Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00090)

> 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.
	Well, I agree that there is a "universal mind" or Mahat, but
I see it as identical with Jung's collective unconscious.  The problem is
that when we shift our consciousness to it, we are no longer talking
about the "human mind" or manas.  Mahat is far beyond even "higher
manas."   I would say that it is only the ignorance of an individual, rather
than the unconsciousness, but this is a nit pick, and I think we are talking
about the same thing.

>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?
	Theosophical literature doesn't mention much of anything above
the Abyss, so you won't find it there.  But it seems a logical fallout from
"as above so below" and also G de P suggests that we have a monad
on each plane that is dualistic--it has both a subjective side (principle)
and an objective side (body or vehicle).  It is the "body" or vehicle that
consciousness uses as its upadhi or bases when in the state that is
called samadhi.

>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.
	The terminology is a real problem, and those who stick to
HPB's terminology are not doing themselves any favors because she
changed it so many times.  The challenge is to get beyond the names
and into the meanings.  When we do this, we can call the stuff anything
we want to, even weird things like "spiritual body."
	As I see it, the globes, bodies, and planes are pretty much
fixed and definite objective "things."  The principles, however, are
subjective and they can shift and mix together.  So we can talk about
atma-buddhi-manas, and higher manas, and kama-manas, and
so on because the principles mix together pretty well and can
temporarily combine in many ways as our consciousness shifts
around.  This is very confusing to newbies, and I am not at all
sure how to explain it to them.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI