Fwd: There is nothing sacred or profane, only causes and effects within the domain of nature.

[Guest guest]

NondualitySalon , prasanna <natmind>

wrote:

 

Hi Bill,

I respect your views and As an humble independent researcher in

Psychology, I would try my best to clarify the referred points. 1)

The fact is that mankind is constantly facing problems and also

trying to find intellectual solutions, ever since civilisation or it

began to intellectualise the facts. And this 'facing problem-

finding solution' activity is increasing. 2) It was K, who

according to me was the first and the only one, who said that the

problems lies in 'intellectualising' the perceptions and not in the

actual external happenings or events. No other teacher said this

very very important point, which brought a paradigm shift in the

understanding of the 'anatomy of a problem'. It also inspired the

course of my research.

 

With due respects and humility, I would humbly say that I have

advanced this finding of K, as that the " problem isn't due to mere

intellectualising, but in " involuntary and inaccurate

intellectualising the perceptions " , occuring due to an aberration in

intelligence. This aberration isn't caused by, but only retained due

to a simple avoidable error in early upbringing of children.

 

Human intelligence is constantly trying to liberate itself from

the bondage of its own fragmentation. And some day, scientific

findings will eliminate the vague, voluminous and philosophical

theories, that have actually strengthened the bondage, by reducing

the pain, in the guise of a sedative. If the pain was actual and

intense, intelligence would have thrown out its own aberration long

ago, which is prevented by these pre-scientific adventures of

mankind. Soon mankind may realise that there is nothing sacred or

profane, only a causes and an effects in the nature's domain.

 

If you would like to have a detailed explanation of my findings,

go to 'files' on the home page of your group and open the

file 'glimspse.doc'. If you don't get it, ask me. You don't have to

agree to it. They are only my perceptions. If and when someone else

disproves it, I would gladly withdraw it.

 

Regards - natmind

 

NondualitySalon , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> On the other hand, even the tons of explanations offered by K may

not be able to help anyone to understand K. The writer's view of

Krishnamurti is considerably different from mine. As I see it:

<snip>

> When it is an unquestioned habit of whole mankind to perceive

> situations and search for solutions intellectually, K was the first

> one and the only one to have come out with his astounding finding.

 

> snip> <snip>

 

> I wonder what " finding " the writer is talking about. The article

does not indicate what the term means from what I can tell.

> At any rate, it seems a) overreaching to say Krishnamurti was

the " first and only one " on any " finding " and b) a misapprehension

of Krishnamurti's teaching itself to consider that some " finding " of

his is particularly important.

> With Krishnamurti it was not any particular result that was

important, but the *process* of genuine inquiry.

> Again, and finally, all the above is *my view* regarding

> Krishnamurti.

> Bill

>

 

 

 

 

 

See " Glimpses of new findings in

Psychology " at http://education.vsnl.com/naturalmind/glimpse.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send instant messages to your online friends

http://in.messenger.

 

--- End forwarded message ---