it could still be submitted! just because HE never made it move doesn't mean there was not a form of hallucination happening, or the true causer of the movement could not be determined or tested.Sambojjhanga wrote:Not at all. It is more akin to explaining to a blind man what colors are or to a person who's never experienced love what falling in love is like.Cittasanto wrote:
That is like saying
For those who know math, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't know math, math can not be taught or demonstrated.
the main thing is that no one has demonstrated to people who are offering prizes (since Houdini) through demonstrable ways which can not be explained in any other way the possibility of such abilities. leads to the conclusion of keck y vooar
BTW, I have no idea what "keck y vooar" means, I googled it but to no avail.
I think that one of the main reasons that tests like those proposed by James Randi haven't been taken is due to the fact that people who've experienced the siddhi's don't have the precise control over them that Randi designs into his tests. See: http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth ... -challenge
Afterall, Rashka witnessed the Buddha moving, HE never said he caused it to move! Kind of hard to submit something like that to Randi's tests, no? I will say that what I've experienced has been in a similar vein and certainly not something I could submit to Randi's testing, not that I'm really inclined to do so in any case.
I saw a test done by Randi and the only control he asked for was polystyrene packaging balls and all sorts of excuses were used the gentleman had enough control to do his trick in normal circumstances, and regularly but with the control he could not. There have been others to accept publicly the challange who have enough control to do it all day every day, yet they never got in touch.
if asking for evidence is ridicule what is twisting others words or ad hom?I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of the veracity of such things. Rashka related his story, and true-to-form, he was met with derision and ridicule. Pretty much par for the course.
Raksha may of been given a reason for the happening in a way you find ridiculing, but to assume they were actually ridiculing may be premature.
a claim with nothing backing it up is no more than a claim!I know what I have experienced. I made the mistake of mentioning it here, on a Buddhist forum, where I assumed a bit of open-mindedness, considering people practice with the goal of Nibbana, something I'm quite sure that non-Buddhists often consider a fool's errand. I personally find the reactions in such a place a bit off-putting, but then nothing in Samsara surprises me that much anymore.
The problem you have here is that Buddhist Practice time and again under scientific methods yields results which show that claims are to some degree are true. this may not equate to enlightenment but it does show that there is a greater tolerance for pain, and benefit for mental health and stress at least and through such corroberated results a reasonable projection that can lead people to believe that the end result might be is true in some way.
there is the difference, a large body of anecdotal as-well as empirical evidence v's anecdotal alone with the addition of non-repeatable or flawed experiments or psudo-science in some cases.
so when empirical evidence is sought it is consistently obtained in a repeatable way?I would suggest to you that this is very typical of the history of discovery in our world. There are many, many examples of this in the history of scientific discovery, but one that comes to mind is the "discovery" of meteorites by Jean-Baptiste Biot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Biot Until he made this discovery, the Royal Academy considered such phenomena to be the reports of charlatans. As I say, this is fairly typical how dogmatic science can be. You might want to check out the work of Rupert Sheldrake and Jacques F. Vallee for more on the current state of scientific dogmatism. BTW, in case you don't know, both men have excellent scientific pedigrees and both are true pioneers and like all pioneers, are subject to derision and ridicule.
and how does asking for evidence show feelings, experience or other?One final thing. Until I experienced what I have experienced, I felt exactly the way you do, so I'm not that surprised...though I will admit that I was not a practicing Buddhist at that time...just a strict scientific materialist. Something I've thankfully outgrown.