and there is no other thing.
04. So, to the E/entities ‘enclosed’, there ‘seems’ to be no circumference; there ‘seems’ to be no limit, and yet there is, though it is not a tangible limit.
05. The limit is that there is no-thing-else but that which the Universal Monad Self-perceives; there is no way to discover or discern anything ‘outside’ of this. So we have a kind of indiscernible circumference separating (not that which is ‘within’ from that which is ‘without’, but) that which is (because it is Self-perceived) from that which is not (because it is not part of the Self-perception—i.e., it simply doesn’t exist).
06. “To be is to be perceived”
7. What is the Destiny of the One Universal Monad?
a. The Ultimate Destiny of the One Universal Monad is to be reabsorbed into the ‘ABSOLUTE’—even though in the ‘ULTIMATE’ sense, it never ‘departed’ therefrom.
b. The Intra-Cosmic Destiny of the One Monad is to emanate into ‘Self-identical Multiplicity’ and Be/Become/Conduct the Universal Process entirely ‘within’-Itself-as-Itself, until Its Inherent Fixed Design is fulfilled.
8. Is there one Monad or are there many monads?
a. In all of Cosmos there is but One Monad—The One
b. That Monad is essentially indivisible.
c. Through the process of emanation (the Universal Process of Self-limiting Self-extension through a graded series of reduced Self-perceptions), the One Monad generates (seems to become) many monads, but these monads have no distinct and separate being in and of themselves. The nature of their being is an apparent, illusory, but actual being.
d. All multiplicity, therefore, is a seeming.
e. The essence of every apparent being or monad is none other than The One in its undiminished entirety.
f. The Many are the One and not themselves.
9. Then how can the Wisdom Teaching speak of the reality of many M/monads?
a. Multiplicity is an actuality but not an essential reality.
b. Under the ‘spell’ of the Self-imposed Great Illusion, there appear to be many M/monads arranged (through emanation) as a hierarchy of M/monads.
c. The One Monad forever becomes the many M/monads but ever remains Itself alone.
d. The One Identity forever becomes the many identities (of all degrees of apparent power, scope and consciousness) but forever and essentially remains but One Identity.
e. The many M/monads are actualities in Cosmos; they are facts-in-Illusion, and must be treated as actual, without conferring upon them an affirmation of their essential Reality.
10. If the many M/monads are essentially un-Real, and only the One Monad is Real, why treat these M/monads seriously and with respect—as if they were Real?
a. All things within Cosmos (other than The One) are essentially un-Real.
b. The question more properly to be asked is “Why treat anything seriously and with respect—as if anything were Real?
c. A proposed answer is that the Cosmos itself is an inexorably and eternally recurring Great Illusion.
d. The Cosmos has appeared and disappeared cyclically forever, and will continue to do so forever.
e. The One and Only Self or Universal Logos has forever willfully confronted, and will forever willfully confront Itself with the illusion of multiplicity.
f. Things, therefore, will exist, cyclically, forever and, though unreal, are purposeful. (What their purpose is will be addressed later).
g. Because things (i.e., the intra-cosmic multiplicity) are intentional, purposeful and inescapable as Self-presentations, they should be treated seriously, with respect—as inescapable (though transient) actualities. In practical terms, this means that things are to be treated as if they were Real. We might say that things are Real-enough!
h. Multiplicity is both purposeful and planned. The apparently many M/monads are part of this purposeful, planned multiplicity. The Self-conceived reason for their existence must be fathomed.
i. Only by learning the modus-operandi of multiplicity can there be a conscious return to seamless unity—Synthesis.
j. Only by acknowledging and reckoning with the many M/monads can there be a conscious return to the essential Reality of the One and Only Monad (which, paradoxically, is un-REAL when ‘compared’ to the ABSOLUTE).
11. What is the Universal “Fixed Design” of the One Monad?
a. The Universal “Fixed Design” is the ‘Pattern at the Beginning’ (of any discrete Cosmos) which is destined to become actualized as the ‘Pattern at the End’ (just before the termination of Cosmos).
b. In a sense the Universal Fixed Design inheres in the ‘RAY’ of the ABSOLUTE as it ‘FLASHES FORTH’ ‘FROM’ the UTLIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE.
c. The Universal Logos ‘Carries’ this Universal Fixed Design within Itself as the Pattern-to-be-Actualized by means of the Universal Process.
d. The Universal Fixed Design is a distinctive Set of Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities isolated from the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE which (perish the mind!) can be ‘conceived!’ of as the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY.
12. Is the One Monad, the Universal Logos, therefore, free or conditioned or determined?
a. The Universal Logos is neither entirely free nor entirely conditioned-determined.
b. The Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities is coeval with the Origination/Appearance of the ‘RAY OF THE ABSOLUTE’. This Set inheres as a ‘Destined Pattern’ within the One Monad. The actualization of this Pattern-as-Cosmos is, therefore, determined and, thus, the One Monad is not ultimately free, for the Destined Pattern is Its Conditioning Program. Out of all the many ‘Acts’ that the One Monad could originate/perform, It is conditioned by the formative Presence of the Destined Pattern inherent within Itself.
c. However, how the Pattern is to be actualized, realized, expressed in-Cosmos, and the time it is to take, is the prerogative of the One Monad, Who is free by means of virtually endless possibilities to unfold the Pattern and finally ‘arrive at’ the Final Consummation of the Destined Pattern how It Will.
d. Therefore the One Monad is conditioned by the Pattern, and all the ‘lesser’ M/monads are conditioned by the ‘lesser pattern of the Pattern’ which inheres within T/them, but are free to ‘work it out’ with each other during the Universal Process. ‘Behind’ this Process, however, there is but One Actor and the seeming ‘multilogue’ is really a monologue.
e. It is therefore proposed that even the One Universal Monad is subject to limitation vis-à-vis the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY. We remember that the One Monad is Limitation Itself, when contrasted with THAT which is THE ULTIMATELY-CONCONCEIVABLE. Paradoxically, however, THE ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE is also, THE INCOMPARABLE, and, therefore, cannot be contrasted with anything (because IT forever IS everything).
f. All M/monads, derivative of the One Monad, are likewise subject to limitation, but are free to conform to the ‘destined lesser pattern of the One Destined Pattern’ they ‘find’ inherent within themselves as they persevere throughout the Universal Process.
13. Does the One Monad have content or is it contentless pure being?
a. The essence of the One Monad is Pure Being—though not the inconceivable PURE BE-NESS which can be predicated of ABSOLUTENESS (which, paradoxically, forever resists all predication).
b. All of universal possibility inheres within the One Monad (even infinite possibility, of a kind) though not the greatest infinitude of possibility.
c. The One Monad is ‘ENDOWED’ with a vast yet ‘limited infinitude’ of ideational possibility, the expression of a ‘portion’ of which is a necessity—all this possibility ‘RECEIVED’ as such, from THE ABSOLUTE. Only a ‘portion’ of this ‘CONFERRED’ Ideational Possibility can actually be expressed, as the One Monad’s Time as an ‘Existent’ is limited. And in any case, no infinitude whether of the greatest magnitude or not, can be expressed in any amount of time, as there would always be more of the infinitude than there would be of time.
The analogy to the tiny life of the human being is suggestive. Even the tiny human life has a potential infinitude of possibilities, but only the tiniest portion of them can actually be expressed in the limited time of an incarnation.d. Of all the limited infinitude of ideational possibility inherent in the Universal Logos and inscrutably ‘CONFERRED’ (“in the Beginning”) by the ABSOLUTE via ITS ‘RAY’, One Set of Actualizable Possibilities is the ‘DESTINED’ Set. Even within a Set of Actualizable Possibilities arranged in (what for the Universal Logos is) Perfect and Unalterable Relationship, there is nevertheless contained a lesser infinitude of unactualizable possibilities (an infinitude of them, in fact, but infinitely many of them trivial and incidental).
If the mind of tiny man can conceived of a multitude of infinitudes simply within its normal process of thinking (such as the infinite set of all odd or even numbers, and numberless other infinite sets within the set of natural numbers), we can be sure that the Universal Logos contains within Its Cosmic Thought numberless infinitudes other that the perfection of the Destined Set of Actualizable Ideational Possibilities ‘CONFERRED’ by THE FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY at the last (cyclically recurring) Dawn of Time.e. This Circumscribed Set of Actualizable Ideational Possibility is the Perfect Seed of each Cosmos.
f. This “Set” is the Archetype of the Universal Fixed Design
g. On the basis of this Seed, the Universal Logos conceives, maintains and expresses, the Universal Fixed Design—the Ideal Pattern of each new Cosmos.
h. The only difference between the Archetype of the Universal Fixed Design which the ABSOLUTE ‘CONFERS’ and the Actual Universal Fixed Design, is that the Universal Logos invests Itself in the Actual Fixed Design by Becoming it—be might say ‘Bodily’. The Universal Logos begins to Embody this Design, Enacting its Pattern within Himself. The Actual Fixed Design and the Universe which follows from it, Is the Universal-Logos-in-Process.
i. Thus, as difficult and filled with paradox as the concept is, there does appear to be a difference between ‘CONFERRED’ PRE-COSMIC IDEATION ‘ARISING’ from THE FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY—and—the Embodiment of that ‘IDEATION’ as that Embodiment occurs in-Cosmos and within the Process of the Universal Logos. The first is given; the second (the Embodiment) is an Act of Will of the Universal Logos acting as Himself.
14. Is the One Monad ‘God’ or should the ABSOLUTE be considered ‘God’ (or more properly ‘GOD’?
a. So much depends upon how we define “God”.
b. If by ‘God’ we mean a finite Entity with specifiable attributes (no matter how great that Being may appear when compared to such beings a man), then we must say that the ‘God’ is the One Monad or Universal Logos—the greatest of all definable Beings.
c. Certainly, if by ‘God’ we mean the Creator or ‘Becomer’ of a finite Universe, then ‘God’ is the One Monad or Universal Logos. At least, this is the way in which the term ‘God’ is used in these discussions.
d. If by the term ‘God’ we attempt to mean THE ABSOLUTE, we have to acknowledge that THE ABSOLUTE cannot be a finite Creator.
e. If we choose this second possibility, we will agree with Spinoza who said in the “Definitions” of his Ethics:
“By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality”.
