|
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Your review on TL Rampa is rather outdated and is borne out of an incredible constipated realisation of truth.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 5 of 11 pages ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 > Last › |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 04:32 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 05:01 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 | 10:55 AM
But Newtonian physics wasn't proved wrong. Newtonian physics is 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 | 08:09 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 | 08:11 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 | 05:53 AM
Just for fun, check out this, from this very site:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/thirdeye.html |
May
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 10:07 AM
Which proves what exactly? |
Cranky Media Guy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 04:25 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
in southampton gb
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 | 10:37 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
in southampton gb
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 | 10:46 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 | 07:42 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 | 03:34 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 | 04:19 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 05:32 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 | 08:00 AM
Absolute Knowledge does exist and there is prrof of that ready to hand. Ask any teenager - they know everything! |
Charybdis
in Hell
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 10:40 AM
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 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
in Hell
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 10:48 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
in Germany
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 12:26 PM
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
in Germany
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 12:26 PM
"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
in Germany
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 | 12:50 PM
Either of you guys believe in God as a matter of interest? |
|
Page 5 of 11 pages ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 > 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.
|
