|
Lobsang Rampa
|
Posted By:
Jun 12, 2004
|
Your review on TL Rampa is rather outdated and is borne out of an incredible constipated realisation of truth. I have studied his works for the last 25 years and boy are you WRONG! But then you have no knowledge of transmigration and the higher dimensions that pervades all universes. Learn to see within yourself first before you write such drivel. The ultimate HOAX is you, as you believe in your limited 2D reality. If you practised 1 iota of TLR's techniques - you would see the truth for yourself instead of begging (for Hoaxes). But then idiots like yourself are what makes the web fun, I suppose. So dream on.
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
May
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 | 03:40 PM
Since the publication of his first book |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 | 01:28 AM
May, I'll repeat what I said previously:
"We are under NO obligation to prove the NON-existance of something."
What is the evidence that "Rampa" ever visited Tibet? Also, why did he lie about his name and background? Can you give us the Reader's Digest version? |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 | 01:33 AM
May, I've looked at that web page. It's nothing more than a sales pitch for the book. It has NO proof of "Rampa's" legitimacy at all. There might possibly be some proof in the book, but I doubt it.
To me, the most interesting part of the web page was where it said the book would explain "How Cyril Hoskin transformed himself into Tuesday Lobsang Rampa."
I *guess* "transformed" is an accurate word, if by "transformed" we mean "pretended to be." |
May
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 | 02:43 AM
Hello Cranky Media Guy,
The taking over another body is called 'Transmigration' and if you research Yogic beliefs it's all well documented. To give you an example; 100 years ago if you went to many parts of the East and stated that you could turn a metal object and get hot and cold water, as much as you want; well, they would consider you a liar and an idiot, and this still exists today in many remote villages. In turn, many people in the West doubt many of the Eastern beliefs.
There is proof within the book and conformation from other Western and Eastern academics, but that |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 01:21 AM
May, do you REALLY want to defend a guy who claimed that his third book was dictated to him telepathically by his CAT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Lobsang_Rampa
Really? |
Stev
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 01:54 AM
"May, do you REALLY want to defend a guy who claimed that his third book was dictated to him telepathically by his CAT?"
I find this comment rather arrogant. Two sweeping assumptions are being made here. The first is that cats cannot have a greater perception of reality than we do (probably because they don't speak the way we do) and the second is that telepathy doesn't exist, or at least if it does, cats for some reason don't have the ability.
And please let's not hear this whole "We are under NO obligation to prove the NON-existance of something." bit |
May
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 08:56 AM
Hello Stev,
I would defend Lobsang Rampa 'til the end of time as I didn't follow the masses like sheep and decided to make my own mind up by reading and practising that which he teaches; as anyone can if they keep an open mind.
Telepathy is very true and can be done by so many; so the book is 100% true, but we must remember that Western science is solely based on imperialistic evidence whereas Easter science is not. People who go into occult studies just trying to get a material proof are like people who go into a darkroom and turn on the lights to see if there is any image on the yet undeveloped film. Their actions definitely inhibit any manifestation of proof.
People should stop thinking mankind is the centre of the universe as many animals are way above humans.
May |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 02:31 PM
OK, so you DO actually believe that "Rampa" wrote a book that was telepathically dictated to him by his cat.
Wow.
Yup, the rest of us are sheep for thinking that you need that "proof" stuff if you make claims which, like that, defy the known laws of physics.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that I can fly? Yes, fly under my own power, with no external power source or support of any kind.
You ought to see it, it's amazing. Now, since you don't require any of that silly Western "proof," you are obligated to believe my claim, even though I will NOT demonstrate my amazing power to you.
After all, you can't prove that I CAN'T fly, can you? I mean, asking for PROOF is getting SO old. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 08:14 AM
<i> To give you an example; 100 years ago if you went to many parts of the East and stated that you could turn a metal object and get hot and cold water, as much as you want; well, they would consider you a liar and an idiot, and this still exists today in many remote villages.</i> - May
It's interesting that you should use this as an example since it actually hinders your case. How? Well see, people may have called you a liar because you could make alternately hot or cold water come out of a metal pipe (which they really wouldn't have, what with plumbing being thousands of years old and all - but why spoil a bad analogy with facts?), but anyone who called you a liar could easily have the proof shown to them.
Easily.
Proof.
Simple concept.
In other words, the people making the claim of hot and cold water actually could <i>show</i> people it was possible. People could see it, experience it, and verify for themselves that it was possible. Hard proof. Something you seem incapable of providing.
Don't worry about providing excuses about how the proof has been provided before, we're all well aware that this isn't true and is simply a dodge to avoid facing the fact that your belief system is based on a pack of lies.
On the other hand, if you're actually willing to provide proof I'm more than willing to witness it. I'm available any time someone wants to prove that telepathy exists. I'm willing to participate in a mind-reading demonstration for anyone who claims the power to do so. Just let me know. |
Stev
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 08:41 AM
If someone 200 years ago had said that radio waves existed and had accurately described them, he almost certainly would not have been able to back up his claim with proof. 100 years ago they were proved to exist. Of course they did exist 200 years ago, it's just that no one could prove at that time they existed. The logic you guys are expounding would seem to suggest that this guy 200 years ago was telling a pack of lies because he couldn't prove what he believed. Until 100 years ago that is when he had suddenly been telling the truth all along. This 'simple concept' logic of yours is built on such weak foundations I can't believe you stick with it. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 09:23 AM
Sorry, another poor analogy, for two obvious reasons. Let me see if I can explain this sensibly.
In your argument the assumption seems to be that the person making the claim about radio waves knows they exist, but is unable to replicate them. His inability to replicate them meant that he was unable to provide proof of their existence. Though you don't state it, I'm assuming you feel the person making the radio waves claim would have been discounted. I agree he would have, and rightly so. When somebody makes a claim, especially one that goes against known facts and understanding, then you have to provide proof for those claims.
However, with regards to Lobsang/telepathy/other paranormal you're expecting us to accept the legitimacy of your claims without proof.
We don't have to accept claims without proof. Your own argument supports this.
For issue number two, in your argument you claim the person would not be able to back up his claim with proof, presumably because he couldn't replicate the radio waves. That's not the case here. Plenty of people claim that not only is all of this true, but that they are able to use telepathy and other paranormal powers as well. In other words, they can replicate their claim. They just choose not to.
Why is that? |
Stev
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 09:39 AM
"When somebody makes a claim, especially one that goes against known facts and understanding, then you have to provide proof for those claims."
Why? What's so wrong with hypothesis?
"you're expecting us to accept the legitimacy of your claims without proof."
When did I say that? It's up to you whether you accept any claims from anyone. The discussion is whether the possibility exists that the claims could be true. You are saying that without proof such claims are a 'pack of lies'.
"We don't have to accept claims without proof"
I never asked you too. I'm the one that does that. You're the one that doesn't accept anything without proof.
"In other words, they can replicate their claim. They just choose not to."
I personally don't agree.
Put it this way:
You say something can't be true unless it's proved to be true.
I say something can be true even though it's not proved to be true.
Both simple concepts. I don't understand why there is so much hysteria surrounding the second of these. |
May
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 11:23 AM
Let |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 12:19 PM
I never said there was anything wrong with a hypothesis, nor did I say a claim without proof was a pack of lies, that was your phrase.
<i>You say something can't be true unless it's proved to be true.</i>
No, I said we don't have to accept claims made by people unless they can back up those claims with proof, or at least some sound evidence. Being able to prove something doesn't suddenly make it true. Proof and evidence are what we use to seperate the known from the unknown. Right now Rampa is in the realm of the unknown (regardless of how many people claim otherwise). If any proof/evidence comes along to support him then that label can be changed to known.
However, just because something is true regardless of our proof of it doesn't mean that <i>everything</i> we don't have proof for is also true.
If what Rampa claimed is true then it rewrites practically everything we know. Historically this has rarely happened. Does that mean he's wrong? No, but when you weigh thousands upon thousands of claims that turned out to be wrong next to maybe dozens that turned out to be true you can see why people would be skeptical. And those that did turn out to be true were only accepted when the evidence built up to the point where it couldn't be ignored any more.
To date, there is no evidence to support any of Rampa's claims.
I understand about being open-minded, but have you looked at the internet? There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of people who each claim their own rewrite of science. It is physically impossible to give equal credence to each and every claimant that comes along. You have to filter them, and frankly the ones with demonstrable evidence tend to get the attention.
Requiring evidence/proof may not be perfect, but it's the best option we have. That's why the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. If they want their beliefs to get more positive attention then they have to show evidence that supports them. Without that evidence there is no way to separate Rampa's followers from the thousands of other claimants out there. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 12:38 PM
<i>In this case the Law of aerodynamics, if we can only accept these laws then how can the bumble bee fly? This little creature defies all known laws; therefore science doesn't always know the answers as they might think.</i> - May
Uh, not it doesn't. Science knows how the bumblebee flies. Documented and everything. Besides, the question wasn't "Do bumblebees fly", we already knew they did. The question was 'how?'.
Nobody has demonstrated that anything Rampa claimed actually happened. When they do we can ask the 'how' question. They seem a step behind the bumblebee argument here.
Likewise the aurora - well known and understood by science. Again, it was also very easy to demonstrate the aurora exists unlike say, telepathy.
Your examples are flawed and meaningless.
<i>Metaphysics is a very real thing which cannot be measured by 'imperialistic' methods because it's dealing with matters beyond the ordinary everyday senses of the body; that is, until one has evolved spiritually enough to perceive and comprehend such matters. It's all as natural as breathing or walking and yet it's overlook by the masses unless it's been 'made interesting' in a heartbreaking way: otherwise it's regarded as some ancient mystical mumbo-jumbo. </i>
Metaphysics can't be measured by any method, it seems. Not even the people who claim to be able to measure/detect it have successfully done so under controlled circumstances. If you can't measure it, how do you even know it exists?
Also, I hate to break it to you but radio waves (to use a familiar one) also can't be perceived by the 'ordinary everyday senses of the body, yet millions of people ever day make use of them because science has shown not only that they exist, but has learned how to make use of them. And it didn't take any spiritual enlightenment at all.
Let's try that with metaphysics. Show the metaphysical world exists, and make some demonstrable use of that knowledge. If even proponents can't show that it exists why should everyone else buy into it?
<i>Progress is possible only if the traditional, if rules, dogmas, and bureaucracy, if everything that is common, settled, and set in stone, as important as these things usually are, occasionally are challenged.</i>
Then challenge them! Saying "It's true" over and over again isn't a challenge, it's a cry for attention. Every time the status quo was overturned it was because people did challenge things, and showed that their viewpoint was the more correct one using evidence to support their beliefs. We're still waiting for the metaphyics community to get started with their challenge. They keep saying it will come, but it has yet to emerge. Should we expect some evidence to be forthcoming any time soon?
