|
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Your review on TL Rampa is rather outdated and is borne out of an incredible constipated realisation of truth.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 4 of 11 pages ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last › |
May
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 | 05:40 PM
Since the publication of his first book |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 | 03:28 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 | 03:33 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 | 04:43 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 | 03:21 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 03:54 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 | 10:56 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 | 04:31 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 | 10:14 AM
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. - 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 show 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 10:41 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 | 11:23 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 11:39 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 | 01:23 PM
Let |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 02:19 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.
You say something can't be true unless it's proved to be true.
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 everything 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 | 02:38 PM
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. - 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Anything related to the spiritual cannot be dissected, let alone held up as a plaque as proof.
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 | 03:41 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 03:54 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 | 04:44 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 | 05:00 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 | 05:07 PM
Nope, I've never been high or drunk in my entire life. - 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. |
|
Page 4 of 11 pages ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last › |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
