Hi @ErikProchnow. Sorry to address this reply very late. Pleasure to meet you again.

How do you say that it is not same?
Just because it arises from ‘psychological thoughts’?

I have a perception regarding this to share, please look into it. Also @rickScott, this addresses your question “What we can learn from nature?” (Is there a ‘we’ -individual mind- learning from universal mind, or there is no learning at all as there is no ‘we’ and only Nature with many individual forms which both ignorant and intelligent in different situations and experiences)?

Say, there are Schizophrenic or Bipolar patients. As you are a Psychiatrist, you might have known the illusions/hallucinations they largely have.

Do you feel that it is only ‘psychological thoughts’ (not same as Nature)?

There happens to be many physically disabled born persons too. We classify them as ‘nature or Universal mind’. But, when it comes to ‘mind related disorders or conflicts or destruction’, we feel that ‘psychological thoughts or individual mind’ is not totally same with Universal mind. Isn’t it?

Why it is so? Why do we feel it is not same?

Is it because the ‘individual mind’ can’t experience ‘holistically’ and so we say it?

Does the ‘individual thoughts’ (sometimes hallucinations) is not objectively fact, and so we separate ‘individual thoughts’ from nature?

Or is it we feel ‘individual thoughts’ are very Inhumane/negative and a ‘belief’ that universal mind ‘must be’ ‘fully positive intelligent humane’?

Why do we caught in a belief that “universal mind” must be “compassionate,positive,intelligent,creativity, total insight” and should not include “Psychological thought,individual mind,conflict,destruction,ignorance, partial insight, no insight,uncompassionate”?

Is there any such separation truly or WE ARE CAUGHT IN A BELIEF THAT “UNIVERSAL MIND MUST NOT EVER INCLUDE HUMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL THOUGHTS/BELIEFS (Non-Compassionate)” and we create an illusory/unreal separation within the WHOLE NATURE (which might have all forms of intelligence,thoughts,creation,destruction,hallucinations,ignorance,human-conflict,etc.)?

What if everything is Nature’s thoughts (Intelligence and also human psychological thoughts/beliefs which paves way for destruction/extinction)?

Why we always make a ‘negative’ upon us, set a goal of ‘positive’ (universal mind - Intelligence) and try to attain that goal?

Isn’t it humans and human individual thoughts, is also NATURE?
Isn’t destruction and conflict also nature?

(All are same questions - just repeated many times - to express my seriousness to point that :slightly_smiling_face: )

So, from these questions, I arise a final question that,

Isn’t Nature is both positive(compassionate) and negative(Non-Compassionate,thoughts,conflict)?

Please look into this. Thank you.

Hi @DavidS . This confusion of banning which might arises within you, I think I must address it.

It’s all my fault. Even some other members banning, is my fault too. Other members too know about that. Many accounts I have created.

Sometimes I go very personal. Sometimes I speak very narrow/strong. Sometimes I speak very foolish. Sometimes people feel I bring unrelated questions on the table. Sometimes I am very religious. Sometimes people feel I’m very much caught in beliefs/conditions, as I’m raised in India. An year before, I spoke many times about ‘Krishna’, so people hated me here and in K forums (It’s all my fault). Many times I created Duplicate accounts.

But, true to my heart, I never tried to hurt any, even with harsh words. I touch people’s ‘ego’, to know what they are upto (sometimes to understand what is really going on - why some people hide their true name and question the admin, to know the history of the forums), but that had affected many (including me - lost relationship with friends).

My activites is thee cause of every ban happened in this forum after February 2021.

Many Peeps feel that only “compassion and love” is the need, and we must approach only to that, and only after we attained that- then we shall be ‘eligible’ to speak about any other things - but not now. Even to question K, (not rejecting neither accepting K - but just questioning) is also not allowed for normal people, and only Pure Enlightened Buddha has the eligibility to question. I have questioned Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta and many religious schools too, I was not allowed there, like how the followers kick away those who question their gurus, here also it is banned.

So, questioning K, is not allowed here, and you may read the guidelines that, this is the place for only limiting our questions according to the teachings of K, but not about ‘everything’, and this place is only for exploration of teachings (sometimes Buddhist philosophies are allowed), and none other questions.

It’s a very good approach to maintain the stability of this forum and for the forum’s expansion, so it’s me the cause of every banning and none other.

Even now I feel sorry to admin for creating this account. But, some questions attract me, I couldn’t 'observe my reactions and totally ‘wipe away’ such thoughts, and create these accounts to share it (not to gain anything but if it might open up something to peeps).

That’s it.

Thank you.


Dear Viswa,
I did not judge that psychological thought is negative or positive. It is psychological thinking. Thinking in itself is nature. I totally agree with you in that. Thinking in itself is not created by thinkng. But that does not mean that what thinking creates is the same as that what nature creates without thinking. That is a conclusion, based on thinking itself. There is a difference between things created by nature - by something which is not thinking - and things created out of thinking. To see that we have to go into the question of what thinking is. The function of thinking is to create an image, a description. And the nature of an image or an description, or knowledge, is that it is not the actual, the real thing but just a description. If something is created on that bases, especially if the image is the self, it creates things on an illusion - the illusion that the content of the image is real. The existence of an image is real, but not its content. That is just a discription. So there is a difference if distruction is created by nature - something which is not thinking - or if it is created out of thinking. In the first it is based on the real, the actual. In the secon it is based on an image, of which its content is not real. The first is not man made and the second is man made, because we do not see that it is just thinking. If we would realize it, we would not create distruction out of thinking and simply distruction caused by nature would exist.
Best wishes, Erik