<i>Anything related to the spiritual cannot be dissected, let alone held up as a plaque as proof.</i>
Then how do you know it exists? You must have some ability to perceive it. This ability should be open to scrutiny and examination. Even the mind can be scrutinized, and it's about at non-physical as they come.
<i>And finally, let |
May
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 01:41 PM
Uh, not it doesn't. Science knows how the bumblebee flies. Documented and everything. Besides, the question wasn't "Do bumblebees fly", we already knew they did. The question was 'how?'.
How was exactly what I said because science doesn |
Stev
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 01:54 PM
Charybdis, you make some very eloquent points and I think I would pretty much agree with most of the things you said in response to both posts.
I do think we have to loosen up slightly on this whole idea of science proving or not proving things anyway. There have been many scientific hoaxes, blunders, mis-measurements or misinterpretations which have lead to conclusions having to be revised. We used to think the atom was the smallest particle in the universe. We used to think Newton's classical laws of physics were exactly accurate. We used to think the universe was straight. We still have no scientific explanation that satisfactorily explains what reality really is. And plenty of scientists have been shown to have made up results just to prove a conclusion that they were desperate to reach.
Science can point the way, but very often cannot prove or disprove an absolute truth. It can only interpret results. It seems to me that the more science explains the more it realises there is to explain, and I find that fascinating. The more I read about Quantum Physics the more detached reality seems to get from what we have always accepted. Many quantum academics, Richard Feynman and Nick Herbert included, pay homage to the Buddhist's assertion that we live in a world of illusion. And that doesn't mean a dream world. It means that the world presented to us by our 5 (or 6) senses is a totally false representation of what is actually around us (which even classical physics would admit is virtually all empty space).
With reference to May's post, I think we have to be careful about building too big a divide between 'metaphysics' and 'science', or between 'spiritualism' and 'pragmatism'. Whatever it is, there is only one reality (I'll probably regret saying that) and I believe science and religion are merely two approaches to the same truth. I think there are certain forms of Buddhism which come very close to agreeing almost word for word with what quantum physicists are saying (read the Tao of Physics). Mahayana Buddhism is especially close.
Finally regarding your statement that there is no evidence to support any of Rampa's claims; like May, I have one piece of personal proof which was a direct result of reading his books. One of his claims I can personally vouch for. But I will concede that this doesn't in itself prove any of his other claims! |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 02:44 PM
May said:
"As far as the claim Cranky Media Guy makes about flying is that high on drugs perhaps?"
Nope, I've never been high or drunk in my entire life. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 03:00 PM
Stev, the problem with spiritualism/mysticism/metaphysics is that it's had 100,000 years to accomplish something, and so far it hasn't done much.
Science gave us everything you see around you, from the computer and chair to the cultivated garden outside the window (if you're lucky and even have a window). Science has accomplished so much that's useful to us. Mysticism helped give birth to art and culture, but science made those things physically possible.
And I think that there's enough wonder and inspiration in the physical world to provide for our non-physical needs without resorting to self-delusion. It's fun to pretend, but you lose something when you give in and start believing in the irrational/mythological. You stop truly learning and only accept those things that already support or reinforce your world view and disregard anything that contradicts it. I know this is an argument that has been levied at science often enough, but the new age spiritual community seems even more immersed in their fantasy world to the exclusion of all else than all but the most fanatical scientists. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 03:07 PM
<i>Nope, I've never been high or drunk in my entire life.</i> - Cranky
Yeah? Prove it.
Oh wait, I forgot that as the skeptic the burden of proof is on me. Since I can't disprove it, and especially since Galileo was persecuted, I guess that proves your case. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 02:32 AM
Yeah, me and Galileo, straight edgers both. 😊
For the non-skeptics in the house, here's the thing. Yes, science has been wrong at times and yes, science has changed. That's the beauty of it, though. Science changes as new information is learned. Science grows, humanity's knowledge base grows with it and we advance as a species.
Contrast that with the world of the "alternative." Nothing is tested empirically, therefore no theory
is ever rejected. Take a look at astrology, for example. Even if you accept the wacky notion that the position of heavenly bodies can influence a person's personality, the Earth has moved relative to the constellations over the two thousand or so years that astrology has been around. By its own rules, astrology as it is practiced cannot be accurate. Since no one in the "alternative" world requires proof, though, no problem.
I know my claiming to be able to fly probably seems facetious, even annoying, to some of you, but honestly, using the logic of the "alternative" world, how can you NOT simply accept my claim?
You can't demand that I prove my claim since proof is never required in your world. You can't say that it violates the known laws of physics, since virtually EVERYTHING in the "alternative" world does that as well.
I mean, if you don't require people to prove their extraordinary claims, you open the door to damn near anything. Before you know it, you'll end up with a guy claiming that his cat dictated a book to him telepathically.
Nah, that's just ridiculous. |
Stev
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 03:01 AM
"Yes, science has been wrong at times"
Er... you could say that! Newtonian mechanics being proved wrong was a pretty big Time in my book. The fact is, how can we ever know when science has been wrong and when science has been right? Right up to the beginning of the last century Newtonian mechanics was taken as being unshakable.. it was an absolute scientific truth. But increased measurement accuracy meant that the whole concept of physical mechanics had to be revisited and so Quantum Mechanics took its place. And that is still in its infancy.
Essentially, we are stuck with solipsism until somebody can use your precious proof to once and for all determine that something else apart from you (or me) exists in what we interpret as being the universe. Or are you trying to tell me that the fact that your brain registers something as being visible / hearable etc then it means it must exist? Not only that, but exists as 'proof'. Proof is frankly as flakey a concept as reality itself, the only difference being that I know I am... therefore SOME kind of reality must exist. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 08:55 AM
But Newtonian physics <i>wasn't</i> proved wrong. Newtonian physics <i>is</i> a scientific truth, it's just not the whole truth.
