we have floated off. The process of incarnation, therefore, is not fully described when we speak of an _alternate_ existence on the physical and spiritual planes, and thus picture the soul as a complete entity slipping entirely from the one state of existence to the other. The more correct definitions of the process would probably represent incarnation as taking place on this physical plane of nature by reason of an efflux emanating from the soul. The Spiritual realm would all the while be the proper habitat of the Soul, which would never entirely quit it; _and that non-materializable portion of the Soul which abides permanently on the spiritual plane may fitly_, perhaps, be spoken of as the HIGHER SELF.” This “Higher Self” is ATMA, and of course it is “non-materializable,” as Mr. Sinnett says. Even more, it can never be “objective” under any circumstances, even to the highest spiritual perception. For _Atman_ or the “Higher Self” is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. In hours of _Samadhi_, the higher spiritual consciousness of the Initiate is entirely absorbed in the ONE essence, which is Atman, and therefore, being one with the whole, there can be nothing objective for it. Now some of our Theosophists have got into the habit of using the words “Self” and “Ego” as synonymous, of associating the term “Self” with only man’s higher individual or even personal “Self” or _Ego_, whereas this term ought never to be applied except _to the One universal Self_. Hence the confusion. Speaking of Manas, the “causal body,” we may call it—when connecting it with the Buddhic radiance—the “HIGHER EGO,” never the “Higher Self.” For even Buddhi, the “Spiritual Soul,” is not the SELF, but the vehicle only of SELF. All the other “_Selves_”—such as the “Individual” self and “personal” self—ought never to be spoken or written of without their qualifying and characteristic adjectives.