The term ‘Universal Mind’ occupies a contested but recurrent position in the depth-psychology corpus, spanning phenomenological report, metaphysical assertion, and epistemological caution. Stanislav Grof’s LSD research provides the most systematic empirical treatment: subjects reliably report an encounter with a formless, dimensionless principle characterised by the Sanskrit Sat-chit-ananda — infinite existence, infinite awareness, infinite bliss — which Grof treats as a transpersonal category requiring its own ontological register. Sri Aurobindo approaches the term from the opposite direction, as a philosopher-yogi: the Universal Mind is not a peak experience but the ordinary substrate from which individual mentality descends, a ‘veiled universal Mind’ operating behind material process, a cosmic instrumentation within which the individual mind is always already embedded. Lama Govinda anchors the concept in Tibetan Buddhist tantra, where a saint becomes ‘a manifestation of the Universal Mind,’ and the Dharma-Body reveals itself as the highest reality. Evans-Wentz, transmitting the Tibetan Great Liberation, stages an instructive confrontation: Jung’s introductory commentary concedes that Western psychology cannot verify or refute a Universal Mind, only confess the limits of its own standpoint. Eddington, cited by Ponte and Schafer, offers a physicist’s bridge, proposing that the universe is ‘of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind.’ What unites these divergent voices is a shared recognition that individual mentality is insufficient to account for itself, and that something transpersonal — whether named archetypally, cosmologically, or quantally — must underwrite it.