I can hold up a soccer ball and say that it is a sphere. That is the truth. The fact that it's made up of alternating black and white pentagrams and filled with air doesn't make its roundness any less valid, it just isn't the whole story.
That's what Einstein showed with relativity, not that Newton was wrong but that Newton didn't explain everything. Newtonian physics still dominates our lives. Probably 99% of the effort of landing probes on Mars involves Newton - maybe 1% involves Einstein. People don't successfully launch billion dollar probes at a relatively tiny target millions of miles away using 'wrong' physics.
Proof isn't an absolute. The word 'proof' is thrown around, but it's really just a preponderance of evidence. As the evidence for something starts mounting then science starts taking it more seriously. This is what has enabled scientists to put men on the moon and let you chat with people living on the other side of the world. Pseudoscience has never achieved anything.
You can possibly never know all the evidence for something, and it's possible everything you know is completely wrong. But that is no excuse for buying into every unsupported crackpot that comes along. As Cranky said above, without requiring evidence as a filter you'd be stuck having to accept EVERYTHING, even the things that directly contradict each other.
The example of being able to hold something, and see it, is a simplistic one but is still a useful argument. If something has no measurable impact on something, no affect that is discernible to anyone or anything, then there is no difference between that thing existing and that thing not existing. Yes that thing might still exist, but so what? Unless you can detect it somehow, measure it, experience it, then it can have no impact on anything. Telepathy might very well exist, but since no person, at no time, has ever been able to show this then how is that useful? If it in no way affects us, ever, then how is that any different from telepathy not existing? |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 | 06:09 PM
Stev said:
"Newtonian mechanics being proved wrong was a pretty big Time in my book. The fact is, how can we ever know when science has been wrong and when science has been right?"
As Charybdis has said, Newton wasn't "wrong," just not in possession of all the facts.
We know when science has been right and wrong by TESTING. Who was it, after all, who showed that Newtonian physics wasn't the last word? SCIENTISTS. How did they do it? By applying newly-gained information to the testing process.
The world of the "alternative," on the other hands, never empirically tests anything. At the risk of sounding snotty, it's a "faith-based" world. If it feels good and is fun to believe in, it's taken at face value and accepted, no matter if it has never been proven objectively. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 | 06:11 PM
Charybdis said:
"If something has no measurable impact on something, no affect that is discernible to anyone or anything, then there is no difference between that thing existing and that thing not existing."
That reminds me of the character in the movie Mystery Men who can make himself invisible, but only if no one is looking at him. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 03:53 AM
Just for fun, check out this, from this very site:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/thirdeye.html |
May
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 08:07 AM
Which proves what exactly? |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 02:25 PM
Oh, I don't know if it "proves" anything, but it sure is interesting, isn't it?
The guy was a PLUMBER who made up a ridiculous story and wrote books based on it.
I think Occam's Razor is in play here. There are two possibilities here. One is that a plumber went to Tibet, changed his name, "had his third eye opened," assumed the spirit of another person, then wrote books based on his experiences, including one dictated to him telepathically by his cat.
The other possibility is that he made it all up.
I'm going with Door Number Two. |
adrian osborne
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 | 08:37 AM
I came across tlr when i was 13. i'm 54 now. i must say that i have travelled hither and yon, wander'd around a bit. tried this. tried that. not much wrong with tlr. anyway, if your'e a buddhist, you kow what i'm saying. chill. xxxxxxx |
adrian osborne
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 | 08:46 AM
nothing much wrong with tlr. i began reading him when i was 13. i've been around and about. now i'm 54. he may b phony. he might not be. the "truth" will get you so far, then you have to get out and walk. hang loose. xxxxx |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 | 05:42 PM
Adrian Osborne said:
"not much wrong with tlr. anyway"
Well, other than the fact that his story is basically 100% bullshit. Does it bother you at all that he just made all that stuff up?
Truth may only "get you so far" but bullshit, it seems, will get you a cult following and a place on the best seller list. |
May
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 01:34 AM
Perhaps Cranky Media Guy should do his own research and stop believing crap without any facts to back it up. Neither Rampa nor Cyril has anything to do with plumbing if you checked their work history. That story was fabricated to discredit him by jealous people.
Much of what Rampa wrote HAS since been confirmed by other academics and in time people will soon discover that everything he wrote is 100% true. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 02:19 AM
May said:
"Much of what Rampa wrote HAS since been confirmed by other academics and in time people will soon discover that everything he wrote is 100% true."
I for one CANNOT WAIT until "academics"--or anyone else for that matter--confirm scientifically that Rampa/Cyril actually DID write a book which was telepathically dictated to him by his cat.
What a boon to mankind's knowledge base THAT will be.
Got an ETA on when that's gonna happen? |
Stev
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 03:32 AM
"We know when science has been right and wrong by TESTING"
But we don't know, that's the whole point. The tests scientists do suggest a result rather than prove it. Other test results may support the
initial results, but through testing we can never get to the point that we KNOW something is right. There are proponents of 'the world of the
'alternative'' (as Cranky refers to it) who believe in an Absolute Knowledge. Absolute Knowledge is of course completely alien to anyone who
hasn't experienced it. I haven't experienced it either, but I believe in it. Not because my guru (I don't have one) has told me to, but because
it fits in with my own attempt to interpret what reality is. Yes, it is 'faith-based' inasmuch as I am believing in a concept here, and I
realise there is no chance of science proving that Absolute Knowledge exists. If it does exist, science doesn't even come close to getting
there yet. One thing is for sure, I personally do not want to be limited in my hypothesis because of the fact that it can't be scientifically
proved.