This is clearly an attempt to define THE ABSOLUTE. How we could know this, or anything about the ABSOLUTE (or even that IT ‘EXISTS’) is, of course, the great and ongoing problem.f. It is clear that THAT-as-‘GOD’ cannot be only the One, because we have defined it as THE ALL. The only sense in which IT IS the One, is that the One must be included in THE ALL.
g. That such an INCONCEIVABLITY does ‘EXIST’ (all words fail, of course), we propose with Spinoza. A “being absolutely infinite” is suggested by the formula ‘∞∞’. But about this ‘WHAT?’ we can legitimately say absolutely nothing (including the statement that we can say absolutely nothing!) And yet we do, perforce. Is it a punishable offence? It once was—by death—we are told by H.P.B..
h. Perhaps, one of the best reasons to engage in such a speculation condemned from the outset to contradiction and futility, is to be able to know at least something about ‘God’ (the Finite ‘God’). In contrast to the UNKNOWABLE, we at least gain some assurance that we can speak something of ‘God’ (the One Monad and Universal Logos) as knowable.
15. Are M/monads divisible or indivisible? In what respect is a M/monad a “simple substance” (as per Leibniz)?
a. A M/monad (of no matter what ‘status’ in terms of its expression) is essentially indivisible. Pure Being has no parts. (One can question whether Pure Being in-Cosmos, is Really ULTIMATE PURE BEING or BE-NESS.) In as sense, even the One Monad is already a compound as it ‘contains’ inherent, though limited, possibility.
b. However difficult it is to solve the degree of simplicity of the One Monad and Its emanative extensions, the vehicles of expression of any M/monad at any ‘depth of prakritic immersion’ are divisible.
c. Thus as a M/monad appears to ‘change’ during the process of ‘emanative extension or retraction’; it is not the essential M/monad itself that changes, but the vibratory frequency of the prakritic boundaries which ‘contain’ the fulness of its being.
16. Are M/monads immaterial?
a. M/monads are immaterial when compared to their sheaths.
b. And each M/monad is relatively immaterial compared to a M/monad it may emanate.
c. What, really, is immateriality? In the ultimate sense immateriality is imperceivability, though we use the term “immaterial” much more loosely.
d. That which is material is perceivable.
e. Further, and more drastically, if anything, ‘x’, is perceivable, it is, by that very fact, material.
f. From this perspective, anything that exists is material.
g. The only true ‘IMMATERIALITY’ is the UNPERCEIVED PERCEIVER—THAT.
h. Since, ultimately in Cosmos, any perception is Self-perception, materiality or materialization can be understood as an act of Self-perception.
i. When a M/monad merely is, it is as immaterial as it can be—in Cosmos.. When it perceives itself, the Self-perception is a materialization.
j. Being is immaterial; consciousness (i.e., ‘seeing’, perception) materializes.
17. Can one M/monad be perceived by another?
a. The vehicles or vibratory extensions of a M/monad can be perceived by another M/monad. There is no problem in this.
b. If the perception of one M/monad by ‘another’ M/monad exists, we would call it ‘registration of another as Self’.
c. Such perception would be an act of Self-recognition, for all M/monads are One Monad. This is not, necessarily, ordinary perception (as explained below).
d. A related question can be framed in another manner: “Can a M/monad perceive itself”? The entire theory of Cosmic Generation proposed in the Radical Infinitist World View, is based upon this dynamic. However when, (by whatever means) a M/monad ‘perceives’ itself, there is a reduction in the fulness of its being. When a M/monad is itself fully, there is no reduction of being.
e. On a more mundane level, we might say that ‘every perception of Self is a reduction of that which is perceived’. This means that ‘Every Self-perception is Self-reduction’.
f. Thus, seeing is an act of limitation.
g. There is, thus, an important difference between ‘seeing’ another and ‘being’ another.
h. If one (as a M/monad) thinks he has ‘seen’ another M/monad, that which he has ‘seen’ is no longer the M/monad in its fulness.
i. But, if by an act of identification (that all-important word), one (as a M/monad) recognizes oneself as being ‘another’, or recognizes ‘another’ as being oneself—then, that act does not reduce the essential nature of the apparent ‘other’.
18. Some anomalies concerning perception:
a. 8-the One Monad, Am, (essentially and in terms of Cosmic Process) the Un-Seen Seer—the Eternal Subject of all perceptions. (It can be asked, futilely, whether 8-the One Monad can be ‘PERCEIVED’ by THAT. Any act predicated of THAT cannot be imagined (except the appearance of the ‘RAY’ –Who knows how?).
Since THE FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY IS THE FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY, there is the possibility that:ii. the One Monad is ‘PERCEIVED’
iii. the One Monad is not ‘PERCEIVED’
iv. the One Monad is both ‘PERCEIVED’ and not ‘PERCEIVED’
v. the One Monad is neither ‘PERCEIVED’ nor not ‘PERCEIVED’
It’s hard to get a definite answer from THAT—and here is a very great problem. With respect to THE INCONCEIVABLE, we human beings can only “hope for the best” (with all the philosophical implications of that phrase).a. Continuing—8 Am rather than Am Not, and 8 Know 8 Am rather than that 8 Am Not.
b. 8 Am a permanent-in-Cosmos immaterial, unperceivable Substantiality, Who will always Be other than what It perceives. The fact most descriptive of Me is simply that 8 Am. My substance is Is-ness. Better, 8 Am dimensionless, unperceivable, substantial Is-ness. 8 Am only ‘be-able’; the Real 8 is not see-able.
c. Fortunately and practically, one can realize that One is another through the heart.
d. The depth of Prakritic Immersion is the degree of perspectival limitation. My only limitation is that which 8 perceive. Perceptions only ‘cover’ Reality. When nothing remains to be perceived (other that My Self), 8 have reached the highest state of liberation achievable in this Universe—infinitely greater lies ‘beyond’ any particular Universe—remember ∞∞!
e. Essentially, 8 Am a Stranger to My own perceptions. 8 Am a Stranger to what 8 ‘see’. And yet, all 8 ‘see’ is 8 as well. Quite a world, is it not?
19. Of what, then, is the One Universal Monad (and all subsequent M/monads) composed?
a. In a sense, the One Monad (and all derivative M/monads) is completely insubstantial (if substance were ‘made of’ matter-perception), and from another perspective, is the One and Only Sub-stance of Cosmos (that which ‘stands’ beneath).
b. If we ask, of what is a M/monad essentially ‘made’, we would have to say, essentially ‘of nothing’, of Itself, alone.
c. A M/monad is simply pure being or pure existence. It simply is, and is simply.
d. The most distinctive feature about a M/monad is that it is rather than is not.
e. The substance of a M/monad (far from being material) is being itself. This may not be an easy concept, as, so often, when we search for the substance of something, we are looking for that which is material-perceivable.
f. The One Monad, essentially, has no vibratory dimensions, no spatial dimensions, no essential qualities (other than the ‘Perfect Set of Ideational Possibilities’), no temporal dimensions (other than the time-limits imposed by the Great Breath). Being is Its one essential dimension. When one looks for the essential substance of the One Monad (or any M/monad), that substance is ‘Is-ness’
g. Searching Cosmos, one cannot find any other thing that is other than the One Monad. All the rest is a delusion ‘covering’, as it were, Its true nature. (Though, let us be reminded, a most necessary delusion!)
h. Monads are essentially unperceivable. All derivative M/monads (derived through the Self-sight of the One Monad), are to the extent they are perceived, un-Real, or at least, less than fully essential.
i. This is why there is only One Monad in all of Cosmos. All the many Self-perceptions of Itself are less Real than Itself, and it is only when the Many are no longer seen, that Reality-in-fulness returns to the awareness of all illusory participants in Cosmos.
j. Self-perception has generated multiplicity and multiplicity is equivalent to the Great Illusion.
k. Thus, aphoristically, seeing robs being of its nature.
l. Perceiving anything other than itself is a veil upon any M/monad. Of course this perception is necessary or there would be no manifested Cosmos (and there must be). Still, the principal veils upon pure M/monadic being are its perceptions of anything other than itself.
m. Even Self-perception is a veil. Only when the One Monad simply is, is it unveiled.
20. Is there a more practical approach to the assessment of materiality and immateriality?
a. In a more practical sense, however, the One Monad in Cosmos is the least material of all cosmic contents (even though these contents derive from the One Monad’s Self-perceptions).
b. Each M/monad is the least material factor in the system which it generates. In the sense here used, “materiality” means density, concretion and limitation.
c. For practical purposes, the M/monad is the ‘Eternal Subject’, the Perceiver, Purusha. Whatever is perceived is always more material than the perceiver. Only when the perceiver becomes the perceived, does that perceiver appear to become material.
d. Even Self-perception is Self-limitation. But Self-being is not.
21. Do M/monads have “extension”?
a. Extension is a perception—a ‘presentation in consciousness’.
b. Extension is a special kind of perception or presentation—one that depends upon the perception of a ‘sphere’ or ‘space’ of consciousness and the apparent filling of that sphere or space with sensory data—especially optical data, but to a certain extent auditory and tactile date.
c. Extension, therefore, is that which apparently ‘takes space’ within the perceived sphere or space of consciousness. Visual data obviously ‘takes space’, and it is to this type of data that the term “extension” most applies. Tactile data, as well, can be inferred as ‘taking space’. Auditory data can be localized in space, and helps the individual orient himself in space.
d. In all this consideration, we must remember that the conviction in consciousness that space exists, is, itself, a kind of perception.
e. M/monads, however, are not, in the ordinary sense, perceivable things.
f. While it may be possible to ‘see’, with inner sense, the vehicles through which M/monads manifest or express, the essential M/monad itself escapes visual detection.
g. The essential M/monad simply is, without having a spatial representation.
h. Must everything that exists be spatially represented? Many things which we think are not spatially represented actually are, and are detectable through inner senses—thoughtforms, for instance.
i. But some aspects of Cosmos are detectable without spatial representation. We might say that they are, in a sense non-localized. Spatial representation is equivalent to localization.
j. Thus, the question, “Where is the M/monad?” cannot be answered in spatial terms. It is both nowhere and everywhere, and both and neither.
k. And yet a M/monad is, and is detectable, or registrable—by ‘another’ M/monad. But unless the perceived M/monad is identified with, the detection or registration is a reduction of the perceived Monad’s essential being.
