Do you believe in ghosts?

[Clarence]

Hey Simon,

Since you refer to HHDL as Gyatso and have experience with gyalpo shukden, does that mean you are a member of NKT?

Thanks,

C

[Dechen Norbu]

I stand by my remark.
People who claim experience of ghosts are either lying for social strokes, or are emotionally unbalanced temporarily. Or are mistaken due to misinterpretation of stimuli due to their preexisting mindset.

You don't know the experiences of others, can't know them and are assuming your experience and your beliefs must be universal. At most, what you can honestly claim, is that according to the current scientific understanding of reality - which you apparently accept - we don't have enough evidence to affirm such beings exist. However, when stating such you must be aware the science is grounded in a metaphysical system that is not scientific. It's a particular worldview that rests on faith in principles like the existence of an independent reality, our mental representations of it being adequate and so on and so forth. If we start by considering the experiences of those who can perceive these beings as hallucinations, not mattering if they are healthy and balanced people, we don't have much of a chance of investigating anything. It's an apriori that blocks further research. It's also dogma and nothing more. Theory, not data, dictates what can be real, according to such standing point and this is ludicrous, albeit common among scientifically minded people unfortunately.

I could SHOW you on a screen the phenomena described as ghosts appearing to subjects who are experiencing stimuli applied to various sites in the brain.
But if you wish or need to believe in their literal existence, that is entirely your business.

That proves nothing. You can induce many kinds of hallucinations through deep brain stimulation. The person may hallucinate and see a tree for instance. This doesn't mean all trees are hallucinations.
Let me just ask you a few questions, very directly: do you believe the primordial state is produced by the brain? To you believe rigpa is a phenomenon caused by the brain? How do you reconcile your view with the teachings about the energy aspect of the base?

My view of Tenzing Gyatso and the actions of his " oracle " differs radically from yours.

We understood your view: the Dalai Lama is a political pawn.
I beg to differ.

My interpretation of Norbu Rinpoches teaching differs from yours in some respects.

By what I'm seeing you write, your interpretation of his teachings on this subject warps them to a great extent. It's not an interpretation any longer. It's sheer distortion. But to accommodate such teachings while having your worldview, you don't seem to have much of a chance.
He is rather clear in this matter. Very recently he talked about it. If you've been attending to these last retreats, you must have a hard time reconciling your ideas and his teachings.

[Simon E.]

Where do you get the idea that I " have experience of Shukden " ?
Blimey, the lengths that people will go to to discredit an argument that they cannot be bothered to use their intelligence over.
No I am not and have never been a member of N.K.T.

The Shukden myth is just that.
The means by which the powers behind the Dharmasala throne manipulate a good but naive man.

Perhaps someone would like to demonstrate either where the 19th and early 20th century model of " the mind " fits with the Skandha model. Or conversely why the Skandha model is redundant.

You really cant have it both ways.

[Simon E.]

I stand by my remark.
People who claim experience of ghosts are either lying for social strokes, or are emotionally unbalanced temporarily. Or are mistaken due to misinterpretation of stimuli due to their preexisting mindset.

You don't know the experiences of others, can't know them and are assuming your experience and your beliefs must be universal. At most, what you can honestly claim, is that according to the current scientific understanding of reality - which you apparently accept - we don't have enough evidence to affirm such beings exist. However, when stating such you must be aware the science is grounded in a metaphysical system that is not scientific. It's a particular worldview that rests on faith in principles like the existence of an independent reality, our mental representations of it being adequate and so on and so forth. If we start by considering the experiences of those who can perceive these beings as hallucinations, not mattering if they are healthy and balanced people, we don't have much of a chance of investigating anything. It's an apriori that blocks further research. It's also dogma and nothing more. Theory, not data, dictates what can be real, according to such standing point and this is ludicrous, albeit common among scientifically minded people unfortunately.

I could SHOW you on a screen the phenomena described as ghosts appearing to subjects who are experiencing stimuli applied to various sites in the brain.
But if you wish or need to believe in their literal existence, that is entirely your business.