It's the same with consciousness. To re-iterate what I said previously, solipsism is all we can be sure of and it can be personally proved. A
world which exists outside of a single person's consciousness cannot be proved except through Absolute Knowledge. Science's approach to
consciousness as far as I can see is to explain it away as a product of neuron activity in the brain. It is a materialistic explanation akin to
saying that once we build computers powerful enough, they will assume their own consciousness. If you stop for a minute and think about your
own ego, personality, emotions and self-awareness (in particular self-awareness) can you really accept that this is all down to neurons jumping
gaps?
If anyone can produce any references to articles about scientists exploring the nature of consciousness which go beyond this materialistic
approach, please post them because I would be really interested to read them. The only scientist (physicist) I've read who comes close is
Fritjof Capra.
Long live Rampa's cat. |
Keith
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 06:00 AM
Absolute Knowledge does exist and there is prrof of that ready to hand. Ask any teenager - they know everything! |
Charybdis
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 08:40 AM
<i>If you stop for a minute and think about your own ego, personality, emotions and self-awareness (in particular self-awareness) can you really accept that this is all down to neurons jumping gaps?</i>
I can accept it. There's no reason to believe otherwise, and every reason to think this is so. It's a well known fact that brain damage can severely impact a person's personality and emotions, even their self-awareness or awareness of others. If these things were created by an immaterial 'soul' or 'spirit' then they shouldn't be affect by physical damage, but that's clearly not the case.
Once again, your concept of 'Absolute Knowledge' is one which cannot be measured and has no discernible impact on anyone or anything, making it exactly the same as if it doesn't exist in the first place. If it cannot ever be shown to have impacted anything, or ever be able to impact anything, we can consider it nonexistent in our universe.
Even if you personally experienced Absolute Knowledge that you were somehow, for some reason unable to pass along to others, it would be completely impossible to differentiate between you actually possessing AK and you suffering from a mental illness. Since we know mental illness exists, and we have no evidence or reason to believe that Absolute Knowledge exists, guess which way I'll be betting.
We keep hearing about how these claims can never be proven scientifically, yet 'soon' the truth will be revealed to all of us. Since this truth has so far been nothing more than wild imaginings I can't fathom how this will be different, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm just unsure how that's going to happen in the absence of verifiable evidence. I tend not to take things on faith alone, and even if I had some sort of 'revelation' I'd be more inclined to believe I was suffering from the aforementioned mental illness than that I'd been given a special glimpse of the 'Truth'. |
Charybdis
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 08:48 AM
It also distresses me how we've knocked down every argument you've thrown at us, only to have you ignore us.
Once again, science - for all it's faults and inability to absolutely 'prove' anything - has still provided you the means to communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet, or even with people in space. Almost every single thing you see around you, every single thing you touch - even the grass - is a product of science. Your world exists because of science.
Show me one tangible thing that mysticism has ever created. One bit of magic that exists in our world.
Just one.
We've shown you practically everything. You've shown us nothing.
Until you provide that example I shall simply have to consider any other attacks on the failings of science as being meaningless because you have nothing to support your argument. |
Stev
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 10:26 AM
As you think I'm ignoring you I'll try and cover all the points you made which require discussion.
"It's a well known fact that brain damage can severely impact a person's personality and emotions, even their self-awareness or awareness of others. If these things were created by an immaterial 'soul' or 'spirit' then they shouldn't be affect by physical damage, but that's clearly not the case."
I don't think it's as black and white as that. The brain has a massive role in our expression on the material plane, of course it does, and I believe the physical brain is bound with our consciousness in a very complex manner. Damage to the physical brain affects our ability to exercise material expression in the material world. Even if the brain is irrepairably damaged, this doesn't mean that our consciousness is. It only appears that way in the physical world.
"Once again, your concept of 'Absolute Knowledge' is one which cannot be measured and has no discernible impact on anyone or anything, making it exactly the same as if it doesn't exist in the first place. If it cannot ever be shown to have impacted anything, or ever be able to impact anything, we can consider it nonexistent in our universe."
I can't follow this logic at all, sorry. Because we can't measure something, or it has no discernible impact on anyone or anything, it doesn't exist. Makes no sense.
"yet 'soon' the truth will be revealed to all of us."
I didn't say that.
"It also distresses me how we've knocked down every argument you've thrown at us, only to have you ignore us."
I'm sorry you find this (very interesting) discussion so distressing, but hang on a minute... "knocked down every argument you've thrown at us"? I have simply put my points to you, and none of your answers have caused me to re-evaluate my beliefs. You may see it as knocking down my arguments, but from my angle you just missed the point.
"...only to have you ignore us."
By 'ignore us' I assume you mean 'disagree with us'. I'm sorry if I am misjudging you here, but that sounds like frustration on your part. |
Stev
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 10:26 AM
"Once again, science - for all it's faults and inability to absolutely 'prove' anything - has still provided you the means to communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet,"
Who created the planet? Science?
"or even with people in space".
I can see space by looking at the sky. You're telling me science created that too?
"Almost every single thing you see around you, every single thing you touch - even the grass - is a product of science. Your world exists because of science."
