Mystical Terminology Explained: Spirit & Soul, Monad & Logos, Kabbala, Adam Kadmon, Enlightenment 

What is your thoughts on the God

Well happier

Nice Catch. This is a bit of a misnomer on my part. I ought to have elaborated more and corrected myself. The mention of God (albeit different names in Hebrew) occurs 32 times In Genesis Chapter 1 (implying the unspoken 1 previous to the story's beginning). Elohim, specifically though, occurs 3 times Chap. 1.

@@cgdahlin you were looking for a word where they choose one god from a plethora of gods . It is henoism I believe. You could argue the movement from elohim to Yhvh is this. Also judaism could be described as pagan or polyistic because of shekhinah the sacred feminine. And Ruach pronounced ruakh, breath spirit, in others cultures is feminine. Great work

The "ether" or "abysmal waters" can be thought of as pure substance, like what matter is prior to taking on form or structure. Like water, it takes on the form of whatever container or structure it is poured into. The Logos can be imagined as the commanding power that orders the structure (based on idea or nature of being) that the "ether" will dress with objective form of being. The Monad is represented symbolically by the manifested, formed being through its individuality, it's one-ness. The unformed ether is what surrounds and limits formed ether, allowing for the perception of a beings individuality, just like space is the distance between objects, giving the separation.

No truth lies in what you stated.

Did you mean Androgynous?

@@1deceived2manytimes49 Yes you are right,Androgynous! One hermaphrodite is the brain..plus the second hermaphrodite (fire/root chakra)

@exaiphnes0 Hermaphrodite pertains to the physical, only - an individual with both male and female genitals.

Mommy/daddy since the upper entity is the union of opposites, the monad.

@@RalloR top down bottom up

A tricky question to answer. It very much seems to depend on what tradition we're referencing. In a number of paganisms, 3 is linked with maiden, mother, crone, the 3 cycles of life and the intricacies therein, innocence, to the loss of innocence, to the regaining of hope, nourishment, all the way to the wisdom and secrets of death in the crone. To the ancient shamanic traditions, the upper realm, the lower realm and ours, the middle realm, 3. All that encapsulates that which is above and below. Father son and holy spirit, or in other words, the source, the creation, and the emanation. The trinity. This goes on and on. It seems like a trope that each tradition put its own spin on, ultimately relating back to the shamanic tradition. More mundanely, the father, the mother, and the created, the miracle of birth, fertility. It took two, to make one, and on and on and on.

Three is the third that unites that which is divided. It is the mediator of disagreement, the median of extremes, the fulcrum of balance, centrality, etc. It is the principle of reconciliation, of unification, of the return to one-ness, of wholeness, etc.

The answer really depends on what tradition we'd use to answer it. As with this, the Western esoteric tradition, the soul (individual essence) will inevitably, through participation on various planes, return to the realm of Spirit (collective essence) and subsequently de-individuate. "Join with 'God.'" To say the Kabbalists or the Manichaeans, etc. this is the ultimate goal. A drop of water returning to the ocean. But in animism and older traditions, it seems the individual soul eternally maintains its essence in the realm of the ancestors, they are collective there in the sense that humanity is collective here, but still seem to maintain their core essence and can be called upon accordingly. Even if we maintained the more substratum eternal reincarnation theory of the different shamanistic groups, this would also imply a continuous and eternal retention of spiritual individuality. Hope this helps.

Our perception of our self as an individual existent is the reality of our perception. Perception is like perspective, it's a point of view and not necessarily the true truth. I have come to understand that there is only one true self that sees through the eyes of all that see, experiences through the experiences that all things experience, etc. Of course at the worldly level of reality where our perspective is of subject and objects, of self and others, Individuality exists.

0 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9... 4 is the number of time or death which are just concepts. Only the body dies. You can’t see or touch time because it’s a concept to maintain certain order. 1 is principal and the “other” 1 is attribute.

The Monad is One in principle. Because it is Absolute, it has no presentation or differentiation or other-ness that would distinguish it. This category of concepts is in principles, for the topic is not about existent things but intellectual things. "The Monad is Unity." Unity is one in principle, not zero. The Dyad is Two in principle, which is, yes, as in 1 and 1. The dyad is like two opposites that have no reconciliation, no third which unites them. Opposites are two things that are in opposing relation to one another. This relation between the two is the third that unites them in principle as opposites. Without this third, the two have no connection and are absolutely individual. In this way, the Dyad is a non-existent potential that requires the mediation and connecting relation that the third can bring.

I have a theory that the is no possible way to describe the ZERO in a way that does not also describe the ONE. The TWO is defined by the presence of limit. A border to bound “is” and “is not”. The Monad is the context in which the TWO appear. And the ZERO is the absence of the ONE.