22. If M/monads have no spatial extension, do they have temporal extension?
a. Spatial extension is one kind of extension; temporal extension is another. Things are—‘for a time’—and then, are not. They seem to ‘extend’ through a certain time period, and then to cease, perhaps later to reappear.
b. Do M/monads have, then, temporal extension?
c. M/monads may appear to have a specifiable temporal extension during the period that they persist at one level of ‘prakritic immersion’. In fact, it is the monadic vehicles which have temporal extension—i.e., which begin and end.
d. The M/monad itself, in its pure essence, simply is for the ‘forever’ of a Cosmos (which is not a true ‘FOREVER’)
e. The M/monad (whether as the One and Only Monad or as its numerously M/monadic extensions) persists throughout the Cosmos.
f. Never is there a time during Cosmos when any M/monad is not—though there are necessarily times when certain kinds of monadic vehicles are not.
g. Even the ‘smallest’ of monads in scope of awareness (i.e., those which seem to appear at some point in the Emanative Process) have always (during Cosmos) been—as inherent aspects of apparently ‘greater’ Monads. But the, so to say, ‘confinement of consciousness’ which characterizes an apparently particular monad has not always been. Before the time of emanation, or, much later, during that time of absorption, at both of which times ‘lesser’ M/monads exist as inherent aspects within ‘greater’ Monads, the ‘lesser’ M/monads have no apparently isolated awareness as later they will have (or as earlier they did have) during the period when they were emanated forth into distinct particularity. The consciousness within the ‘greater’ Monad which includes these aspects (which are destined to be apparently distinct M/monads, or which were apparently distinct M/monads) is one consciousness. This is important. The ‘isolated’ M/monad does not always know how much it is a Monad ‘greater’ than itself. It once knew, and will know again.
Thus, when a M/monad is reabsorbed into its Parent Source, its ‘confined consciousness’ or ‘confined awareness’ no longer exists, but is liberated into the inclusive consciousness of the Parent Source (i.e., into the Consciousness of the more inclusive Monad). The previously ‘confined consciousness’ then realizes that it has always been the consciousness of the ‘greater’ and ‘now-including’ Monad. The limited monadic field which the ‘confined consciousness’ previously informed is now but a recognized lesser aspect of the Greater Including Monad. In short, the consciousness of the previously ‘confined M/monad’ leaves its confinement and recognizes that it has always been a greater consciousness of a greater and more inclusive Monad.h. So, during Cosmos, at least, any M/monad cannot meaningfully be said to have temporal extension, because the essential being of the M/monad endures throughout the entirety of any and all Cosmoses.
i. Thus any M/monad (as an essence) has (during a Cosmos) no particular space and all of cosmic time. However, the fields or vehicles through which an apparently distinct M/monad expresses do have a limited space and have a limited time, but the essential M/monad is simply ‘nowhere’ and ‘everywhere’ in Cosmo, and endures ‘forever’ (as ‘forever’ is understood within Cosmos).
j. Is any M/monad truly ‘FOREVER’? Yes and no. In as much as a M/monad is none other that the ‘RAY’ of the ABSOLUTE, then, “Yes”, the M/monad is, in essence, FOREVER. But, from the cosmic perspective, “No”, for even the One Monad of a Cosmos is an Impermanence and is Self-contained, whereas the ABSOLUTE is BOUNDLESSNESS-in-ETERNAL DURATION—the “BOUNDLESS IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLE”.
23. If M/monads have no extension what accounts for their differences in scope of perception?
a. In Cosmos, every M/monad is, in essence everywhere and universally enduring.
b. Yet, M/monads participating in the Universal Emanative Process seem to be of different scopes—both with regard to consciousness and potency. How is this possible?
c. Simply, that the many M/monads are ‘many degrees of perceptual Self-limitation’. In Cosmos, greater Self-perceptions are surrounded or ‘enveloped’ (as it were) by lesser Self-perceptions.
d. For instance, a Life in Cosmos is, fundamentally, a Self-perception of the One Monad, and the living vehicles through which that Life expresses, are ‘lesser’ Self-perception (in relation to which the Life is a ‘greater’ Self-perception of the One Monad.
e. There is no-thing in Cosmos which is not, fundamentally, a Self-perception of the Universal Monad Itself, or a Self-perception of the Universal Monad via Its emanative extensions. Essentially the One Monad is Its extensions and, thus, ‘works through’ those extensions.
f. The M/monadic ‘envelopes’ limit the range of the M/monad’s perceptions.
g. So, although every M/monad is essentially everywhere (and later, when relieved of its imprisoning environment by means of the processes of abstraction and absorption, will so realize), during Time and Space, that aspect of the M/monad which is subjected to ‘prakritic immersion’ is preoccupied with limitation, and does not fully realize the Cosmos-embracing scope of being/consciousness which is always and ever available to itself in that ‘part’ of itself which did not ‘descend’ into prakritic immersion, because that ‘part’ is always at one with the fulness of the One and Only Monad.
What this means is that any M/monad is always essentially the One Monad which, Itself, never descended into perceptual limitation. Any apparent descent of the One Monad into perceptual limitation is done through the process of emanation. ‘Perceptual limitation’ is ‘prakritic immersion’.h. We remember that there is (paradoxically) a ‘part’ of the essentially-impartite M/monad which never ‘descended’ into Self-limitation, and a ‘part’ which did. This is, in a sense, the story of the “Prodigal Son” who went forth into a “far country”. His brother stayed “at home” and remained, as it were, “one with the Father”. In this way, all M/monads, other than the One Monad are always two, though, of course, essentially one.
i. That ‘part’ which never descended, is forever ‘at Home’, not only with the One and Only Universal Monad, but as that One Universal Monad.
j. The paradox is profound, but its intuitive understanding will reveal one of the most fundamental tenets of Cosmos-generation through Emanation.
24. What is the origin of the many monads other than the One Monad?
a. The many M/monads emanate from the One Monad—the Universal Logos.
b. They are of the same essence as the One Monad, but are increasingly limited as regards their perception of the entirety of that which the One Monad perceives.
25. How can a simple substance, like the One Monad, even act—especially, act upon Itself?
a. This is a profoundly difficult question.
b. If the One Monad, in essence, has no ‘parts’, and is essentially, Pure Identity, Pure Being, what is there, as it were, ‘within It’ that can move or act?
c. Perhaps it can be said that the One Universal Monad (though essentially ‘PURE BEING’ (i.e., BE-NESS), cannot be (in-Cosmos, at least) ‘PURE BEING’ (BE-NESS).
d. Inherent within the One Monad as potentials (and derived from THE UNFATHOMABLE BE-NESS) are all powers and faculties to be unfolded within the span of the Cosmos which the One Monad will Self-generate.
e. We might say of the One Monad, therefore, that it is the Purest Possible Beingness in Cosmos (remembering that perfectly PURE BE-NESS is not possible in Cosmos), and the Totality of All Cosmically-Possible Faculty.
f. The most fundamental of all Faculties inherent within the One Monad is Consciousness itself.
g. With regard to the One Monad, we might say: Pure Being, It is. Consciousness, It has.
h. And inherent ‘within’ Consciousness is the Power to Move/Apply Consciousness with respect to Itself (i.e., with respect to the One Monad). Hence, within the One Monad is the Power to Act (of course, upon Itself, as there is no ‘Other’).
i. The first ‘Act’ of the Universal Logos is to be fully conscious of Itself, thus ‘seeing’ Itself, and by that ‘Act’, generating objectivity.
j. The next ‘Act’ (which is the beginning of many similar subsequent ‘Acts’) is to ‘move’ Consciousness from contemplation of entirety to contemplation of partiality—which simply means, to focus Consciousness in such as way as to reveal less and less of the Universal Logos’ Original Self.
k. Through the instrumentality of these two Foundational Faculties, all other inherent (i.e., ‘CONFERRED’) Faculties can be brought forth into Universal Logoic Embodiment.
l. It is Consciousness which allows It (the One Monad) to transform Itself into an Object. From the first, it is already the One and Only Subject.
m. The Universal Logos, then, is initially a Subject without an Object. By utilizing inherent Consciousness and Movement It Self-reflects, and thus ‘becomes’ an Object as well.
26. With what kinds of possibility is the One Monad/Universal Logos ‘PRESENTED’? What are the implications of this ‘PRESENTATION’ for freedom and its opposite?
a. From the ‘ABSOLUTE’ is ‘BESTOWED’-into-Finitude or ‘CARRIED’-into-Finitude (through the ‘FLASHING FORTH’ of the PRIMEVAL RAY), an Idea of All Cosmic Possibility—which is, in fact, a very limited range of possibility.
b. All Cosmic Possibility is, itself, a limitation upon ALL POSSIBILITY.
c. All Cosmic Possibility is, indeed, an infinitude of possibilities, but it is an infinitely lesser infinitude than the INFINITUDE of ALL POSSIBILITY inherent ‘within’ THE FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY. This is an important statement.
d. Further, within a Finite Cosmos, even all the possibilities of the Set of All Cosmic Possibility, cannot be actualized in Cosmic Time. The One Monad cannot negate the Compulsion of Extra-Cosmic Time ‘enforced’ by the GREAT BREATH.
e. It is the PRIMAL ‘BESTOWAL’ from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY (namely, from the ABSOLUTE via the ‘RAY’ OF THE ABSOLUTE) which ‘contains’ the full range of Actualizable Possibility from which ‘God’ the Universal Logos can ‘work’
f. This freedom in the face of a Limited Infinitude, is the one kind of freedom possessed by the One Monad.
g. The Universal Logos is free only to this extent.
h. It is not free to determine with which Set of Actualizable Possibilities it is ‘BESTOWED’ by the NAMELESS ONE OF INFINITE NAMES (the INSCRUTABLE-INCONCEIVABLE).
