Do you believe in ghosts?

[dharmagoat]

For the record, I can honestly say that I have experienced "spirits" in the past, but this does not require me to believe they are real.

[Blue Garuda]

I dont believe you.
Neither you or anyone else on this forum have had experiences which do not have a far simpler explanation. Neither has anyone who has told anyone on this forum that they have.
The only question is whether you are lying or mistaken.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have experienced an hallucination or an illusion.

I could give you many examples from my own experience, but there is no point.

What you are doing is is defining a limitation for yourself.

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shortn his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying as well?

You are generalising, and doing so from a false premise (that you know that all such stories have a 'simpler' explanation) . What could be more simple than belief based on personal experience, as opposed to disbelief based on none.

[dharmagoat]

This has just come up in another thread "Samatha to See Gods":

In his commentary on Shamatha Teachings From Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence, B. Alan Wallace explains how experiences can be either projections of our own substrate consciousness (Alayavijnana), or they can also be more genuine experiences (actual awareness of beings (Dakinis, Devas, Asuras, Pretas, etc.) of other dimensions) that are beyond the mere projections of our own Alayavijnana.

[Simon E.]

I dont believe you.
Neither you or anyone else on this forum have had experiences which do not have a far simpler explanation. Neither has anyone who has told anyone on this forum that they have.
The only question is whether you are lying or mistaken.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have experienced an hallucination or an illusion.

I could give you many examples from my own experience, but there is no point.

What you are doing is is defining a limitation for yourself.

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shortn his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying as well?

You are generalising, and doing so from a false premise (that you know that all such stories have a 'simpler' explanation) . What could be more simple than belief based on personal experience, as opposed to disbelief based on none.

A narrated report has far more complex elements than that.
They include expectation and mindset, and mindset is culturally conditioned.
They also include adapting a narrative to the expectations of the hearer in order to have a deeper issue more likely of reception.
But really, it is a matter of complete indifference to me what people believe.
It is a matter of common experience that what people believe is in constant flux and goes on regardless of real life.
If people want to believe in ghosts then it is no skin off my nose. Neither will it in the end make any real difference to them in terms of dukkha I suspect.

[Blue Garuda]

You seem not to have answered one of my points, so I'll repeat it. :

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shorten his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying or having hallucinations as well?

[pueraeternus]

This is the crux of it - you think you bring "facts and logic" to the table, but others do not think so and have explained why. In the end, you are just as egoistic and superstitious (of your own beliefs) as you say others are.

This evokes the whole "is science a religion" debate. The consensus is that it is not.

No, this evolves around the contention of the worldview that anything not perceived by the normal 5 senses does not exist, which many here feel is ludicrous.

Some of us have direct experience of spirits, ghosts and whatnot. So in these cases it is not really a question of belief, but rather experience. And it happens to accord with the teachings of the Buddha recorded in the scriptures. Some others may not have had direct experience, but accept that even if certain entities cannot be perceived by one's undeveloped senses, it does not mean these entities don't exist. There is nothing superstitious or medieval about such acceptance.

Hallucination is also "direct experience" and gives rise to all sorts of peculiar perceptions. If a Buddhist were to hallucinate the presence of God, does that provide grounds for believing in God?

There seems to be confusion between the "direct experience" that you describe, and the "direct experience" of the nature of mind that validates Buddhist practice.

[/quote]

This shows that you are just interested in your own viewpoint and is willing to write off anyone else's account that they have seen or experienced something you have not.

If someone were to come tell me that she has seen an angel or God, I would not automatically write her off and say that she imagined it all. For me, I would think: "yes, she has perceived an entity and that entity told her that he is the Christian God. Perhaps that entity thinks that he is an almighty Creator, but actually is just a normal deva?"

In my case, as I have encountered poltergeist activity along with the visuals, and others have seen it with me, I know for sure it is not a hallucination. However, if you are one who would write off anyone's testimony, then there is nothing else to discuss, since it is your mind that is closed, not ours.

[dharmagoat]

You seem not to have answered one of my points, so I'll repeat it. :

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shorten his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying or having hallucinations as well?

A narrated report has far more complex elements than that.
They include expectation and mindset, and mindset is culturally conditioned.
They also include adapting a narrative to the expectations of the hearer in order to have a deeper issue more likely of reception.

I think Simon answered it very well.

