Sambojjhanga wrote:Friend, I see you aren't willing to let this drop. I would not respond except you make the rather provocative statement that I have an interesting manner of coming and leaving. I've gone no where. I was simply trying to avoid conflict for conflict's sake as I see no possibility of fruitful discussion here with you. In a truly fruitful discussion, there is give and take and at least some common ground. I don't see that here. I see selective responding, ignoring of points and questions, and, quite frankly, someone who is very attached to arguing and being right. Nothing more.
you may wish to understand talking to your self, assuming disbelief in something due to using tools to judge whether a perception or belief is true or nothing more than a perception or belief and saying you have experienced something but not saying what while criticizing others, is interesting.
if you have a claim please state it and be open to questioning, instead of providing what at present amounts to nothing and excuses.
but also do understand I am not addressing you specifically unless I am actually quoting you!
You specifically ignored my wondering what your Gaelic quote meant, you did not respond to my URL's regarding meteorites and the Royal Academy nor my links to Randi or my suggestion that you check out the works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake or Jaques Vallee. So why should I think you are serious in this discussion when you don't even do me the courtesy of specifically responding? Why should I assume that you are interested in anything but fostering YOUR POV?
the myth of the prize has been addressed by Randi and his organisation. and I have no reason to defend someone who has already defended themselves. it is not dificult to find his defence http://www.randi.org/site/
but he is only one debunker (and a easily recognisable one, hence his specific use).the main point hasn't changed, even with the "myth" or if another was used.
I did actually say something which had direct relivance to your meteorite examplethere 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.
as you and others I have addressed have only so far been in regard to excesses for not demonstrating, I have not actually addressed any claim apart from what Raksha witnessed, and then it was to say it could still be examined and the cause shown.
I'm not trying to present evidence for a scientific inquiry. I simply stated that I have experienced things in my life which are not easily explained by the current scientific-materialist paradigm. I don't expect that to be "evidence". What I do expect, at least on a Buddhist forum is more open-mindedness. For example, I'd be a fool to expect such open-mindedness if I went and posted a similar thing on a physics forum. Why would I do that when what you say is absolutely true there? It would be equally foolish to discuss Jhana, enlightenment or a whole host of other things surrounding our practice on a physics forum, all of which are quite right to be discussed here. I don't see why that is even an issue.
you aren't presenting anything other than reasons why it should not be stated.there is nothing to be open minded about because there is nothing other than excusses. to be open minded you need to be able to ask what is going on, which has and does happen with Meditation!
You seem to have no problems with the idea of most any other Buddhist idea, but when the siddhis are discussed, you become very closed-mined. I honestly don't understand that. Jhana, the siddhis and indeed, full enlightenment are all self-reported phenomena, yet you seem to have no problems with the first and third (I'm assuming you have no problem with the third, correct me if I'm wrong?) but yet you totally deny the possibility of the second. NONE of which are appropriate to be discussed in a physics forum because none of them can be measured. Yet all are appropriate here.
I have no issue with things that can be looked at, discussed and shown to some extent... but to think I am going to accept Keck y Vooar excesses why not to say or talk about something and still be expected to accepted it is ridiculous, it is blind not open minded to do such.
Keck y vooar means B'S' approximately, which is claiming closed mindedness when there is no reason to be inquisitive; as is accusing people of things for asking!
You actually have no idea what I accept! To think I would accept something without demonstrable evidence that could not be experienced repeated & verified is silly, yet apparently what you do expect.
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.
It is also somewhat disingenuous for you to say that Buddhist meditation can fall under the umbrella of science. Yes, science can measure changes in brainwaves during meditation and can report changes. But what "results" that you speak of can science study regarding Buddhism? Precious little that I can see. Of do you mean to tell me that science can determine whether or not, for instance, that Daniel Ingram is or is not an Arahant? You know it cannot. Science also has nothing to say about Jhana, the siddhis, or anything else.
Did not say at any point that Buddhist meditation falls under the umbrella of science, you are doing nothing but twisting what has been said!
Buddhist meditation and certain teachings have proven to be helpful in mental health to some degree, but this does not mean that I have equated the two together by any stretch. and when I go onto say that through such corroborated results a reasonable projection
that can lead people to believe that the end result might be true in some way, still does not say science proves Buddhism completely.
seriously! deal with the points instead of trying to turn this on me all the time. if what you or anyone else has experienced is real it doesn't need hidden and can be questioned!