(Why, however, should the Universal Logos need such a freedom, for It realizes Itself to be THE ABSOLUTE. It realizes that the dynamics of the ‘BESTOWAL’ ‘OCCURRED’ when It (the Universal Logos) was infinitely more potentized as the ABSOLUTE.i. The One Monad/Universal Logos is not free to determine the Primary Mode by which a Universe can be set in motion—namely through Emanative Self-Perception. (At least, so it seems to us.) If from a One there is to be a Many, that Many can only be Self-generated from the One. (Perhaps this is a special case pertaining only to this Cosmos but, given things as they appear to be, it seems a necessary case.)
j. But, It (the One Monad) is free, in Its choice of how to actualize the Set of Destined Ideational Possibilities (a definite Configuration of Destined Relationships which inevitably ‘contains’ within its structure a limited infinitude of possibilities ‘PRESENTED’ by THAT—the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY).
k. It is intuitively objectionable to conceive of a Universe in which the One and Only Creator is not, to a degree, free. But it is illogical to imagine that the One Creator (Who is a mere Finitude deprived of access to TOTAL INFINITUDE) can be totally or infinitely free. The One Monad/Creator/Universal Logos cannot, for instance, bridge the gulf between Itself as a Finite Being and the ABSOLUTE—the INFINITELY INFINITE until the ‘Universal Day Be With Us’.
l. Clearly we are here speaking of things of which one cannot speak with hope of accuracy, and, perhaps, should not speak. But the very effort so to speak contains the possibility of breaking into a perception of Reality customarily denied by the present level of Prakritic Immersion of the human monad.)
m. We will hypothesize the existence of that within this ‘TRANSFERRED’ Ideation (from the ‘REALM OF ALL POSSIBLE IDEATION’ and inherent within the One Monad), which guides the One Monad in Its choices. Let us call it the Set of All Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities. This Set might be likened to a kind of Algorithmic ‘Code’ which sets forth the Universal Fixed Design—That which is ‘INTENDED’ by THAT which ‘CONFERRED’ it.
n. Perhaps there is a Mode in which such ‘Universe-Generating’ has been Done forever, and perhaps all Universal Logoi proceed (at first) in the same or similar manner. This we cannot know, and maybe, it is unknowable even by a Universal Logos, Whose ‘Memory’ would have to be infinitely long and complete to know it (which is impossible for a Finite Being).
o. But it is important to realize that the One Monad/Universal Logos (no matter how relatively infinite It may seem to human beings), is not infinite at all and that the possibilities inherent within It are only finitely infinite. The One Monad is ‘possessed’ only of a limited infinitude of possibilities within the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities. Further, It Labors under the compulsion of the GREAT INEXORABLY-RHYTHMIC BREATH. And though It can conceive of more infinitudes than any of Its Self-generated M/monads can conceive, it cannot conceive of an infinitude of infinitudes, nor can it (in the Time to which It is limited) actualize but a tiny portion of the infinitudes that It can conceive. That ‘portion’ is crystallized in the Set of Destined, Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities.
p. Of course the One Monad is free to conceive of numberless ‘sub-infinitudes’ within the limited portion of ALL POSSIBILITY ‘PRESENTED’ to It, but the Cosmic Task of the One Monad is to actualize/be/become/embody the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities, rather than to dwell upon all the many ‘sub-infinitudes’ of possibilities which can be found within that Destined Set.
q. The One Monad or Universal Logos is a finite ‘God’ limited to the contemplation of lesser infinitudes. During the span of Cosmos, the GREATEST OF ALL INFINITUDES lies infinitely beyond the One Monad’s scope. That even these lesser infinitudes must be stupendous in nature, can be construed by realizing that even man can conceive of a great variety of infinitudes within his own very limited world.
27. If the One Monad/Universal Monad is, to a degree, free, in what respect is It free? In what respect is It not free?
a. The One Monad/Universal Logos is free to ‘Set Up’ (or Choose to Become) an Archetypal World—the World of Being which, during Cosmos, will ‘hover over’ the World of Becoming or Mosaic World of ignorance, individualism and fragmentation (qualities which apply to that lower world until it is redeemed in the second part of the Universal Process).
b. We cannot know (nor can any Universal Logos ‘Know’) if the Archetypal Worlds of an infinitude of Universal Logoi were similarly or identically structured.
c. The One monad is not free to choose from the infinitudes of possibilities with which It is not ‘ENDOWED’. It is not free to Conceive the ‘INCONCEIVABLE’. Even to It (Who is the Greatest Definite One—at present), the INCONCEIVABLE BE-NESS is, in fact, inconceivable.
d. Thus, the One Monad/Universal Monad (just like any other M/monad) is free within the range of Its own present ignorance.
e. The One Monad is free within every one of its Self-generated Self-perceptions according to the limited scope of a particular ‘Self-generated Self-perception’. Each Self-generated Self-perception is, of course, an emanatively derived M/monad.
28. Why insist that ‘God’, the Universal Logos should have some degrees of freedom? Why not conceive It as a ‘Son of Strict Necessity’?
a. It seems necessary to choose between a ‘God’ Who is free within limits, and One Who is compelled in every particular and in every act by Inherent Law. If Law results from Will—from whence came this Law? That will be an eternal problem.
b. It seems illogical to deny ‘God’ the One Monad, that which we (and every M/monad), who are but emanative derivatives of the One Monad, possess.
c. We M/monads possess freedom within the confines of our own ignorance. We are not utterly determined beings. Our will, our power of choice is free within constraints.
d. Whence came this freedom if the One of Whom we are merely an emanation does not possess it?
e. Just as we have ‘within’ us an Archetypal Pattern or Fixed Design which can guide us as we exercise our limited freedom, so the same is conceivable of ‘God’, the One Monad or Universal Logos.
f. We hypothesize, therefore, that it is unlikely that the One Monad functions without reference to (and, even, obedience to) ‘CONFERRED’ PRE-COSMIC IDEATION—which is that ‘BESTOWAL’-as-Bestowal which ‘APPEARED’ from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY.
g. But from the perspective of a limited creation of the One Monad (such as man is), it seems unjust, to insist that this One ‘God’ or Monad is compelled to perform in every particular and in every act exactly as a ‘BESTOWED’ Algorithmic Directive would demand.
h. Further (admitting the huge and almost laughable limitations of anthropocentric arguments) it would seem tediously uninteresting for the One God (Himself a ‘RAY’-as-Ray of the ABSOLUTE), to be compelled to do anything.
i. Such a state of affairs would, as it were, ‘take the fun out of Cosmos’. And we, as emanations and Self-reflections would also be deprived of our spontaneity.
j. If the Universal Logos/One Monad acts in accordance with, or in obedience to, the ‘BESTOWAL’ via the ‘RAY’—which is hypothesized as the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities, then, we propose that It does so because It realizes that It is, essentially and after all, the ‘BESTOWER’. There is no external compulsion. There would be, rather, a full embrace of a Self-as-SELF-‘CHOSEN’ Destiny.
29. Examination of three possibilities concerning the one and only kind of EXTRA-COSMIC ‘HAPPENING’:
a. For the sake of fair argument and to open the consideration to alternative possibilities (since we as human beings cannot know how it really was/is), we would be well advised to objectively examine the intuitive appeal of the following primordial possibilities:
i. The possibility that the ‘RAY’ which ‘FLASHED FORTH’ from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY ‘CARRIED’ the ‘FIAT’: thus it shall be.
ii. The possibility that the ‘RAY’ which ‘FLASHED FORTH’ from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY ‘CARRIED’ ‘INJUNCTION’: thus it should be.
iii. The possibility that the ‘RAY’ which ‘FLASHED FORTH’ from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY ‘CARRIED’ ‘ALLOWANCE’: thus it may be.
b. Perhaps every type of human mind will have its own preference—its own idea of that which is most intuitively appealing. There is no way to say what is right and wrong in reference to these possibilities.
c. The first possibility takes all freedom from the One Monad. There will be for It no free choices about the structure of the Cosmos-to-Come. The full range of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities is set forth in completeness, and ‘God’ has but to obey. Since the Universal Logos would not be ignorant of the structure of these possibilities, It has but to enact them implicitly, and really has no choice to do otherwise. The Universal Logos, then, would be free to will only that which It must.
From the human perspective, some of the ‘sting’ is taken from this option by our recognition that the Universal Logos realizes that the ‘PRESENTED’ Fixed Design (the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities) is Really Its Own.
If, however, we wish to find what we human beings usually call freedom, we encounter an irony in the realization that in this scenario the Universal Logos would not be free within Itself, but would, in fact, be free through ignorance. Because of Emanative Self-extension, each succeeding M/monadic Self-reflection would be further limited in Self-awareness and further removed from the ‘FIAT’, and would thus be free to misunderstand it, disobey it, ignore it or, etc. This is freedom through oblivion, or the freedom to be ignorant. This kind of freedom would, of course, always exist when Emanative Self-Extension is operative, but in this first possibility, it is the only obvious freedom.
With respect to this first scenario, the way for to salvage the freedom of the One Monad is, as suggested above, through recourse to the thought that the One Monad already and forever Is the INCONCEIVABLE BE-NESS. Then whatever ‘ISSUED FORTH’ from that BE-NESS in terms recognized as a ‘FIAT’ would, in fact, be Self-generated (conceiving the One Monadic Self as the SELF that, somehow, ‘DID’ the ‘GENERATING’) Thus the freedom of the Universal Logos is salvaged through the expedient of saying, in effect, ‘8 do not appear to be free, but 8 am, because 8-as-I ‘CONCEIVED’ the Design’. In short, as a human being might say, “I really am free because I did it to myself!”.d. The second possibility allows freedom of choice to the One Monad, but offers, as it where, ‘GUIDANCE’ from the INSCRUTABLE SOURCE. A Set of Possibilities is ‘PRESENTED’ to the ‘ABSOLUTE-Become-Universal Logos’, but even though the Set of Possibilities ‘PRESENTED’ is a limited set, it is still an infinite set containing many infinities within it.
(The possibilities of greater and lesser infinitudes is mathematically acceptable, according to the work of Georg Cantor on Transfinite Mathematics, and is not so much nonsense as it may first seem)
From this perspective, the Universal Logos would Know that out of the Set of All Universal Possibilities ‘PRESENTED’ to It by the SET OF ABSOLUTELY ALL POSSIBILITIES, one Finite Set of Possibilities is ‘INTENDED’. We have been calling this Set the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities (but in scenario two, this Set would not be rigidly destined).
This would be the guidance which the Universal Logos would be free to follow, realizing, of course, that such ‘GUIDANCE’ was Its-Own Guidance—for what is the Universal Logos, in essence, but the ABSOLUTE, ITSELF.