[pueraeternus]

I dont believe you.
Neither you or anyone else on this forum have had experiences which do not have a far simpler explanation. Neither has anyone who has told anyone on this forum that they have.
The only question is whether you are lying or mistaken.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have experienced an hallucination or an illusion.
Alan Watts says somewhere that neither he nor anyone who he thinks is a reliable witness has ever had a supernatural experience of any kind that he was convinced by. And that furthermore that fact had nothing to do with Dharma. Its the difference between Dharma and folk belief.

'
Then there is nothing we can discuss with you, since your mind is utterly closed, and you are convinced that people like us who have encountered spirits are delusional. As mentioned in my last post, I have encountered the physical effects of ferocious supernatural entites along with other human witnesses, so that precludes the charge of hallucination. Of course, none of this is going to convince you.

[dharmagoat]

If someone were to come tell me that she has seen an angel or God, I would not automatically write her off and say that she imagined it all. For me, I would think: "yes, she has perceived an entity and that entity told her that he is the Christian God. Perhaps that entity thinks that he is an almighty Creator, but actually is just a normal deva?"

The problem with belief is that it requires layer upon layer to justify it. A simpler explanation is sufficient.

In my case, as I have encountered poltergeist activity along with the visuals, and others have seen it with me, I know for sure it is not a hallucination. However, if you are one who would write off anyone's testimony, then there is nothing else to discuss, since it is your mind that is closed, not ours.

I closed mind believes, an open mind reserves belief.

[Blue Garuda]

You seem not to have answered one of my points, so I'll repeat it. :

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shorten his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying or having hallucinations as well?

A narrated report has far more complex elements than that.
They include expectation and mindset, and mindset is culturally conditioned.
They also include adapting a narrative to the expectations of the hearer in order to have a deeper issue more likely of reception.

I think Simon answered it very well.

He didn't asnwer at all.

He previously asserted that people were either lying or hallucinating.

ChNNR was very simple in his statement - he experienced vexations from a Gyalpo spirit and used purificaiton with the 5 elements to remove it. He has previously also said that Tragphur practice does so. HHDL has claimed his life may be shortened etc. Conditioning etc has nothing to do with very simple statements from these two Lamas.

These are very simple statements, nothing to do with expectations, just statements of fact in their eyes.

I suspect Simon is 'hoist by his own petar' and daren't attach his assertion to these two people.

[dharmagoat]

I have encountered the physical effects of ferocious supernatural entites along with other human witnesses, so that precludes the charge of hallucination.

Can you prove it?

I actually don't think proof is the issue here, but the denial of a simpler explanation.

[pueraeternus]

If someone were to come tell me that she has seen an angel or God, I would not automatically write her off and say that she imagined it all. For me, I would think: "yes, she has perceived an entity and that entity told her that he is the Christian God. Perhaps that entity thinks that he is an almighty Creator, but actually is just a normal deva?"

The problem with belief is that it requires layer upon layer to justify it. A simpler explanation is sufficient.

Just a host of fallacies conjured to sustain your own belief system.

In my case, as I have encountered poltergeist activity along with the visuals, and others have seen it with me, I know for sure it is not a hallucination. However, if you are one who would write off anyone's testimony, then there is nothing else to discuss, since it is your mind that is closed, not ours.

I closed mind believes, an open mind reserves belief.

There is nothing to believe, since it is directly experienced. In your case, your closed mind believes only your own idea that spirits and ghosts don't exist or are purely psychological delusions.

[pueraeternus]

I have encountered the physical effects of ferocious supernatural entites along with other human witnesses, so that precludes the charge of hallucination.

Can you prove it?

I actually don't think proof is the issue here, but the denial of a simpler explanation.

What is the point? I described something that happened in the past - so what kind of "proof" would you like? I can show you the things that were moved and thrown around but that is just redundant. I can get others to testify but you will still think that these people are nuts.

This obsession with a "simpler explanation" is just a logical fallacy, a belief system manufactured to justify a rigid world-view.

[Blue Garuda]

I actually don't think proof is the issue here, but the denial of a simpler explanation.

The OP was about whether people believe, not whether they should.

People can only speak from their own experience and draw their own conclusions.

There is not a shred of evidence you can present to me to support your view and vice versa.

I don't know why anyone would consider a scientific explanation of hallucinatory behaviour to be simpler than 'it was a spirit'.

