A part of Monad definition is an endofunctor $T$, and a natural transformation $\mu : T²→T$, such that the $\mu ∘T\mu = \mu ∘\mu T$ holds.
I struggled hard with both sides of the equation, so here're points with my misunderstandings:
What $\mu ∘T\mu$ does? As far as I could break it down, by virtue of having the same category as both domain and codomain, $T$ can lift its natural transformations. So $T\mu$ simplifies to $T(T²→T)$.
Intuitively I'd think, $\mu ∘T\mu$ would "unwrap" $T\mu$ from the functor, so whole thing simplifies to $T²→T$. But the problem: $\mu$ is defined on $T²$ — not on $T$, or $T³$, or something. So actually the application $\mu(T(T²→T))$ gives a non-sensical result, like "a functor it would be if it was $T²(T²→T)$, but which it isn't".
- What $\mu ∘\mu T$ does? $\mu$ is defined as a family of morphisms of the underlying category, whilst $T$ is not its part, so formally the application $\mu T$ doesn't make a sense. Perhaps the author meant rather $\mu ∘\mu ∘ T$, I don't know. Whatever it means, I see again the application of $\mu$ to a non-$T²$ argument — is it even defined?
- Oh, wait, there's a small print about the equation, it says "(as natural transformations $T³→T$)". What?? How could they get to $T³$, there's a single $T$ in the formula!