That proves nothing. You can induce many kinds of hallucinations through deep brain stimulation. The person may hallucinate and see a tree for instance. This doesn't mean all trees are hallucinations.
Let me just ask you a few questions, very directly: do you believe the primordial state is produced by the brain? To you believe rigpa is a phenomenon caused by the brain? How do you reconcile your view with the teachings about the energy aspect of the base?

My view of Tenzing Gyatso and the actions of his " oracle " differs radically from yours.

We understood your view: the Dalai Lama is a political pawn.
I beg to differ.

My interpretation of Norbu Rinpoches teaching differs from yours in some respects.

By what I'm seeing you write, your interpretation of his teachings on this subject warps them to a great extent. It's not an interpretation any longer. It's sheer distortion. But to accommodate such teachings while having your worldview, you don't seem to have much of a chance.
He is rather clear in this matter. Very recently he talked about it. If you've been attending to these last retreats, you must have a hard time reconciling your ideas and his teachings.

Sorry I havent got the hang of selective quoting yet.
No Dechen Norbu, I dont believe that the primordial state is produced by the brain.
Neither do I believe that Rigpa is a product of the brain.
I do think that it is self evident that the constructs that we erect around the primordial state and around Rigpa are the result of brain activity.
I have actually discussed these matters with Rinpoche.
There is no problem.
Really.
The problem only arises when one holds on to a religious view of Dharma.
Just as there is only a problem with Quantum theory if one holds on to a literalist view of Buddhist Cosmology. What is emerging from brain studies is every bit as repeatable and cohesive as what is going on at Cerne. At less cost..

[Blue Garuda]

Where do you get the idea that I " have experience of Shukden " ?
Blimey, the lengths that people will go to to discredit an argument that they cannot be bothered to use their intelligence over.
No I am not and have never been a member of N.K.T.

The Shukden myth is just that.
The means by which the powers behind the Dharmasala throne manipulate a good but naive man.

Perhaps someone would like to demonstrate either where the 19th and early 20th century model of " the mind " fits with the Skandha model. Or conversely why the Skandha model is redundant.

You really cant have it both ways.

It would seem that Gelugpas are suffering from mass hysteria and hallucination, then.

Although there is a polarity, ALL I have ever met, seen, read about etc. agree on the existence of harmful Gyalpo spirits.
Your view of ChNNR beggars belief - have you ever used even the Short Tun?
Anoher Dzogchen master even forbids the mention of that spirit's name.

If a person tells you that they have had a headache, and you have never had one, must they also be lying or hallucinating?

I wasn't aware that Dharma needed to accord with any model of any century.

Science can't even manage to be consistent about identifying death of the body, let alone anything to do with the mind. LOL

[Simon E.]

I think in any defensive rush...and that is understandable I was a Luddite once...joke
there is a risk of glossing over what is in my opinion the most important issue here .
For anyone interested there is a real mutual shedding of light provided by a comparison between modern findings in psychology and SOME psychotherapies, and the Skandha model.
I would recommend a revising of same.
Now I have actual flesh and blood patients to see.

[Clarence]

Where do you get the idea that I " have experience of Shukden " ?

Oh, come on, I was asking because you said you have experience with Gyalpo. I agree with you on the exile government. Anyway, good luck with your practice. I hope that when you start developing the Thogal visions that you won't declare them either lies or hallucinations but allow for the possibility it might be something real--whatever real might mean.

[Dechen Norbu]

Sorry I havent got the hang of selective quoting yet.

Its very easy. You write [.quote], without the dot, before the part you'll be quoting and at the end you write [\quote], but use a / instead of a \.
For instance:
I'll quote these sentences: "Correct use of quotes" and "is easy".
[.quote]Correct use of quotes[\quote]
now removing the dot and replacing the \ with a /

Correct use of quotes

and for the second

is easy

OK, these are the basics.

No Dechen Norbu, I dont believe that the primordial state is produced by the brain.
Neither do I believe that Rigpa is a product of the brain.
I do think that it is self evident that the constructs that we erect around the primordial state and around Rigpa are the result of brain activity.