With this second scenario, there would be for the Universal Logos complete freedom within limits, and yet the ‘PRESENTATION’ of an internalized Archetypal Pattern ‘Inherited’ from the SOURCE OF ALL POSSIBLE PATTERNS. There would, however, be no insistence that That Particular Pattern be the One Actualized during the Universal Process.e. The third possibility or scenario is an ‘ALLOWANCE’. A Set of All Cosmic Possibilities (a Limited Infinitude) is ‘PRESENTED’, and no guidance is offered. The Universal Logos is completely and utterly free to creates It’s Own “Fixed Design” by choosing for actualization, any of the limited infinitude of ‘PRESENTED’ possibilities.
To the author, this scenario has less intuitive appeal than either of the other two, because it seems to rob the impending Universe of purposefulness in relation to the ABSOLUTENESS from which It ‘AROSE’. Anything could happen in the coming Cosmos.
”In the Beginning”, something, we know, ‘HAPPENED’. We don’t know what, why or how—only that Something ‘DID HAPPEN’. Perhaps, because we are human, we think that there must have been a ‘REASON’ for this ‘HAPPENING’—that ‘WITHIN’ the INFINITESSENCE, the FOREVER-INSCRUTABLE-TO-ALL ABSOLUTE, a ‘HAPPENING’ ‘OCCURRED’ which ‘RELATED’ what ‘HAPPENED’ to why IT ‘HAPPENED’. This, pitiable as it seems, is the human faith. The faith is that the ‘HAPPENING’ (which has forever cyclically ‘HAPPENED’) was, in human terminology and according to human conception, ‘PURPOSEFUL’—or at least of a NATURE INFINITELY GOOD. (Of course words fail.) Thus, one intuitively seeks for a link between the PRIMORDIAL ‘HAPPENING’ and the Universal Logos that ‘RESULTED’ from the ‘HAPPENING’. One seeks to see the Universal Logos as the intra-cosmic Carrier of ‘THAT WHICH HAPPENED’. One seeks to think that the ONLY ONE would not ‘WASTE ITS TIME’ ‘FLASHING FORTH’ a Universe that could become just about Anything.
If there were no inherent ‘INTENT’ from THAT, the Universal Logos (strange as it may seem—by definition, living in a state of infinite ignorance with respect to ALL POSSIBILITY) would have nothing inherent as a guide. What would determine the many choices to come?
Perhaps those who love risk would say, “What a great Universe!. It’s all left up to ‘Me’ (for ‘I’-as-8) am the Universal Logos, just as ‘I’-as-8-as I am THAT.
Other might think that even ‘God’ needs a Guiding Conscience!
Thus, to the author, this third scenario lacks integrity. It creates an insuperable gap of ignorance between the ABSOLUTE and what has been called the “Son of Necessity”—the One Monad/Universal Logos/’God’.
Each unitary B/being needs guidance (even ‘God’), because the fact that It is a unitary, definite and identifiable thing or specificity, means that it is infinitely removed from the ABSOLUTE which is its inevitable goal—“at the ‘End’.”
The Antahkarana ‘stretching’ from the Finite to the INFINITE would be the greatest of all Antahkaranas, but there is no assurance that it ever was created or could be, because it would destroy the intended Finitude of Cosmos.
It seems to the author that the return to ABSOLUTE INFINITUDE is no gradual Antahkaranic Process, but a sudden and complete de-substantiation at the Conclusion of every Cosmos. Without some ‘INTENT’ from THAT, even the Universal Logos might not ‘Know’ when “It was all over”.
Therefore, at least to have some Guiding Presence representing the INSCRUTABLE WILL OF THE ABSOLUTE seems most intuitively appealing. Otherwise (again in anthropomorphic terms) we run the risk of having a ‘misguided’ Universal Logos.
30. A preferred solution with respect to the EXTRA-COSMIC ‘HAPPENING’.
a. The author’s choice is something of a blend between possibility one and possibility two.
b. There is an argument which favors the idea that the ‘CHOICE’ ‘MADE’ concerning ‘what kind of a Universe it shall be’, was ‘MADE’ within the INSCRUTABLE INCONCEIVABILITY. More reasonably, we can hypothesize that the CHOICE was not a Choice made within Cosmos.
c. If the One Monad were ‘PRESENTED’ with a limited infinitude of possibilities, but were
i) obliged to choose between them, even though one set of such possibilities were ‘FAVORED’; or were
ii) ‘PRESENTED’ with a limited infinitude of possibilities to choose from without there being a ‘DESTINED’ Set; or if
iii) the One Monad were not presented with a limited infinitude of possibility but, rather, had all possibility to choose from—
then, a problem of the incommensurability of an infinitude of acts within a finite time would arise.d. Because the One Monad is proposed as a Finite Being, and because, in such a case, the Universe would have a finite duration (if the Second Fundamental of the Secret Doctrine, the Law of Periodicity, were to be respected), the very process of, shall we say, ‘reviewing the possibilities’—the One Monad’s Meditative Act “at the Beginning”, could not be fully performed, because every act of a finite being (even the Universal Logos) takes a finite amount to time.
e. If the Universal Logos were presented with all possibilities from the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY, the stated problem is easily seen. In a Finite Universe there would simply be no time to consider them all. Acts in Time take time.
f. If, however, the Universal Logos were not presented with all possibilities, but only some possibilities from which to choose, even within this Set of Some Possibilities, there would inhere or be concealed numberless infinitudes which had to be considered.
If tiny man (beholding the perceptual objects within the limited domain of his thought) can conceive of many infinite sets and an infinitude of possible combination within them and between them) then how much more true is this of the Universal Logos? (Vastly more true, but not infinitely more true!)g. For the consideration of the numberless infinitudes concealed within such a ‘Presented Set of Possibilities’ (‘DERIVED’ from the ABSOLUTE INFINITUDE OF POSSIBILITY of the FOUNT)—for even this consideration, the Universal Logos would have insufficient time.
h. The validity of this entire argument hinges of the assertion that the Universal Logos (being a specifiable Being) is finite.
i. The conclusion is: the ‘CHOICE’ regarding what is hypothesized to appear “in the Beginning” as the ‘Destined Set of Actualizable Possibilities’ for any one Universe, ‘OCCURRED’ ‘WITHIN’ THAT—THE ABSOLUTE, ‘when’ Time was not.
j. Attempting the doomed task of saying anything about this ‘CHOICE’, we might say that only in a STATE OF UTTER TIMELESSNESS could such a ‘CHOICE’ be ‘MADE’.
k. An implication to be derived from this conclusion is: ‘God’ has guidance—though, of course, the guidance comes from Itself, as ‘God’ knows that It is REALLY only THE ABSOLUTE.
l. We are saying that the Design for the present Cosmos ‘COMES FORTH’ from the ABSOLUTE DEITY by ‘PROCESSES’ utterly and forever unknown to any specifiable Being in Cosmos (including the Universal Logos). However, the Universal Logos knows, at least (just as we believe we know) that the Presented Design is essentially ‘His Own Design’ and proceeds to enact it by being it and becoming it.
m. Thus it is proposed that the Universal Logos is not exactly compelled (as in scenario one); the Logos would still have choice to fulfill the ‘PRESENTED’ Design or not to fulfill it, and choice about how, in detail, to fulfill it. It is, however, proposed that the Universal Logos would realize that the ‘BESTOWAL’ of the Set of Actualizable Possibilities, was indeed and in fact, Perfectly-Related and ‘DESTINED’ for actualization-in-Cosmos—‘DESTINED’ by Himself-as-THE ABSOLUTE, and that the ‘BESTOWAL’ was, in fact, His Own ‘FIAT’/‘INJUNCTION’—thus a ‘FIAT’/‘INJUNCTION’ to be voluntarily obeyed because its true nature and origin would be realized by the Universal Logos.
n. The bridge between scenarios one and two is made through the Universal Logoic Realization that He is, essentially, THE SOURCE of the ‘FIAT’/‘INJUNCTION’. Thus, in effect, we have something less than an absolute ‘FIAT’ and more than an ‘INJUNCTION’ which almost certainly shall be and, indeed, should be.
o. Thus, more colloquially, we get the Universe we have ‘INTENDED’ from the ‘START-as-Start’, and are free within limits regarding how we shall embody it, sustain it and bring it to fruition. The only “wild-card” is ignorance (with all its unpredictability) caused by ‘Emanative Self-Veiling’. Ignorance makes the Universe a ‘Game’ rather than a Flawless Performance.
31. If the One Monad is essentially indivisible, how can it divide Itself into many monads?
a. The essence of the One Monad is indivisible. It appears to divide itself by a decision or willful refusal to behold only its own Self-entirety.
b. ‘Division’, thus, is an act of limited Self-beholding.
c. Each ‘lesser’ M/monad is of the same essence as the One Monad, and, in fact, is identical with it, except that the ‘lesser’ M/monad is a more limited scope Self-beholding when compared to the Great Self-beholding (which is always sustained by the One Monad on the highest level of Cosmos).
32. Why does the One Monad ‘divide’ Itself?
a. The One Monad is the ‘RAY’ of the ABSOLUTE
b. The One Monad appears ‘OUT’ of the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE with a ‘SELF-DECIDED’ Ideal Pattern to be Created (or, rather, ‘Become’). The Ideal Pattern (“Fixed Design”) is to be actualized—i.e., rendered Self-perceivable (perceivable by the One Monad as ‘within’ Itself). The method of this ‘Creation’, ‘Becoming’, Actualization—call it what you will—is by means of Emanation.
c. All patterns, by definition, are by their very nature hierarchical in as much as they are based upon a relationship between greater and lesser, even if the greater is simply the entirety of the pattern considered as a whole. If a pattern does not have parts (i.e., ‘lessers’) it is not a pattern.
d. The ‘SELF’-‘DECIDED’, Self-Acknowledged Task of the One Monad is to Express this Ideal Pattern ( i.e., Its inherent potentials). The expression/actualization of this Inherent Pattern of potentials requires subdivision—for the Ideal Pattern (the “Fixed Design”) is based upon the greater and the lesser, and so the Cosmos to be ‘Become’ must evidence a greater and a lesser. The ‘Act of Subdivision’ is the only way of creating a lesser from a greater.
e. Self-division through Emanation is the method by which ‘INTENDED’ Universal Possibilities inherent in the ‘INTENDED’ Pattern are actualized.
f. The method of Emanation is required, because only through Emanation can the One Monad apparently divide Itself and, yet, remain undivided, completely and inseparably Itself.
g. The Divine Algorithm/Divine Pattern/”Fixed Design” inherent in an One Monad (since any one of the infinitude of ‘Beginnings’) is achieved through the emanative generation of hierarchically-ordered multiplicity.
h. Thus, to generate-emanate a Universe through apparent Self-division is the programme of the One Monad, ‘DECIDED’ ‘WITHIN’ the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE. The ‘DESIGN’ for the Programme ‘ORIGINATES’ ‘WITHIN’ the ONE, but is executed through emanative ‘Self-division’ in-Cosmos, within the internal dynamics of the One Monad.
