Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00077)

Jerry Schueler writes:
>"But perhaps I am misunderstanding you?  What is "Mind
>in total?"  Do we human beings have access to a "higher mind"
>of some sort?
>	Not only is the terminology "loose as a goose" but
>the way different folks use it sometimes makes it even worse."

AMEN.  And I must admit that my term "mind in total" is confusing.  The
difficulty arises when one trys to speak about Mind which is stated to exist
as early as Dyzan Stanza 1, Sloka 3 albeit in a state of "NOT" (or AYN, or
Absolute Negativity), and as HPB says "Universal Mind ever IS."  If we are
to use the buddhist concept that separation is an illusion, or Maya, then
every human mind is connected to this "Universal Mind."  It is only the
unconsciousness of an individual, in varying degrees, that separates one
from this "Mind".  This would be the "Higher Mind" I was trying to refer to.
As the mind becomes a 'Receptive organ', rather than an 'Organ of Action',
one becomes aware of the activity of this mind.  I think the receptive state
that I refer to is the 'Activation of Atma-Buddhi' you mentioned.

What is your "Spiritual Body" that you assign to Atma(n).  I haven't seen it
mentioned this way in theosophical literature.  Are you referring to the
Agoidies (Mispelled) of the greeks, or perhaps something else?

Language is definatly going to be the most difficult part of any discussion,
theosphical or otherwise.  I don't think there are ANY starndards,
especially when Bailey, Heindel, Steiner, Kaballah (how many flavors are
ther for this one?) etc. are included in the discussion.

                                        james