So you admit awareness without physical support, as the primordial state is aware.
You haven't actually discussed how you reconcile the energy aspect of the base with your beliefs. Admitting the first and understanding the second would make fairly easy to admit the possibility of beings we can't detect with an untamed mind. We can't detect consciousness directly and that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you assume that there is awareness without physical support, you gave the first step to allow the possibility of beings without a physical support can exist. In Dzogchen we consider they have what is called a mental body, as we do while in the bardo.

I have actually discussed these matters with Rinpoche.
There is no problem.
Really.

As ChNN so often says, "we must pay respect".
We have his teachings and they are very clear. But something I'm sure I'll never see is ChNN imposing them or asking someone to accept them. That's up to the individual.

The problem only arises when one holds on to a religious view of Dharma.

I agree. And the problem with that view is that we risk conditioning experience due to our beliefs, among other things. We create limitations. These can come in many forms, as rejecting apriori the existence of beings/realms/processes we can't detect with an untamed mind while attributing our karmic vision a different ontological status. Religion takes many forms. You mentioned earlier Susan Blackmore and Dawkins. I see them as very religious people. Their religion is Scientism. Their metaphysics is Physicalism. They are the reverse side of the same coin of any other religious fundamentalist. What defines them and lumps them together is a passionate belief for metaphysical speculations they assume as being the truth.

Just as there is only a problem with Quantum theory if one holds on to a literalist view of Buddhist Cosmology. What is emerging from brain studies is every bit as repeatable and cohesive as what is going on at Cerne. At less cost..

The aim of Buddhadharma has very little in common with the aim of science. Science believes this reality you experience to be real. Buddhadharma considers it an illusion. From the start this creates a gap very hard to transpose.
What is emerging from brain studies are trivialities diguised as great discoveries. Granted that they have tremendous value in terms of medicine. That's beyond dispute. But in principle, it's known for a long time that brain functioning is interrelated with mental phenomena in several civilizations. People have been having accidents in their heads since the beginning of human history, so a relation between what's inside the cranium and mental phenomena has been apparent a long time ago. Now we are knowing the details. But this tells us nothing about the ontological status of consciousness for instance. I think you put too much faith in brain research when it comes to understanding what it still doesn't tell us. I've linked an article you should considering reading: http://www.edvul.com/pdf/VulHarrisWinki ... S-2009.pdf

Say, by any chance are you from the UK? The skeptic movement has the UK as an authentic stronghold. Pop science as presented there is extremely biased and this leads to a certain social mindset when considering this sort of subjects that may influence people without them really noticing. The belief in ghosts, devas, spirits or anything that even remotely smells paranormal is shunned vehemently by most academics (with some very bright exceptions as the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... on-cv.html). I'm just asking because the UK is plagued with materialism fundamentalists (not your case) posing as skeptics.

[Indrajala]

Mod note:

Please no discussion of Shugden.

[Simon E.]

I find I have two problems Dechen Norbu the first is time...in the sense of finding the time to do the subject justice.
As well as certain axiomatic assumptions that are made about its nature..

The second problem is whether to invest the time in unpicking a series of complex concepts in light of the fact that the forum culture seems to be already set in concrete.
Several replies on this thread indicate that an attempt has been made to debate the issues simply from a basis of emotional attachment to an idea or ideas.
It is not at all clear to me that an actual debate is possible.
Not because I am making assumptions about the ability of members to debate the matter in hand..but rather because of the clear evidence of elected deafness.