So when I stand on top of a mountain in the Alps, take deep lungfuls of sweet fresh air, admire the sweeping valleys and green meadows, and watch the big red sun sinking in the west... that's all a product of science? News to me. What IS a product of science is stinking city air, microwave frazzled brains and fat spotty kids who get no exercise because they sit in front of a computer game all day long. Science has plenty of great things going for it, and I am a great fan of science as it happens, but rather than have science dictate to me what reality is according to their measured results (which can be flawed... that's a fact) I would rather weigh up all possibilities and keep an open mind.
"Show me one tangible thing that mysticism has ever created."
What's mysticism? I hate these labels... and why should it have 'created' something tangible?
"One bit of magic that exists in our world."
See 2 answers ago.
"Just one."
That was at least 4. I can give you plenty more. It's sad you have to have someone tell you about the magic in our world.
"We've shown you practically everything".
What?
"Until you provide that example I shall simply have to consider any other attacks on the failings of science as being meaningless because you have nothing to support your argument."
You are over-reacting. I do not make any attacks on the failings of science... you haven't really understood what I've been trying to say. I have only tried to make the point that we can't take the results that science come up with as absolute proof. And don't keep calling it 'my argument', it's a hypothesis, and since when did hypotheses need 'support'. If you chose to sweep away my points as meaningless because you see them as an attack on science, that's your prerogative. Personally I think you're missing out. |
Stev
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 10:50 AM
Either of you guys believe in God as a matter of interest? |
Charybdis
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 11:30 AM
Sorry if this sounds rambling, it's hard to be concise and hope to get my point across.
<i>Even if the brain is irrepairably damaged, this doesn't mean that our consciousness is. It only appears that way in the physical world.</i>
The physical world is the one we live in. Any other world is pure speculation.
'Logic'
If something cannot be shown, in any way whatsoever, to have any impact on anything, then how do you even know that thing exists? For that matter, what difference would it even make? Whether it exists or not, it can't affect us.
Now, the argument being offered is that such things as telepathy <i>do</i> exist, they just can't be measured scientifically. However, if you know they exist then you must have some way of detecting them. If you can't detect them, you can't know they exist. If you can detect them, they can be measured, even if it's only by you.
If they can be measured, they can be proved or at least evidence can be shown for them. If they can't be measured then they effectively don't exist for us since we can never know if they exist. You can't say "I know telepathy exists" if you can't detect/measure it. You can say "I believe telepathy exists" but since it's undetectable why would you? What makes you believe it exists if it's impossible to detect it?
If you respond "I've seen enough to convince me" then you must have detected something. That something must be detectable by others or your argument is irrelevant. If you're the only one who can detect it, who cares, it still has no impact on the rest of us. If it's detectable by others then it can be measured and studied. To say that telepathy exists but it can't be measured is to speak nonsensically.
If you respond "It can't be detected physically, but it can be detected metaphysically" is misleading. If you can detect it, it must be physical. There is no evidence of a metaphysical world, and by definition there never can be. If there were it would be physical. Again, if you're the only metaphysicist it doesn't matter to the rest of us.
If you're not the only metaphysicist then two metaphysicists should be able to agree on something metaphysical, which would be measurable, but this has never happened. If everybody's metaphysical world is different then again, what difference does it make to the rest of us. For us your metaphysical world doesn't exist.
The 'soon' comment was in reference to May's post, though it's a time-honored staple of the paranormal community.
You stated Newton was wrong, I refuted that. You claimed that science, because it has faults, cannot disprove paranormal activity. I showed that you can't prove it either. You can't even show any evidence for it, yet you continue to believe in it. I've repeated several times that science has created the world you live in and metaphysics has created nothing and you've not refuted that.
I understand that it all boils down to your personal beliefs. You believe it, and that's your right. But your beliefs have never had any evidence to show they are even remotely the truth. You're still free to have your beliefs, just as we're free to point out that it's entirely a faith-based belief system. Since it's all faith-based and can't be shown to be true, it's completely irrelvant to how the real world works.
The real world performs experiments, gathers data, makes predictions, verifies or falsifies those predictions, and provides a system that's self-sustainable enough to land men on the moon and send probes beyond Pluto.
Metaphysics hasn't. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 11:37 AM
Stev, you tell us that things outside of our physical world exist. I ask you, how do you know? It's that simple.
I don't believe in God for the very same reason I don't believe in anything else that's paranormal. I have no reason to.
Does that mean God doesn't exist? Of course not.
Does that mean Godzilla doesn't exist? Of course not.
There's just as much evidence for Godzilla's existence as there is for God's. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 05:12 PM
Stev asked:
"Either of you guys believe in God as a matter of interest?"
Well, I wouldn't say I was a hard core atheist, but basically, no, I don't believe in God.
I had 12 years of Catholic school--or as some people have referred to it, "Atheist training." |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 05:14 PM
Charybdis said:
"There's just as much evidence for Godzilla's existence as there is for God's."
Actually, there's more evidence for Godzilla's existance. I mean, have you SEEN all those movies of him? That guy keeps destroying Tokyo, gets routed, and comes back time and time again. |
Stev
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 | 03:05 AM
"Stev, you tell us that things outside of our physical world exist. I ask you, how do you know? It's that simple."
Most of the things I believe are just that... beliefs. However there are a few experiences I have had in my life which for me definitely point to the existence of a wider-reaching reality than is accepted as the materialistic norm. These have acted as my own personal 'proof', so in that sense I can say 'I know'. I could (and have) explained some of these experiences to other people, but quite frankly, if they don't want to accept what I say, they won't. It gets a little frustrating sometimes, for example, when they write it off as 'you must have been dreaming'. I wasn't... I know I wasn't, and on one occasion I actually immediately got up and started the day so that I could use that to demonstrate that I wasn't dreaming. I was still seen as some kind of nutter.
