Anomalous Phenomena/"The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

Sambojjhanga wrote:
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
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
if asking for evidence is ridicule what is twisting others words or ad hom?
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.
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.
a claim with nothing backing it up is no more than a claim!
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.
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.
so when empirical evidence is sought it is consistently obtained in a repeatable way?
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.
and how does asking for evidence show feelings, experience or other?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by appicchato »

What about the guy who bends spoons?...
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

appicchato wrote:What about the guy who bends spoons?...
Uri Geller?
I think he has been refuted a number of times hasn't he?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Yana
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:45 am

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Yana »

Sambojjhanga wrote:
Raksha, this is why it's best to not speak of such things.

For those who know, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

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.
Hi Sambojjhanga,

Just to make it clear to Raksha i was not trying to ridicule him i was just trying to cheer everyone up including him! :smile: But would i believe him? Of course! A lot of people experience psychic/unexplainable phenomenons i am frankly surprised people are even surprised it happens..Raksha is by no means a laughing stock. :hug:

All psychic phenomenons are completely overrated..they are perfectly normal experience/phenomenon here in Samsara..and anyways it's easier and more common to experience psychic phenomenons than realizing Nibbanna.Now if i met an Arahant THEN i'd be speechless.

The problem for us Buddhists is not whether or not psychic powers really do exist?
It's not letting it hinder us towards our goal of realizing Nibbanna.

:anjali:
Life is preparing for Death
Raksha
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:30 pm

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Raksha »

Cittasanto wrote:if asking for evidence is ridicule what is twisting others words
Cittasanto wrote: they are quite literally speaking out of the wrong orifice.
Cittasanto wrote:leads to the conclusion of keck y vooar
Unfortunately, I know just enough Scot's Gaelic to be offended by this phrase in Manx Gaelic that means something like 'great big S**t'. So yes your words do ridicule others Cittasanto, and they are offensive.
Sambojjhanga wrote:it's best to not speak of such things.
I guess you are right brother. Thanks.
:anjali:
Last edited by Raksha on Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by mikenz66 »

Cittasanto wrote:
appicchato wrote:What about the guy who bends spoons?...
Uri Geller?
I think he has been refuted a number of times hasn't he?
And even lampooned by Pokemon...
http://www.gamesfirst.com/articles/news ... 1_3_00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://thegeedork.blogspot.co.nz/2011/0 ... rsies.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

Raksha
looking at the context these spinets were placed makes this twisting others words to be something they are not!

it is an animal, nothing great or big in there! although I probably spelt it incorrectly with the addition of an r. but I will point you to Stephen Fry!

There was nothing about others personally but what they do, it is speaking about Action not person. And in both cases referring specifically to those making claimes yet not willing or coming-up with excuses which are not warranted as to why they can not demonstrate them!
Raksha wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:if asking for evidence is ridicule what is twisting others words
Cittasanto wrote: they are quite literally speaking out of the wrong orifice.
Cittasanto wrote:leads to the conclusion of keck y vooar
Unfortunately, I know just enough Scot's Gaelic to be offended by this phrase in Manx Gaelic that means something like 'great big S**t'. So yes your words do ridicule others Cittasanto, and they are offensive.
Sambojjhanga wrote:it's best to not speak of such things.
I guess you are right brother. Thanks.
:anjali:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

mikenz66 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
appicchato wrote:What about the guy who bends spoons?...
Uri Geller?
I think he has been refuted a number of times hasn't he?
And even lampooned by Pokemon...
http://www.gamesfirst.com/articles/news ... 1_3_00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://thegeedork.blogspot.co.nz/2011/0 ... rsies.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

:anjali:
Mike
I don't think bending a spoon would fare-well in the fights though!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote:Raksha
looking at the context these spinets were placed makes this twisting others words to be something they are not!

it is an animal, nothing great or big in there! although I probably spelt it incorrectly with the addition of an r. but I will point you to Stephen Fry!

There was nothing about others personally but what they do, it is speaking about Action not person. And in both cases referring specifically to those making claimes yet not willing or coming-up with excuses which are not warranted as to why they can not demonstrate them!
Hi Cittasanto, why do you use so much exclamation points? What do they mean? I'm asking because I'm always unsure what you intended to do with those exactly. I kept on getting the impression that you're shouting, angry or frustrated... but that can't be right, is it?

It's kinda painful for me to read because I grew up with my father always shouting down everyone whenever he disagrees with something. I don't know if you remember, but when I posted a disagreement with you a while ago... you replied something with an exclamation point. I dropped it immediately afterwards, because of that perception.

After growing up with my father, I have absolutely no desire at all to have any kind of discussion with anyone who is shouting, or who feel like that they have to emphasize everything what they said. To me, it only signifies that the person is a jerk. Not worth having a conversation with. I know that this might not be your intention... but just letting you know how your use of exclamation points might come across to some people on here.
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Sambojjhanga »

Yana wrote:
Sambojjhanga wrote:
Raksha, this is why it's best to not speak of such things.