Simon produced an assertion of lying or hallucination, based on no evidence whatsoever, and applied it to the experience of others, but seems mighty reticent about attaching it to ChNNR and HHDL, for some reason.

[Simon E.]

You seem not to have answered one of my points, so I'll repeat it. :

If ChNNR says that he has experienced harm from Gyalpos, then is he also lying or having hallucinations? Is the Dalai Lama lying when he says the same thing - that people propitiating a certain Gyalpo will shorten his life? Are all Gurus who teach about post-mortem rebirth in the realms, including Shakyamuni, lying or having hallucinations as well?

A narrated report has far more complex elements than that.
They include expectation and mindset, and mindset is culturally conditioned.
They also include adapting a narrative to the expectations of the hearer in order to have a deeper issue more likely of reception.

I think Simon answered it very well.

He didn't asnwer at all.

He previously asserted that people were either lying or hallucinating.

ChNNR was very simple in his statement - he experienced vexations from a Gyalpo spirit and used purificaiton with the 5 elements to remove it. He has previously also said that Tragphur practice does so. HHDL has claimed his life may be shortened etc. Conditioning etc has nothing to do with very simple statements from these two Lamas.

These are very simple statements, nothing to do with expectations, just statements of fact in their eyes.

I suspect Simon is 'hoist by his own petar' and daren't attach his assertion to these two people.

As to Tenzing Gyatso the simplest explanation is political.
As to ChNNN he pays in the coin he is given. And deals accordingly.

But why should you care what I think or anyone ?
You have your firm belief. Mine need not detain you.

[Josef]

As to Tenzing Gyatso the simplest explanation is political.
As to ChNNN he pays in the coin he is given. And deals accordingly.

I doubt that either of these two do this.
Us on the other hand certainly do.
Including rigid devotion to the relatively young sciences that we use to express our ethnocentric worldview.

[dharmagoat]

What is the point? I described something that happened in the past - so what kind of "proof" would you like? I can show you the things that were moved and thrown around but that is just redundant. I can get others to testify but you will still think that these people are nuts.

This obsession with a "simpler explanation" is just a logical fallacy, a belief system manufactured to justify a rigid world-view.

Okay, I can see that rather than tossing ideas around, I have to spell some things out. I owe it to you.

I do not believe ghosts do not exist, but I have no belief that they do. I do not ask for proof, acknowledging that proof is not possible, either way. I challenge the notion that "seeing is believing" because perception is known to be influenced by one's expectations. Studies in psychology illustrate this time and time again, and if we maintain an open mind, we find that our experiences corroborate this. I do not suggest that people who experience spirits are "nuts". I have already acknowledged that those able to accept the reality of deities have a distinct advantage when practicing Vajrayana.

[Josef]

I have already acknowledged that those able to accept the reality of deities have a distinct advantage when practicing Vajrayana.

But they arent "real".
Varjayana practitioners who understand what they are doing are not worshiping some kind of external deities at all.

[Blue Garuda]

As to Tenzing Gyatso the simplest explanation is political.
As to ChNNN he pays in the coin he is given. And deals accordingly.

But why should you care what I think or anyone ?
You have your firm belief. Mine need not detain you.

I don't. I was hoping you would see the totally unfounded and unscientific nature of your premise by reductio ad absurdum, but you actually went further and made absurd statements about two highly respected Lamas because of 'scientifically' insisting on a premise you could never prove to be correct.

In supporting your notion you still obfuscate and can't quite bring yourself to give the simple answer that ChNNR and HHDL, like the rest of us, must be liars or hallucinating as the logical conclusion of your unproven premise. You can't advocate science on the one hand and posit that a process of analysis or deductive reasoning must agree with a (pretty insulting) conclusion you have already drawn.

[Simon E.]

As to Tenzing Gyatso the simplest explanation is political.
As to ChNNN he pays in the coin he is given. And deals accordingly.

I doubt that either of these two do this.
Us on the other hand certainly do.
Including rigid devotion to the relatively young sciences that we use to express our ethnocentric worldview.

Our relatively young sciences gave us the very means by which we are communicating and by which some are questioning the value of those young sciences.

Of course we could all try communicating instead by telepathy or Vulcan mind melding and by-passing the internet completely..
But once more...as you are confident in your beliefs why are you exercised by those who do not share them ?