I really don't mean to attack science... I'm just trying to make the point that science currently has no explanation for my experiences. It's a bit like Newton's laws... you are quite right, they weren't wrong, they just weren't complete. And that's how I see science currently. Essentially science is self-correcting (it debugs itself for want of a better phrase) which is very honourable and how it should be, but at the same time it is, by necessity, self-limiting. There is room for hypothesis, but only with concrete 'proof' can scientists say 'this is almost 100% how it is'. But as I understand it, the atomic equations are still not balanced, and if one atom can't be explained, then by definition the whole of the universe cannot be explained. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, I'm not using this discussion (I've excluded myself from using the word argument now!!) to condone the 'alternative' approach to life. Personally, I think many of the new-wave religionists are what they are for perhaps the wrong reasons, and will accept things at face value. This does indeed leave them without the ability to argue their case. The same applies to most mainstream religions, and I can certainly see Cranky's point regarding Catholicism.
All I am trying to do for myself is to guess what the bigger canvas of existence might consist of. One of the first conclusions I came to was that if the whole of existence could be explained in a way that the human brain could understand, then it is a false explanation. So I accepted that, not being any kind of genius, I had to limit myself to concepts (the design patterns of life for you programmers). I'm sorry I can't explain this better... but I feel that logic dictates that everything we see, touch, hear and smell around us, being necessarily an interpretation of our senses, is a subset of what really is. And a small subset at that. I would love to hear what scientists have to say in 200 years time about what is accepted today. |
Stev
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 | 03:06 AM
So the yardstick I use in my judgements is whether it fits in with my logic. I purposely don't limit myself with proof requirements, I just want to try and fill in the canvas. If you find a dinosaur tooth in the ground, you can safely assume that there was an animal attached to it once, yet we only have proof of the tooth existing (this is an analogy... don't pick up on this unless it doesn't relate to the dinosaur!). The idea that we live once, learn loads, then die without trace doesn't fit with my logic. That our consciousness has always existed and always will does fit. Even that last sentence does not entirely fit with my logic as I also believe that time doesn't run... all of 'time' exists concurrently. Scientists garner their proof, explain it to us laymen in terms we can understand, then it's up to each of us, if we want, to use that information to tailor our beliefs. I haven't yet heard of any scientific conclusions which have opposed my beliefs, so I am happy in myself that I may well be going in the right direction with my logic. Maybe not, but I remain open-minded. Maybe Rampa's cat really did dictate the book (just returning to topic).
There was a quote I heard years ago regarding reincarnation that went along the lines of: "The miracle is not that we exist more than once, it's that we exist in the first place". If anyone can tell me who said that, I would be very grateful. |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 | 02:19 PM
Thank you for explaining your reasoning, Stev. I think what you describe applies to a lot of people.
The problem is, when you say things like, "So the yardstick I use in my judgements is whether it fits in with my logic," what you really mean is that you have concepts you like, for whatever reason, and you want to believe that they apply to the universe, evne if there is no factual basis for them.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you here, honestly. That's just how I see the thinking behind what you said.
Suppose that the concept of a flat Earth "fit in" with your logic. Would that be a reason to believe that the Earth IS flat?
In the case of Rampa (and other "alternative" whatevers), the things he asserts (like telepathy) simply violate the known laws of physics. Science knows of no way that thoughts can be transmitted telepathically.
Yes, science can be wrong. Over time it tends to correct, however, through testing. So far, notions like telepathy have NEVER passed objective testing. It is reasonable, therefore, to operate on the assumption that they don't exist.
As someone once said, nature doesn't try to fool us. If these things truly existed, they would be dectectable by those who have worked hard to test them.
There are a great many things that I would like to believe in. I try to keep in mind, though, that if they don't pass scrutiny, they remain nothing more than entertaining fantasies.
If "Rampa" had admitted that his literary output was fictional, I would be the first to congratulate him for having a great imagination. |
nikkhil
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 | 02:42 AM
the response is to Gabriel,
first of all i think u r the one with the ego,u just read one of his books and m queit sure that how much u would have read it, and u are sayin that he is the one with the ego,the knoledge he has given us is like sunshine in the life of those who have followed him.and i want to tell u that he dint borrow the title lama he was a lama,the only thing is that he was diffrent, and a man with great great spirituality.he always knew that he will be critised but niether he nor his followers fear critism because he knew the truth, the truth about every thing.........,people waste there lifes and they dont find a single answere but i can assure you the followers of rampa wont end there................,and m not sorry for bieng serios........ |
kris
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 | 06:36 PM
is it so out of the realm of possibility that maybe science at this moment is just not advanced enough to prove these things to you. How do you know that maybe 100 years or 200 years from now science will be able to prove it.
for the non-believers, how about you pick up a Lobsang Rampa book and practice what he teaches with an open mind, cause thats the ONLY way you'll have proof untill science catches up. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 | 12:39 AM
kris said:
"is it so out of the realm of possibility that maybe science at this moment is just not advanced enough to prove these things to you. How do you know that maybe 100 years or 200 years from now science will be able to prove it."
And maybe in 100 or 200 years, science will be able to figure out how "Rampa" was able to have all those fantastic experiences in the Orient when he never actually left England.
"for the non-believers, how about you pick up a Lobsang Rampa book and practice what he teaches with an open mind, cause thats the ONLY way you'll have proof untill science catches up."
