[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Manasic aspects? GAMES ?

Apr 02, 2001 03:28 PM
by dalval14

Monday, April 02, 2001


Dear M------,


As Isee it, the business of living is serious and not games.  From our infancy our attention has been drawn to what our teachers consider fundamental ideas.  They hope we will adopt them.  Sometimes they do not explain them.


As we grow up the need of EXPLANATION in some minds (not all) becomes a paramount necessity.  We then see individuals who review their memories, re-study their education and constantly ask questions of each other with a view to securing a consensus.


How do we know when we are right?  Do we make use of information already verified ?


In this instance you start out questioning the possibility of games.  In a Universe of laws and cooperation “games” are played by those who have leisure. 


1.  Where was leisure secured?  Is it of benefit to all, or only to one or a few?


2.  Is there a prototype or a paradigm in the Universe that employs “leisure?”


3.  What would be the effect if Nature withdrew her “support /” in order to rest?


4.  How is it that we “think” of leisure?  Are any desires attached to that kind of thought?  Arethey selfishly personal or are they impersonally universal?


5.  What do we already know (and are sure of) ?



Reviewing Theosophical doctrines I would say:


1.  “Manas” is MIND -- and it acquires the designation of “Higher” or “Lower” only when it is allied to, or used by, one or the other to two opposed “principles” in a human.  It is these which are opposed to each other, as Wisdom  (Buddhi) is opposed to ignorance and folly (Kama)


2.  The Mind ( Manas ) per se is neutral.  It is a faculty or a tool.  It is used by the REAL MAN ( the MONAD in incarnation -- you and me, here and now) to remember, to prepare potential scenarios (and their results) and to serve as a basis for any and all acts, thoughts, deeds, and words.


3.  Briefly stated the difference between WISDOM and FOLLY is a clear knowledge of the Universal LAWS that prevail, interpenetrate and support all things.  Thus you have :


            1. Wisdom,  based on the essential nature of universality and eternity, and a striving to live in cooperation with Universal LAW  [KARMA] .  And,


            2.  Folly, based on ignorance, selfishness, and desires, the result of which are in opposition to universal and impartial LAW.  One might say that the “fool” refuses to consider the existence of LAW as an essential to all life.  He views himself as a pre-eminence and fails to perceive that the vast and impartial cooperative urge of Nature is supporting his continued living.  In its educative sense the Nature then acts through Karma to show him the effect of selfish choosing. He becomes the target of his own errors andthe painful follies of selfish choice.  {This fact is the basis for religions in which priests pretend to be able to act as intercessory wit a personal God who might arrange to have the effects mitigated or removed. { The remaining problem which is not addressed is the compensation to the victims.  That remains to be arranged for  }


4.  Any person (who by definition is a LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS, an IMMORTAL ENTITY) lives in the world of his PRESENTDESIRES, and employs his mind to fabricate “impossible castles in Spain.”  These delusions are also illusions, and have no continued validity. Such a person opposes the supportive and cooperative orderliness of the World and Universe.  He argues without sound basis, supposes on wrong premises, and creates confusion among the unwary.  His work is to destroy order whenever possible.


5.  The Person who lives in WISDOM isaware of all the Facts, fundamentals and Laws of this Universe.  He bases his choices on this knowledge and practices generosity, rectitude and fair dealing with everyone.  He cooperates with Nature (the Universe.)  He is one of Nature’s “Agents,” and is continually “constructive.’  By nature he creates “order” out of “chaos” and seeks to show others how they can also do this.


6.  In the GENERAL PROGRAM OF EVOLUTION (as Theosophy describes it) the MONAD (or immortal “life-unit”) passes over long aeons securing first-hand experience, by passing through all the conditions offered by Nature -- so that it acquires a memory of those -- which is impacted eternally in its own consciousness.  Thus it passes through the conditions of embodiment in a form in, successively, mineral, vegetable, and animal stages of form and cooperativeexperience. 