For those who know, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

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.
Hi Sambojjhanga,

Just to make it clear to Raksha i was not trying to ridicule him i was just trying to cheer everyone up including him! :smile: But would i believe him? Of course! A lot of people experience psychic/unexplainable phenomenons i am frankly surprised people are even surprised it happens..Raksha is by no means a laughing stock. :hug:

All psychic phenomenons are completely overrated..they are perfectly normal experience/phenomenon here in Samsara..and anyways it's easier and more common to experience psychic phenomenons than realizing Nibbanna.Now if i met an Arahant THEN i'd be speechless.

The problem for us Buddhists is not whether or not psychic powers really do exist?
It's not letting it hinder us towards our goal of realizing Nibbanna.

:anjali:
Dear Yana,

:hug: back to you. You are, of course, correct. Siddhi's are real...and they can absolutely be a hinderance. They don't have to be, of course, but many get so enamoured by them that they become a complete and total obstacle of what (hopefully?) we are all seeking...Nibbana. In fact, I'm starting to let this topic become a hinderance, thank you for reminding me of that.

Metta,

:anjali:
Last edited by Sambojjhanga on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Sambojjhanga »

Friend Cittasanto,

This is a Buddhist discussion forum, not a scientific forum, a skeptics forum or even a psi forum, so I'm not going to further engage you in a "tit for tat" discussion here.

I've said what I have to say, you've said what you have to say. I doubt and any further discussion is likely to lead to anything fruitful and is quite likely to only lead to hard feelings and ill-will between the participants, something I'm not really interested in being a part of. Unfortunately, I've probably generated enough ill-will as it is.

I think I shall take the Buddha's advice on this as friend LonesomeYogurt has so wisely reminded us, and spend my valuable time concentrating on my practice toward the end of suffering and not contribute any more to my own, yours or anyone elses.

In all sincerity I wish you much Metta.

:anjali:
Last edited by Sambojjhanga on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Sambojjhanga »

Sambojjhanga wrote:it's best to not speak of such things.
I guess you are right brother. Thanks.
:anjali:

You are welcome, brother.

I wish you much Metta.

:anjali:
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Beeblebrox,
Please see Yanas comment bellow!

but don't remember any conversation with you specifically.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:35 am, edited 4 times in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Cittasanto »

Sambojjhanga wrote:Friend Cittasanto,

This is a Buddhist discussion forum, not a scientific forum, a skeptics forum or even a psi forum, so I'm not going to further engage you in a "tit for tat" discussion here.
you may wish you look at the section. and evidence is not a sceptics or scientific anomaly. but a tool is a tool.
I've said what I have to say, you've said what you have to say. I doubt and any further discussion is likely to lead to anything fruitful and is quite likely to only lead to hard feelings and ill-will between the participants, something I'm not really interested in being a part of. Unfortunately, I've probably generated enough ill-will as it is.
if you say so. you came in and leave in an interesting manner.
I think I shall take the Buddha's advice on this as friend LonesomeYogurt has so wisely reminded us, and spend my valuable time concentrating on my practice toward the end of suffering and not contribute any more to my own, yours or anyone elses.
you are not a cause of any suffering for me.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Yana
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:45 am

Re: "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika

Post by Yana »

beeblebrox wrote:
Hi Cittasanto, why do you use so much exclamation points? What do they mean? I'm asking because I'm always unsure what you intended to do with those exactly. I kept on getting the impression that you're shouting, angry or frustrated... but that can't be right, is it?

It's kinda painful for me to read because I grew up with my father always shouting down everyone whenever he disagrees with something. I don't know if you remember, but when I posted a disagreement with you a while ago... you replied something with an exclamation point. I dropped it immediately afterwards, because of that perception.

After growing up with my father, I have absolutely no desire at all to have any kind of discussion with anyone who is shouting, or who feel like that they have to emphasize everything what they said. To me, it only signifies that the person is a jerk. Not worth having a conversation with. I know that this might not be your intention... but just letting you know how your use of exclamation points might come across to some people on here.
Nooo beeblebrox :hug: don't worry my brotherr no one is shouting at youu....it's easy to get misunderstood online than face to face :heart: ..ofcourse there are disagreements but it doesn't mean people are shouting at each other :smile: ..Cittasanto uses exclamation marks even when he's saying something nice at least in my own experience..i use that too when i am trying to emphasize something..but doesn't mean i am shouting at you..oki oki :group: (i'm sorry to hear your father shouted at you that must be terrible..i hope you feel better and don't let anything get to you.. :hug: )
Life is preparing for Death
Post Reply