Kris, I think your problem is that you've confused the concept of having an "open mind" with believing in any nonsense that anyone proposes. "Rampa" has been PROVEN to have been a fraud. Sad but true. |
May
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 | 01:25 AM
Hello Cranky Media Guy,
You wrote " "Rampa" has been PROVEN to have been a fraud. Sad but true"
based on what facts? |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 | 01:54 PM
May, I think these two links will give you the gist of the story:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/The_Third_Eye/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobsang_Rampa
In reading the second one, I was fascinated to find out that not only had Rampa gone to Tibet but he also visited Venus and other planets. I already knew, of course, that one of his books was dictated to him telepathically by his cat.
Still want to defend this nonsense? |
May
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 03:42 AM
It |
kris
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 05:07 PM
dude...why do you get so defensive,
just like you don't have to believe it, it's nobody's job to prove it to you either.
"Kris, I think your problem is that you've confused the concept of having an "open mind" with believing in any nonsense that anyone proposes."
How about the nonsense you're proposing, I don't believe it.
And I think your problem is that clearly you don't know what an open mind is.
"And maybe in 100 or 200 years, science will be able to figure out how "Rampa" was able to have all those fantastic experiences in the Orient when he never actually left England."
Ignorance |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 05:40 PM
May said:
"Western science is solely based on concrete imperialistic evidence whereas Eastern science is spiritual, thus esoteric."
Um, I think you meant "empirical" rather than "imperialistic." What you're actually saying here is if YOU personally believe in something, you don't care if there are NO facts to back it up.
"Humans lost their ability eons ago because they were devious to other animals (long story). FACT3: 99.9% of twins ARE telepathic to each other; albeit they don |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 05:51 PM
To Kris and May and anyone else who defends "Rampa," I wasn't going to reveal this, but, well, you've kind of backed me into a corner here.
I have a confession. I can fly. Yes, just like a bird, with no external support or power source. It's really quite extraordinary.
Since this is an "esoteric" skill I possess, I am under no requirement to provide any proof of my amazing flying ability, nor will I. I fully expect, however, that you will accept my claim of being able to fly. I mean, you DO have open minds, don't you?
You understand, of course, that you cannot point out that "Western science" says that my claim to be able to fly under my own power is impossible. After all, Western science "is solely based on concrete imperialistic [sic] evidence whereas Eastern science is spiritual, thus esoteric." My flying ability is spiritual and esoteric. Understand, please, that I AM claiming to be able to REALLY fly, just as "Rampa" claimed to have REALLY received telepathic dictation from his cat.
Under the rules you have established, you now MUST accept my claim as true. DO NOT ask me for proof, as according to you, the "esoteric" isn't subject to them. Thank you for accepting my claim at face value. |
kris
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 08:08 PM
i wouldn't just believe any BS being told to me, i believe because i've experienced things and that was proof enough for me...until you experience it yourself, you're not gonna be a believer and that's understandable
but YOU can't say it's all bullshit because your only education on the subject is Wikipedia, which is not allowed at any college/university as a credible source of information. (Canada anyway, i don't know about elsewhere)
you're placing too much trust in modern science.
did you know that after thousands of years they still don't have a definitive answer on how the pyramids were built with the technology that was available to the Egyptians at that time. we KNOW that the pyramids are there, but you'd think after 3,000 years modern science would be able to figure it out.
(i'm not 100% sure of the number but it was a very long time ago)
Go to your local bookstore, pick up one of Lobsang Rampa's books, (the first one i read was You Forever, and i recommend it to you) read it.
Don't just skim through it, READ IT.
all i'm saying is...u want proof...you gotta be willing to participate with an OPEN MIND.
Try to think of it as two different worlds. Physical and Spiritual. You can't bring what's spriritual into the physical world, or vice-versa.
And the way to enter the spiritual world is through faith, practice, and like May said, PATIENCE.
That's the only way you're going to get the proof you're looking for. |
Kris
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 | 08:10 PM
P.S. you'll thank me later |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 | 12:43 AM
Kris said:
"i wouldn't just believe any BS being told to me, i believe because i've experienced things and that was proof enough for me...until you experience it yourself, you're not gonna be a believer and that's understandable"
So, have you personally had a book dictated to you telepathically by a cat? If not, what I quoted above makes no sense.
You DO believe that I can fly, right? I'm just trying to understand your standards. We've established that you believe Rampa when he says he visited Tibet (even though there is ample evidence that the visit never happened and even though he changed his story to claiming that he went to Tibet by "astral projection"); when he claimed that he had a hole drilled in his head, even though no hole was visible; that his cat telepathically dictated one of his books to him.
Given that you accept THOSE things uncritically and say that "maybe science at this moment is just not advanced enough to prove these things to you," how can you possibly reject my claim to be able to fly under my own power?
Please make a statement to the effect that you accept my flying ability. |
kris
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 | 08:34 AM
i've never had any experiences with the cat...but i have had astral experiences.
and in regards to lobsang never being in Tibet...you're getting mistaken, Henry Hoskin has never been in Tibet, Lobsang has.
It's evident that you don't really know much about Lobsang and his experiences.
Now, about your flying...if you can show me how to do it, I will believe you.
Read Lobsang's books and practice his teachings and he WILL SHOW YOU all the things that you do not believe to be true.
Take up my challenge
.....read a couple of his books, practice what he says in the way that he says it and you WILL have all the evidence you're looking for.
Thats all that I can really say.
Just for arguments sake, do you believe that humans are the only intelligent life form in the universe? |
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