7.  It (the indestructible Center of CONSCIOUSNESS:  the MONAD) then proceeds to the next step -- into a HUMAN BODY --  This physical form is far in advance of the animal body as to its sensitivity and capacities.  There the Mind becomes independently active and learns under the operations of KARMA, the power of CHOICE.


As Isee it, our living here and now is serious business and not frivolity.  One has to learn and grasp the fundamentals of life instead of the superficialities of doubt, and suppose.  Essentially, one has to learn to become a UNIVERSAL MAN-MIND, a being who perceives around him the reign of universal Brotherhood.


In other words one ought to be able to answer one’s own questions.


Best wishes,






-----Original Message-----
From: m []
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 200110:36 AM
To: Theosophy
Subject: Manasic aspects?


On the subject of "higher" and "lower" Manas, some (interesting?) speculation comes to mind that has to do with what we (Manasic types) call "games":   I wonder what the significance of games, in broader terms, might be, say, "more-realistically" thought of as being if viewed from a somewhat more-universal (and even Theosophic?) perspective?:

"Theosophy" would seem to suggest (to me, at any rate, as I currently tend to interpret the word) that our purpose here on earth is one of acquiring (among other things?) experience, learning, and Self-discovery, the while dealing with an environment that is Mayavic in essence:  as though we're really playing some kind of Realistic/Significant Game, in a sense (because of our "unreal", or Mayavic,  Scenario).

Of course if our Manasic Experience as a whole is seen as "Real" and "Crucial" in some theosophic (Realistic) sense, than (likely?) the reference to it as having a "game"-like aspect might be seen (by some?) as irrelevant (even irreverant?) in essence: I would tend to agree that there would seem to be that aspect to
our CHOICE of perception:  that we can  freely choose to emphasise (say?) the "seeming  unreality" of our Experience,(in whatever way), or (at times, as when "theosophically/metaphysically inclined"?) we might PREFER to be "more-realistic" about our "earthly" Situation.  At any rate the aspect of Choice would seem particularly significant in our Situation here:   That is, what might be important, in Real-enough terms, and what might not be important-enough, in Real-enough terms,  would seem to be the constantand Significant question for us Manasic types, day in and day out, in essense ("to be or not to be",  to quote Shakespeare in a broader sense?).

So where aspects of "unreal gaming" are emphasised in one's attitude in favor of emphasis on effort toward at least attempting (to whatever extent one might be "realistically" capable of) to address issues of Relevance (as in Theosophic terms),  that would seem to be the crucial cross-roads in determing whether one is inclined to face "higher" or "lower" Manasic facets of one's reality?

Since those "higher" and "lower" Manasic aspects can be seen "very differently" from various different perspectives and levels of Evolution,  obviously one would have to take those "differences" into some sort of personally-relevant meaningful/Meaningful account:  Apparently Nature means business, offering no easy short-cuts on the Way.  And as the recent posts about Nirvanic experiences would seem to suggest,  there would not seem to be a Way Out in any kind of  Realistic sense, (aside from the intermediate/Intermediate options)?

So "Participation" would seem to be the name of the game around here, (at least one name?), for better or worse, whether we like it or not.

Something like that, maybe?

P.S.  --- Not that I don't mean good wishes, basically---it's just that I wonder about who is saying what and where and how (more-specifically!).  Come to think of it, I wonder if conveying "good wishes" is much like saying "good luck"?   And "good luck" brings to mind a saying in show biz:  "break a leg."  So many choices and interpretations!  I wonder if saying "break a leg" is somehow more-relevant/helpful in some situations?   But since Theosophic  things would seem .. . er, more "metaphysical" (?), (and somewhat less leg-related, possibly?),  I wonder if theosophists might reasonably offer encouragement to each other by saying something about, say, breaking one's head, for example?  No?  Not really?  (Extensions of which kind of thinking might bring to mind some of the "less-wanted" contributors to Theos-1, etc?---if that's a related matter?)
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL -
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application