To give an example..I have said that I do not believe that experiences of encounters with disembodied spirits are in accord with objective actuality. (Frankly my accepting or not of the likelihood is of little importance. If it could be proven...one way or another, with absolute certainty, it would make no difference at all to my life or my practice.)
From this a whole Gothic edifice was hastily thrown up which had as its foundation an assumption that therefore I must be a materialist. That I must not be acquainted with basic source material.
That Rinpoche was making allowance for my scepticism...That I must be acquainted with fantastical boogie-men.
None of which is true.
A few points.
The findings of the latest work in brain mapping go far beyond what was known.
They also go far beyond the realm of pathology.
They are not at all in conflict with those aspects of Dharma which are experiential and which turn awareness on consciousness and the way that we construct our worlds, on the contrary those findings support the experiences of generations of yogis and meditators and mystics.
What is not supported is the optional mythos that surrounds the institutional framework within which that experiential knowledge is framed.
But dialogue is impossible while a fearful and partial and outmoded view of what modern evidence- based psychology consists of.
I can tell you that it holds no fear for Rinpoche. And not because he dismisses it in favour of an antiquated world view. He saw the implications immediately.
This is where the rubber hits the road. Its one area where the idealistic sentiments expressed in a desire to move beyond religious frameworks gets serious.
But I see little indication on this forum of a desire to lay down tribal totems.
Apart from Malcolms extraordinary honesty a few weeks ago.
And the hole he left in the car park is already closing over.

[PadmaVonSamba]

There was a conference on "supernatural phenomena" and from the stage, the presenter asked the audience,
"how many people here believe in ghosts?"
most of the participants raised their hands.
then the presenter asked, "how many people here have ever seen a ghost?"
and a few hands went up.
Then he asked, "how many people here have ever had sex with a ghost?"
and way, way back in the rear of the auditorium, a single hand went up.
The speaker asked the man who raised his hand to stand up.
"Sir, is this true? have you really had sex with a ghost?" the speaker asked.
"What? ---GHOST?'''



...I thought you said GOAT!"

.
.
.

[Clarence]

To give an example..I have said that I do not believe that experiences of encounters with disembodied spirits are in accord with objective actuality. (Frankly my accepting or not of the likelihood is of little importance. If it could be proven...one way or another, with absolute certainty, it would make no difference at all to my life or my practice.)

Simon, I think most people do appreciate your thoughts. Especially if you can link to the science studies you are referring to. I think what put people off is your claim that whoever has seen ghosts must either be lying for attention or hallucinating. Now, if you haven't said that, my apologies. If you did, then try to work on your communication skills. (That was a joke)
I think it is great to have a psychiatrist on board/forum here. Maybe if you are less defensive others will be less offensive.

Others... please be less offensive

Thanks.

[Tilopa]

I find I have two problems...

Only two? Are you sure?

[Simon E.]

I gave a third alternative Clarence..which I think is actually the operative one.
I have no doubt that there are people who lie to get social strokes, and if what is rewarded is seeing ghosts in an particular sub culture..then thats exactly what some people will say they see. Particularly those with a poor self image.
I have no doubt that for a number of reasons some people hallucinate.
But the majority of such experiences I would hazard a guess comes down to mindset.
Not hallucination but illusion, and not in the sense of Maya...but in the sense that real stimuli are interpreted according to expectation, including fearful expectation, and belief .
My intention is not to be offensive, But the written word lacks my boyish charm.

[Simon E.]

I find I have two problems...

Only two? Are you sure?

What do you fear Tilopa ? Your namesake didnt.

[Clarence]

My intention is not to be offensive, But the written word lacks my boyish charm.

Thank for your answer. I think I understand you better now.

[underthetree]

Dechen Norbu:

Science believes this reality you experience to be real.

Not at all. Have a look at Holographic Principle for a start (and please don't debate it with me - I have a clue how it works!). There is almost nothing 'real' about the quantum universe. And the debate about what constitutes consciousness is wide open.

Science is not a religion. It's just science. You can be a religious scientist. I'm related to one. The problem from all sides is fundamentalism. I find Richard Dawkins' professional atheism tedious, but not his science. Religion is a hobbyhorse for the Dawkinses of this world, as science is to the people who found museums of creationism.

Say, by any chance are you from the UK? The skeptic movement has the UK as an authentic stronghold. Pop science as presented there is extremely biased and this leads to a certain social mindset when considering this sort of subjects that may influence people without them really noticing. The belief in ghosts, devas, spirits or anything that even remotely smells paranormal is shunned vehemently by most academics (with some very bright exceptions as the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... on-cv.html). I'm just asking because the UK is plagued with materialism fundamentalists (not your case) posing as skeptics.