33. What are the major dynamics of Emanative Self-Division?
a. Emanative ‘Self-division’ is a Cosmic-Monadic Intra-Psychic Act. (I do not refer to the cosmic monadic plane as it may be discussed in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire). There is no externality to it—only internality. This apparent ‘Self-division’ all occurs ‘within’ the Self-Conscious Being of the One Monad.
b. Emanative ‘Self-division’ is accomplished by the One Monad through a willful narrowing or limiting of Self-perception. The One Monad ‘extends’ Itself into states of reduced Self-perception by progressively recognizing Itself as, apparently, less and less.
c. By this ‘narrowing’ or ‘limiting Self-perception’ it ‘Creates’/‘Becomes’ the major Universal Aspects of Itself and (by means of the self-perceptions of the various tiers of M/monads It emanates) It ‘Creates’/’Becomes’ the minor Aspects of Itself as well.
d. From Itself (alone), It ‘Becomes’ (whether sequentially or simultaneously) the Three Aspects of the Universal Trinity.
e. Each of the Three Aspects is a Primary ‘Sub-Universal’ Monad (of the highest rank, next to the One Monad)
f. This Trinity of Primary Sub-Universal Monads, ‘Become’ through Emanation (whether sequentially or simultaneously) the Seven Secondary Sub-Universal Monads—the Universal Septenate, and yet the Trinity of Primary Sub-Universal Monads remains exactly Itself.
g. The Septenate of Secondary Sub-Universal Monads (supported by the participatory Self-perceptions of the Trinity of Primary Sub-Universal Monads) ‘Becomes’ the next (Tertiary) Universal Aspectual Sub-Division (perhaps the Twelve, or perhaps the Forty-Nine).
h. The Emanative Process continues (proceeding through the Laws of the One Monad’s Ideal Archetypal Structure) through sequentially succeeding phases, ‘Generating’/‘Becoming ever larger groups of progressively-lesser Sub-Universal Monads
i. The Process we are describing can be thought of as occurring within what might be called the Archetypal World (the World of Being) which is based upon the “Fixed Design” inherent within the One Monad and ‘DERIVED’ from the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE—the truest “ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID”.
j. Each Sub-Universal Monad (whether or the Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, ‘Quaternary’, ‘Pentenary’, ‘Sextenary’, Septenary, etc. category) is endowed with the power to emanate. Emanations may proceed successively—with each successive Number-Being deriving-emanating from the numerically-preceding Number-Being; or Emanation may proceed from cooperative Groups of Number-Beings, Who together and simultaneously Emanate the next Sub-Universal Category of Number Beings. (Practical Example: Does the Being known as the ‘Three’ emanate the ‘Four’, and the ‘Four’ the ‘Five’, etc.; or do the Beings known as the ‘One’, ‘Two’ and ‘Three’—together—emanate the ‘Four’, ‘Five’, ‘Six’ and ‘Seven’—together? Both methods are possibilities and would proceed by different Emanative Dynamics) (For an elaborated discussion, please see Infinitization of Selfhood.)
k. For each type of Emanation, however, a willfully reduced scope of ‘Self-sight’ would be the method of ‘Creating’/‘Becoming’ the next-lesser Number-Being. According to this hypothesis, to ‘see’ oneself as less than fully oneself is to become (also) ‘another’—other than oneself; or, similarly, to perceive oneself as less than fully oneself is to exist (also) as ‘another’—other than oneself; or, for these Sub-Universal Number-Beings, to ‘see’ Oneself (not as one is, but as less than one fully is) is to ‘create’ an aspect of Oneself which is less than the entirety of Oneself—without, however, destroying or essentially compromising the entirety of Oneself.
l. Looked at in another way, during the process by which a M/monad ‘sees’ itself as ‘less’ (by doing so apparently ‘creating’ another ‘lesser’ being or M/monad) the original M/monad has not discontinued ‘seeing’ itself in its entirety—by means of which it has ‘created’ its own objective or ‘mother’ state.
m. To ‘see’ oneself as one fully is, is not an emanation. To ‘see’ oneself as ‘less’ than one full is, is an emanation. This is an important, though subtle, distinction
n. The successive reductions of S/self through S/self-sight can be said to focus on hierarchically-arranged, progressive-reduced Facets or Aspects of the Inherent Fixed Design—an unfathomable EXTRA-COSMIC ‘DESIGN’ ‘INHERITED’ as a intra-cosmic Design, from the ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE by means of the ‘RAY’ which ‘FLASHED FORTH’ at the Beginning (one of an endless series of ‘Beginnings’).
o. The Universe/Cosmos, therefore, gradually appears through certain successive ‘Acts’ of the One Monad—i.e., through a successive series of refusals to ‘see’ Itself as It is in Its Entirety—even while continuing to ‘see’ Itself as It is in Its Entirety. Such ‘Acts’ would require simultaneous, multi-leveled ‘Vision’ or Self-perception. This type of self-replication may even be possible to man. (cf. TCF 1192-1194)
p. These ‘Acts’ require that the One Monad (and all Its Successors) both hold established Self-sight and reduce established Self-sight simultaneously.
q. In more familiar terms, such Emanative Acts requires that the One Monad see Itself simultaneously as the One and, yet, each and all of the Many—each of the Many being identical with the One Monad yet reduced in the scope of its S/self-perception (i.e., apperception). This is true, in degree, of each lesser M/monad who replicates the Self-sight process of the One Monad.
r. At a certain point in the Emanative Process the Archetypal World is complete. The process of Emanation continues—lesser Monads from greater Monads—until the Monads Who come forth should more properly be denominated as “monads”. It is these monads who, as it were, leave the World of Being (the Archetypal World) and enter the World of Becoming.
s. The human monad is such a monad.
34. Does the One Monad evolve?
a. In the Sense that the One Monad is Really the ‘RAY’ OF THE ABSOLUTE (and, thus, in a sense, THE ABSOLUTE, ITSELF) It does not evolve. The ABSOLUTE, TRUE INFINITY, THE EVER-COMPLETE, THE UNFATHOMABLE, THE ULTIMATELY INCONCEIVABLE, is PERFECTION ITSELF. (Even if {as the FOUNT OF ALL POSSIBILITY} IT includes the possibility that IT is imperfect, that very fact would be an indication of ITS PERFECTION—or TOTAL COMPLETION.)
b. The, Essence of the One Monad (which Essence is THE ESSENCE), does not, evolve, as nothing can be added to It/IT or taken from It/IT, nor can it be multiplied or divided. It is meaning less to perform any mathematical operation upon ∞∞.
c. The One Monad, per se, as the One Cosmic Being, also, does not evolve. It becomes no better as a result of the Self-emanated Universal Process, because essentially the One Monad is THE IT, and THE IT is already-and-forever ALL IT CAN BE.
d. Also there is no endless progress of evolving Universal Monads, because if there were such progress, any Universal Monad would have an infinitude of evolutionary progress anterior to Its present state, and thus would always-and-ever be infinitely evolved (whatever that can mean in terms of form) and, therefore, incapable of expression as a limited Existence. In a sense, each Universal Monad would be the ABSOLUTE (in ITS ENTIRETY) and, thus, the very Existence of the Universal Monad would be negated.
e. Universal Monads (Universal Logoi) are, therefore, non-evolving, Self-demonstrating Beings, objectifying Their full potentials to Themselves. They Self-reflect; They do not evolve. They are no better than they are. They are always Complete–in-Themselves for the duration of the Cosmos through which They manifest. Their ultimate value is established from the “Beginning” and endures until the “End”.
f. If for the One Monad, evolution is taken to mean “achieved Self-expression”, then the One Monad can be said to evolve, but in this process of Self-expression One Monad’s ESSENCE does not change, improve—i.e., evolve.
35. Does a M/monad (not the One Universal Monad) evolve?
a. A M/monad, also, can be no better than it is.
b. But a M/monad can be maximally expressive of its inherent ‘pattern-within-the Pattern’.
c. By holding its position within the Hierarchy of Emanated M/monads, a M/monad has, as it were, ‘distanced itself’ from the Ultimate Universal Pattern.
d. Also each M/monad has the task of objectifying-to-itself its inherent Ideal Pattern or Fixed Design—always a part of the Universal Ideal Pattern—the Set of Destined Perfectly-Related Actualizable Possibilities.
e. If evolution is taken to mean “achieved S/self-expression”, then a M/monad can be said to evolve, but in this process of S/self-expression the M/monad’s Spirit Essence (which is none other than THE ESSENCE) does not change, improve—i.e., evolve.
f. If evolution means ‘returning from whence it came’, then each M/monad does return to its original ‘position’ in the Archetypal World of Being along a line of what might be called ‘Emanative Retraction’ (in contrast with its line of outgoing which can be called ‘Emanative Extension’), but such a return is not really a betterment, an improvement or, thus, an evolution.
g. If ‘making the potential actual’ is considered evolution, then all M/monads (and even the One Monad) could be said to evolve, but the capacity generated during a Universal Process can never be an addition to the Essential Nature of the Universal Monad (Who is essentially the ABSOLUTE ESSENCE-via-ITS ‘RAY’), nor an addition to the Essential Nature of any M/monad (which is simply the ‘One-Monad-in-Emanative-Extension’, and thus, again, really THE ESSENCE). All possible capacities which could possibly be generated in a Universal Process, already inhere in fullness within the ABSOLUTE, the ‘INFINITESSENCE’. Such capacities were never ‘missing’, and so their apparent generation is not really an addition to the capacity of any M/monad or even of the One Monad which, let it be reaffirmed, does not evolve from Cosmos to Cosmos.
36. If the One Monad (and Its M/monadic extensions) do not evolve, what is the point of the entire Universal Process? Is the Universal Process, then, not a limiting, tedious, stultifying performance?
a. The nature of the ABSOLUTE is already-and-forever INFINITIZED BLISS.
b. THE ABSOLUTE as the SYNTHESIS-OF-ALL-POSSIBLE-SYNTEHSES ‘DWELLS’ forever in ITS INDESCRIBABLY ‘ULTIMATIZED’, ‘INFINITIZED’ STATE—PURE BE-NESS.
c. This BLISS ‘UNDERLIES’, nay, IS, everything forever. No improvement upon ULTIMATELY-INCONCEIVABLE INFINITIZED BLISS is possible.
d. The Universe periodically occurs so that ‘CONTRADICTION’ may be honored. Just as the 1 contradicts ∞ or (infinitely more) ∞∞, so the Universe contradicts the ABSOLUTE.
e. The Universe, therefore, is the most extreme denial of ABSOLUTE BLISS, and, later in the Universal Process, the re-discovery of same.
f. The Universe is a necessity, if the ABSOLUTE is to ‘BE’ the ABSOLUTE. (For a discussion of PERFECTION’S ‘NEED’ for Imperfection, see Infinitization of Selfhood.)
g. The Purpose or Theme of the Universe (the Expression of the One-Monad-as-Universe) is not to “get better”, not to “improve”, not to “grow” (because all of these are inherently impossible to BE-NESS), but to become the negation of INFINITUDE and ITS BLISS, the then (in Time— which is also a negation of ETERNITY) to move towards re-becoming that BLISS, by re-merging with INFINITUDE and ITS NAMELESS BLISS. Along the way, an all-pervading Universal Bliss occurs.
h. In a certain respect, the Entire Universe can be called the ‘Veil of Opposition’, the ‘Not-INFINITE’, the Finite. But, as ‘Time’ passes, the One Monad expressing through Its Universe, reveals to Itself (through the experience of Universal Bliss) a fragment of the BLISSFUL INFINITUDE FROM WHICH It ‘CAME’.
i. Once the ‘Infinitudinously Cyclic Condition of Negation’ (a strange way of talking about the Universal Process) has been fulfilled, the One Monad is (again) ready to deny the Negation and re-become the ABSOLUTE.
j. One can hardly speak of ‘weariness’ with regard to such a Universal Process as it always has gone on forever. This Process is What THE IT ‘DOES’—the IT being the ABSOLUTE (who properly cannot be said to ‘DO’ anything).
37. Are there an infinitude of M/monads in Cosmos or is there a finite number of them?
a. No infinitude of any kind can be actualized within that ‘Great Limitation’ we call a Cosmos.
b. Infinitude can never take form, though its existence can be intuited.
c. Cosmos and everything in it is subject to number—especially, to the number one.
d. Really, there is only One Monad in Cosmos. That One Monad Is Cosmos.
e. The One Monad is subject to Time and cannot produce a Universe of ‘Infinite Emanative Self-extension’ which would last forever, or else the Law of Periodicity would be violated—as a Universe of infinite duration would preclude the appearance of a cyclically succeeding Universe.
f. The M/monadic Self-extensions of the One Monad (i.e., the E/entities we call the various Monads and monads), must necessarily be limited in number, or the Universe and its processes would endure forever, which would contradict the necessary periodicity of the Process of Universe-Formation/Destruction (one of the Foundational Principles of the Secret Doctrine)
g. In short, it is proposed that there are a finite number of M/monads in Universe, all of which are, essentially, One Monad.
38. What is the human monad?
a. The human monad, like any other M/monad or like the One Monad is essentially a ‘RAY’ OF THE ABSOLUTE.
b. In fact, it can reasonably be said that the human monad, like any other M/monad is THE ‘RAY’ OF THE ABSOLUTE, for the essence of any M/monad does not diminish through Emanative Extension.
c. The human monad is, therefore, one with the One Monad.
d. The human monad is one with the M/monad immediately preceding it in the Emanative Chain within the Hierarchy of all M/monads-in-Universe.
e. The human monad is the One Monad at a certain limited scope of Self-recognition. When the One Monad ‘beholds’ Itself as the human monad, the One Monad ‘sees’ far less of Itself than It does when It ‘beholds’ Itself as one of the Universal Septenate, for example, or, still less, as one of the Universal Trinity.
f. Thus, the human monad is a specific circumscription of sight of the One Monad. The same could be said of all M/monads other than the One Monad.
g. From another perspective, the human monad is the One Monad (and all hierarchically preceding M/monads) at a certain ‘depth’ of Emanative Immersion. The human monad is circumscribed by layers of presently impenetrable multiplicity, which it will gradually ‘see through’ as the Universal Process proceeds.
h. All greater M/monads participate in the consciousness of all lesser/more circumscribed M/monads (the moreso if the lesser M/monads emanated from them), so every M/monad is a specific circumscription of the One Monad’s Self-Knowledge (or what we might call ‘Universal Sight’).
i. The human monad is the ‘spark within the Flame’—the Flame, Itself, being the One Monad or manifested ‘RAY’ of the ABSOLUTE.
j. The human monad is, for practical purposes, the fundamental reality of the little human system.
k. The human monad is, for practical purposes, the “Father in Heaven” of the little human system.
l. The ‘depth of immersion’ of the ‘One-Monad-as-human-monad’, is the monadic plane of the cosmic physical plane, the second subplane of the cosmic physical plane.
39. Is the human monad a “tabula rasa” (clean slate), or it is possessed of faculty generated by experience?
a. From the following it will be seen that the M/monad, rather than being a passive and insubstantial breath, is endowed with “stores of knowledge”. We must decide whether these “stores of knowledge” were gathered during the monad’s long expressive history or whether they are inherent within it as the endowment of Universal Wisdom.
“When atmic consciousness is developing by means of the intuition, the [Page 264] Initiate can contact the stores of knowledge inherent in the Monad, and thus learn the Words of Power.” (LOM 263-264)b. The word “inherent” is important, suggesting, perhaps, that such knowledge was not accumulated but is, rather, part of the original monadic endowment—a small ‘portion’ of the ‘ENDOWMENT’ ‘DERIVED’ from the ‘RAY’ and inherent in the One Monad.
40. What is the origin of the human monad?
a. To answer this in an ultimate intra-cosmic sense is not difficult—the origin of the human monad is the One Monad of which the human monad is an emanation.
b. The question should be asked: “What really is the identity of the human monad?” “Should its identity be considered as contained within itself?” ‘Or should its identity be considered, rather, as the full identity of that next greater M/monad in which it (the human monad) is contained as an aspect?” The human monad is an emanation of something greater—an ascending series of greater M/monads ending, finally, in the One Monad. The human monad is, in itself, impermanent and is simply a transitory phase of the One-Monad-in-expression.
c. The human monad is an emanatory phase of the One Monad.
41. Can the human monad be said to have existed since the beginning of a particular Universe?
a. This is a more difficult question and be answered, superficially, by saying, “In a way, yes, and in a way, no”.
b. At the beginning of Cosmos, only the One Monad exists or is. Even once the Emanative Process has reached its full ‘extension’, only One Monad can truly be said to exist—though, apparently, (and effectively in terms of the Universal Process) there are a multitude of M/monads hierarchically arranged and in existence as apparently distinct centers of Life..
c. Perhaps, it can be reasonably said that the human monad and all other M/monads exist ‘at the Beginning’ as ‘implicate aspects’ of the One Monad, as inherent destined sub-patterns within the One Universal Pattern (the multi-plex “Fixed Design”).
d. It is as if the One Monad releases (through emanation) the largest Sub-Patterns first (through the successive emanation of the Primary Sub-Universal Monads, then the Secondary Sub-Universal Monads, etc., etc.,) each successive M/monadic emanation, ‘containing’ fewer and fewer sub-patterns (i.e., hierarchically arranged lesser M/monads), until the phase of emanation of the ‘least possible monad’—the monad that contains no lesser monads, no sub-sets of itself.
e. That a terminal point of M/monadic extension is reached, is the result of the “Will of God”—the Universal Logos, the One Monad.
f. In a finite Universe, such a point must be reached, although it is difficult to specify whether the human monad represents that terminal point where emanative extension ceases, or whether there are, indeed, lesser monads which are emanations of the human monad. In any case, in a finite Universe, termination of the Emanative Process is required.
42. Can the human monad, or any M/monad (even the One Monad) be said to have existed before the beginning of a particular Universe or after its dissolution?
a. The human monad or any other M/monad (even the One Monad) did not exist, per se, before the beginning of any particular Universe nor will they exist after.
b. Each M/monad is a special case or phase in an unrepeatable (though recurrent) Para-Universal Process.
c. All I/identities within Cosmos are, ‘REALLY’ false I/identities. They exist for a time. They ‘appear’ with the appearance of Cosmos and disappear with its disappearance.
d. The true I/identity within each M/monad (and even within the One Monad) is the ABSOLUTE I-NESS of the INCONCEIVABLE SELF. Thus, the true I/identity is THE IDENTITY.
e. All lesser states of I/identity (even the apparently vast Identity of an infinitude of Universal Monads) are simply derivative identities. They derive from the only IDENTITY which IS and ever WILL BE.
f. When Universal Pralaya comes (as it has, does and will, cyclically, forever), all apparent lesser I/identities vanish, and are restored to the ONE TRUE IDENTITY. Naturally, if the One Universal Monad does not ‘survive’ this, no lesser M/monad (which are simply aspects of the One Universal Monad) will.
g. So Universal Dissolution dissolves all partial I/identities. Thus all M/monads (including the One Universal Monad) have existence only with respect to the a particular Cosmos of which they are a ‘part’.
43. Can the human monad, or any M/monad (even the One Monad) be said to exist forever in the future and to have existed forever in the past?
a. Part of the answer is given in the section above.
b. Although the essence of every M/monad is utterly immortal, the M/monad itself (as the severest possible limitation upon INFINITUDE) is a ‘thing’ of One Universe only.
c. Thus, whereas it can be said that I-THE-ABSOLUTE exist forever, it cannot be said that 8-as-M/monad exist forever. The specialized, unique and unitary ‘worlds’ of M/monads (worlds born of changing perceptions) are constantly changing even within Cosmos, and these ‘worlds’ (even the final ‘world’ which is the ‘Entire World-of-that-Cosmos’) perish with the Cosmos.
d. Each M/monad is a limitation. Only if we call the ULTIMATE-SELF the ‘ABSOLUTE MONAD’, can it be said that the MONAD IS FOREVER.