I do live in the UK, by the way, and it is indeed a stronghold of skepticism. Also of druids, wicca, every imaginable iteration of the New Age, Diamond Way and NKT Buddhists, Scientology... the list goes on.

Personally, it's not the existence of unexplained phenomena that troubles me - I'm quite happy to adjust my outlook if and when any happen to manifest themselves to me.

What bothers me is the notion that we have to accept some pre-existing belief system. Every culture has the equivalent of ghosts, demons, fairies but they are all shaded differently according to local conditions. This creates what we quaintly regard as folklore. It seems to me that what we are talking about on this thread is the need to accept a hybrid of dogma and folklore in order to practice Vajrayana. To pretend, in other words, to be Tibetans or Medieval Indians. It doesn't seem practical or sensible, and I don't believe it is necessary.

The radiant beauty of the Dharma lies in experiencing it. The Dharma is a ship to ferry us over the oceans of Samsara. Like any ship, over the centuries it has picked up layers and layers of barnacle-like superstitions, suppositions, folk tales, cultural particularities. We should have our minds on the destination, not on the barnacles.

[Blue Garuda]

I do hope those who question my assertions managed to catch today's webcast by ChNNR:

Relating to 'Phat':

''Do not over-use as we can provoke. We cannot see beings of the Preta in this dimension. They exist everywhere but we cannot see.'

His point was that although we cannot see them we can still annoy and provoke them, and also Gyalpo spirits. He then went on to discuss the problems caused by a Gyalpo spirit who was murdered - no not THAT one.

He is clearly temporarily deranged, lying................or possibly absolutely correct and consistent in his beliefs and teachings. I go with the last one, Simon.

Note to Mod. (Huseng) : 'Gyalpo is a class of being, not another word for he who shall not be mentioned. ' LOL

[Dechen Norbu]

Simon, if you will, listen to today's teaching about minute 45. If that was not clear enough for you, I don't know what would be.

[Simon E.]

Dechen Norbu:

Science believes this reality you experience to be real.

Not at all. Have a look at Holographic Principle for a start (and please don't debate it with me - I have a clue how it works!). There is almost nothing 'real' about the quantum universe. And the debate about what constitutes consciousness is wide open.

Science is not a religion. It's just science. You can be a religious scientist. I'm related to one. The problem from all sides is fundamentalism. I find Richard Dawkins' professional atheism tedious, but not his science. Religion is a hobbyhorse for the Dawkinses of this world, as science is to the people who found museums of creationism.

Say, by any chance are you from the UK? The skeptic movement has the UK as an authentic stronghold. Pop science as presented there is extremely biased and this leads to a certain social mindset when considering this sort of subjects that may influence people without them really noticing. The belief in ghosts, devas, spirits or anything that even remotely smells paranormal is shunned vehemently by most academics (with some very bright exceptions as the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... on-cv.html). I'm just asking because the UK is plagued with materialism fundamentalists (not your case) posing as skeptics.

I do live in the UK, by the way, and it is indeed a stronghold of skepticism. Also of druids, wicca, every imaginable iteration of the New Age, Diamond Way and NKT Buddhists, Scientology... the list goes on.

Personally, it's not the existence of unexplained phenomena that troubles me - I'm quite happy to adjust my outlook if and when any happen to manifest themselves to me.

What bothers me is the notion that we have to accept some pre-existing belief system. Every culture has the equivalent of ghosts, demons, fairies but they are all shaded differently according to local conditions. This creates what we quaintly regard as folklore. It seems to me that what we are talking about on this thread is the need to accept a hybrid of dogma and folklore in order to practice Vajrayana. To pretend, in other words, to be Tibetans or Medieval Indians. It doesn't seem practical or sensible, and I don't believe it is necessary.

The radiant beauty of the Dharma lies in experiencing it. The Dharma is a ship to ferry us over the oceans of Samsara. Like any ship, over the centuries it has picked up layers and layers of barnacle-like superstitions, suppositions, folk tales, cultural particularities. We should have our minds on the destination, not on the barnacles.

Amen.