44. What happens to ‘my’ immortality if 8 as a monad exist only during the duration of this present Cosmos?
a. If 8 (the Self-in-Cosmos) identify my essential Selfhood with any of the M/monadic states through which 8 pass during Cosmos, then it will seem that 8 am not immortal.
b. Mortality is change. M/monads are part of change, and only ONE NAMELESS THING, paradoxically, ‘CHANGES’ NOT. My immortality must not depend upon that which changes.
c. But as a New Universe ‘appears’, I-as-8 will, as it were, ‘be there’, just as I have always been. Again I-as-8 will be the Universal Monad as well as all Its M/monadic extensions. My Identity will essentially be the same as it always has been and always will be—namely my Identity will be the ONLY IDENTITY.
d. But the Cosmic ‘Scene’ will have changed and the specificity of my M/monadic participation in that New Cosmos will have altered in ways which cannot now be known.
e. As all the ‘One and many M/monads’ I-as-8 will be identifying My-Self with what is (compared to the preceding Universe) an ‘Entirely New World’.
f. What such a World/Universe may be is inconceivable to ‘me’ (the little ‘I’) now. Even the higher reaches of this present Universe are inconceivable to ‘me’, so how to imagine an Entirely New Universe based on Laws which may be entirely other than present Universal Laws?
45. What is the destiny of the human monad?
a. The destiny of the human monad, per se, is Intra-Universal, and only Intra-Universal.
b. That destiny does not suggest that the monad-as-monad (or any M/monad as M/monad) will live beyond the destruction and dissolution of the present Universe.
c. Within Universe, the destiny of the human monad is, ultimately, to re-become the One Monad in Its fullness of scope, such that what was the human monad and what is now and always-in-Cosmos the One Monad are indistinguishable—one and the same—in awareness.
d. The process of consciously re-becoming the One Monad is accomplished through what might be called ‘M/monadic Re-ascent’.
e. Lesser M/monads are reabsorbed into their Sources of Emanation. This process continues until the Universal Septenate is re-absorbed into the Universal Triad, and the Universal Triad is reabsorbed into the One Universal Monad.
f. When the reabsorption of ascending M/monads occurs, there eventuates a state which we might call ‘Identity Sharing’. My fellow M/monads (the M/monads at the same level of Cosmic-immersion as mine) are like many ‘eyes’ which are extensions of One Superior ‘Eye’. They are like many lesser identities which are equally a part of one Greater Identity.
g. Before re-absorption into their Source, the extensions of these M/monads are in a state of what might be called ‘M/monadic Encapsulation’, and they do not share to any great exist each other’s experiences. For instance, I as a personality do not share very many of the experiences which you as a personality have. Perhaps, 8-as-a-Soul share more such experiences. Perhaps, 8-as-monad, do, in fact, somehow participate in ‘your’ monadic process, but my self-extensions into the lower worlds (i.e., my soul and personality) do not participate very much in the process of your extensions into the lower worlds.
h. Thus the extensions of each M/monad are like a world unto themselves (though as higher and higher stages of human evolution are reached) some degree of permeation of identity can be reasonably thought to occur—certainly on the soul level and increasingly on the personality level.
i. As reabsorption approaches there is an increasing sense that 8-as-Monad am the same as ‘You’-as-monad. The ‘World’ which ‘You-as -monad’ have been embodying and supervising now starts to become the ‘World’ which ‘8-as-M/monad’ have been embodying and supervising. (The same could be said for positions higher on the Cosmic Pyramid, and would apply as above to 8-as-Monad and You-as-Monad.)
j. The ‘Life’ ‘You’ have been living is shown to be, mysteriously, the ‘Life’ which 8 have been living, and vise-versa, and even though ‘we’ knew it now.
k. Further, it is shown that the ‘Lives’ both of us have been living, are, somehow, one life which something greater than ourselves has been living. A superior M/monad has been living through us all the time.
l. It turns out that just as 8 am realizing my-Self as ‘You’ and ‘You’ are realizing your-Self as ‘Me’, so we are both (and all the many M/monads like ourselves) realizing ourselves as the next Superior Monad in Whom we all “live and move and have our being”.
m. Thus, we do not lose our monadic identity in this reabsorption, but rather, 8 gain ‘Yours’ and ‘You’ gain ‘Mine’ and we both gain the Identity of That which emanated us.
n. And, thus, it proceeds all along the Line of Emanative Retraction, until tier after hierarchical tier of M/monads coalesce, and, finally, all M/monads identify themselves only as the One Monad Who sent all derivative M/monads forth.
o. The study in which we are engaged is that of the Science of Being, and it has laws and dynamics which are quite unlike the sciences as applied within the lower worlds, and even the Science of Consciousness applied on the level of Soul.
46. Are there any monads of lesser status than the human monad?
a. There are no self-consciousness-generating monads of lesser status than the human monad.
b. It is doubtful that there is a one-to-one correspondence between every atom and a monad, or between every molecule, every primitive life form, every plant and a monad.
c. It is proposed (and needs consideration in light of the opposite proposition which seems to be proposed by the Teaching) that there are too many minute forms of life (sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, complex molecules, simple life forms, plants, etc.) for each of them to be the embodiment of a particular monadic life destined for individualization.. At some point in the emanative descent of the One Monad, so it would seem, aggregations must appear as the vehicles through which a single monad expresses.
d. Perhaps, the human monad, before it produces an individualized form through which to work, manifests progressively and successively through aggregations of atomic forms, numerically lessened aggregations of molecular forms, still lessened aggregations of simple life forms, plant forms of a number further reduced, and finally, perhaps, through small groupings of animal forms, until, when individualization is approaching, there is one form of animal man through which the a monad (soon to manifest through a self-conscious, thus, human form) will manifest. This model needs consideration to prove its value or its inutility.
e. It is if, on the lower planes, single monads manifest through many forms (the symbol for which might be a pyramid, with its point achieved in the human kingdom). These single monads (let us call them the monads-soon-to-be-human-monads) participate in some mysterious way with the Third Divine Aspect (the Being, Fohat, responsible for the First Outpouring) and the Second Divine Aspect (the Son, responsible for the Second Outpouring)
f. It becomes clear, however, that certain of the higher animals are already being prepared for individualization, and thus the monad which is expressing through them may very well be working through only them, and not through a number of similar animals.
g. The moment when the cut-off point arrive—after which the ‘monad-soon-to-be-a-human-monad’ begins to express through one form rather than several or even many—has yet to be determined.
h. When do Spiritual Triads begin to be collected for Group Soul demonstrations? Collections of such Triads must also be collections of monads.
i. Perhaps many ‘one-day-to-be-human-monads’ cooperate together in the manifestation of the Mineral Kingdom, fewer with respect to the Vegetable Kingdom, still fewer with respect to the earlier divisions of the Animal Kingdom, until the point is reached when there is a correspondence—one ‘monad-to-be-a-human-monad’ to one animal form—as in the case of the domestic animals.
j. The theory which proposes that there is one monad for every atom and that every atom will one day evolve into a human being (or even a greater E/entity) runs into difficulty due to the hierarchical-pyramidal structure the Life and the lives in Cosmos. There are fewer and fewer greater Entities as one ‘climbs’ the Hierarchy of Life.
It seems quite impossible for each atom, per se, to ‘become’, let a say, a Galactic Logos, a Super-Galactic Logos, or, on a far higher level, One of the Septenate of Sub-Universal Monads. There are too many of the lesser lives and too few of the greater.
Rather, there seems to be an emanation from and re-absorption in pre-existent sources, with no necessity for the miniscule lives (like atoms—or still lesser lives), to one day become a source equivalent to these pre-existent sources.
Unless these two views of concerning the development of lower life forms are clarified, we will have a major cognitive dissonance in the field of Esotericism. One theory promises a vast future of growth and enlargement for every atom, promising that each atom, per se, will ‘individually’ become a man, a Planetary Logos, a Solar Logos, and on and on. This view, it is proposed, leads to the illogical conclusion that each of the multitudinous many will ‘individually’ ‘become’ the One.
The other theory (proposed as preferable) states that each miniscule life is an emanation from pre-existence sources and returns to pre-existence sources, and that no miniscule life can (in itself) ‘become’ such a pre-existent source. Rather, a miniscule life, accompanied by a myriad of similar lives, goes forth from and return to their Parent Source more of less together. The many ‘re-become’ the One that sent them forth, only to discover that they have not really been the many but, in fact, always the One. It is proposed that this view is more logically convincing and does not lead to the logical impossibilities of the first view. The relative merits of these two views must be carefully explored.k. It might be proposed that for every E/entity in incarnation, six more are out of incarnation, and thus, that there is ‘room at the top’. But even those out of incarnation, still are composed of many lesser lives (for instance astral, or mental atoms, or various kinds of non-physical elementals and devic lives). So the problem of the many in the One is not solved by simply pointing to the existence of an abundance of non-incarnated E/entities. There are greater and lesser non-incarnated E/entities, and the greater ones are composed of (have aggregated into their natures) many of the lesser ones (even though the vehicles of these lesser ones may not be physical). All up and down the Pyramid of Life, greater Entities include lesser entities. At the ‘top’ are the few; at the ‘bottom’ are the many. An ascending unit of life cannot be, per se, a Great Entity (stationed on a high level of Cosmos)—one for ‘came forth’ before the ascending unit of life ‘appeared’ and who will remain after the ascending unit of life has ‘disappeared’. The whole problem with the first theory, it seems to the author, is based upon an illusion which might be called the ‘illusion of ever-expanding ‘granular’ identity’.
l. If, as is sometimes proposed, there were a match of one M/monad to one atom (forgetting sub-atomic particles/lives) then, under the Law of Periodicity and in a finite Universe, there must come a time when a group of developing monads would be the ‘least monads in Cosmos). There would be no lesser atomic monadic lives which could form the vehicles of the advancing monad. Such monads could not ‘become’ greater and greater lives in Cosmos, including in their wholeness an increasing number of lesser lives, because there would be no lesser lives. A man, a Planetary Logos, a Solar Logos has an huge number of lesser lives within its sphere of manifestation. As the end of the Universe were reached, this state (in which a Great Being has many lesser beings within its body of manifestation) would be denied. It would be logically shown (in such a periodic, finite Universe) that every atom cannot per se, ‘become’ a man!
m. These questions, complex and difficult though they are, are important ones to solve if we wish to understand how the ‘monad-to-be-a-human-monad’ progresses through the kingdoms lower than the human.