"This place is dangerous for trying to find truth"

[citizenzen]

I guess patronising is the most polite word that springs to mind.

The word "credulous" springs to my mind, but not to describe Tao.

Breeze, I just went back and reread Raksha's account and there isn't anything there.

"I read a book jacket biography, and knew I was that person."

Oookaaay. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

We have no idea what Raksha's story means. To be fair, if you're going to entertain the notion that it reveals universal 'truth', you also need to consider that she might simply be mistaken, or mad, or a liar. All these possibilities exist. To hold on to any one of them, based upon the flimsy evidence presented so far, seems rash to me.

I find Raksha´s story quite fascinating and would love to discuss it further but I suppose it´s not possible here where everything is a debate with Tao or other zealots.

Which leads to your next point. You'd like more information. Well, there's PMs, email, telephones, letters, in-person chats, VOIP, and many other ways to connect with Rashka to carry on your conversation. Why, you can even continue posting on this and other threads. Nobody's stopping you.

But I would suggest that you reconsider labeling people who don't blindly accept this account as zealots. Tao is a discerning fellow who just asks that extraordinary claims come with more proof than what has been presented here. And I would have to agree with that.

 

[the breeze]

The word "credulous" springs to my mind, but not to describe Tao.

Breeze, I just went back and reread Raksha's account and there isn't anything there.

"I read a book jacket biography, and knew I was that person."

Oookaaay. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

We have no idea what Raksha's story means. To be fair, if you're going to entertain the notion that it reveals universal 'truth', you also need to consider that she might simply be mistaken, or mad, or a liar. All these possibilities exist. To hold on to any one of them, based upon the flimsy evidence presented so far, seems rash to me.



Which leads to your next point. You'd like more information. Well, there's PMs, email, telephones, letters, in-person chats, VOIP, and many other ways to connect with Rashka to carry on your conversation. Why, you can even continue posting on this and other threads. Nobody's stopping you.

But I would suggest that you reconsider labeling people who don't blindly accept this account as zealots. Tao is a discerning fellow who just asks that extraordinary claims come with more proof than what has been presented here. And I would have to agree with that.

I´m not credulous not by a long way but I can recognise sincerity when I see it. And Tao is a guy who replies only to the points he believes he can knock down. The rest he ignores. He never says he doesn´t know. He´s selective and cynical and he´s sure he´s right. I think zealot is the correct word.

You really do have your hand over your eyes.

 

[citizenzen]

...but I can recognise sincerity when I see it.

You recognize it in printed words?

That's a mighty special talent. You should consider working for the FBI.

Personally, I wouldn't make such a claim. It sounds rather boastful and unrealistic.

 

[Raksha]

I did take you at your word. And I believe you had a meaningful experience. I was just giving my opinion on what may have caused it. If you did not want to invite comment then perhaps you should not have posted it?

Tao,

I probably shouldn't have posted it since it's so personal. I've made that mistake a couple of times on this board and others. About the only good that came of it was that I was able to link to my post in an e-mail to a friend of mine who is much more sympathetic to the idea of reincarnation. It was a very long e-mail anyway and the link provided something of a shortcut.

You seem to think it was something sudden. How are you sure? How do you know your psyche was not grappling with the issues it brought to the surface for a long time before it happened?

Of course I was grappling with those issues, and furthermore, I was perfectly conscious of it. I was involved with a Gnostic group with a heavily Jungian approach to Gnosticism. I had been to many lectures on Jungian psychology by then and had totally internalized such basic Jungian concepts as the reality of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Oh yes, and synchronicity too--something I experience quite frequently (then and now).

I just had not put a name to that...complex, or whatever it was, until that moment when I was looking at my friend's book in the Mexican restaurant. I had never heard her name until then.

You jump to the conclusion that the only explanation is reincarnation,

No I don't! Haven't I said TWICE that if you wanted to see this person as my Shadow (again in the Jungian sense) rather than as a previous incarnation, that I couldn't argue with you? WHY do you keep insisting I was jumping to conclusions?

which is the most improbable yet most romantic explanation. Perhaps you are just a romantic?

Oh yes, I'm absolutely a romantic. Always have been.

How much effort did you put into looking for an alternative rational? Not much I bet.

No effort whatsoever--basically because I didn't want to look at it AT ALL! Haven't you been reading what I've posted here? You're as bad as bananabrain--you keep putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that simply aren't there. That's nothing but projection, and it's very frustrating to deal with. You refuse to believe that I mean what I say and say what I mean...and that I'm the same person from one post to the next and one board to the next. I don't change my world-view according to who I'm communicating with, although I may very well change the way I express it.

--Linda

 

[the breeze]

You recognize it in printed words?

That's a mighty special talent. You should consider working for the FBI.

Personally, I wouldn't make such a claim. It sounds rather boastful and unrealistic.

It´s a special talent. But then again, I don´t have my hand over my eyes, it makes it easier.

 

[Raksha]

We have no idea what Raksha's story means. To be fair, if you're going to entertain the notion that it reveals universal 'truth', you also need to consider that she might simply be mistaken, or mad, or a liar.

citizenzen,

Watch it there! I'll take mistaken or mad if I have to, but LIAR??? That's the one thing I'm NOT, and anyone who knows me will be happy to verify that.

--Linda

Correction: You didn't say that. It was Tao who said it and you were quoting him. I'm glad I caught that within the editing period. I guess all three of us have been posting at more or less the same time.

 

[citizenzen]

probably shouldn't have posted it since it's so personal.

I don't think the problem was the personal nature, so much as the refusal to provide anything beyond it. It's pretty hard to do anything with, "I had this experience. I know it's true, but I can't tell you more about it."

If you're going to explore issues of this nature, it doesn't help your cause to withhold information.

 

[citizenzen]

It´s a special talent. But then again, I don´t have my hand over my eyes, it makes it easier.

It's a good idea. You wouldn't want to smear that make-up.

How long DOES it take you to get ready in the morning?

 

[the breeze]

It's a good idea. You wouldn't want to smear that make-up.

How long DOES it take you to get ready in the morning?

Actually there´s a lot in Raksha´s story but because you literally have your hands over your eyes and ears you can´t see it or hear it. I will pursue it but because of the likes and you and Tao the disussion will be private.

 

[citizenzen]

I will pursue it but because of the likes and you and Tao the disussion will be private.

Yes, we are awful aren't we?

Tao, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Whatever it is/was that stimulated you to your experience I hope that it brings about positive thinking for you and that you can draw strength from it. It maybe you value the experience but at some point, when you are ready, try looking at it as I would.

You see this is what I mean as patronising. ´Try looking at it as I would.´ It´s all a delusion and if you could see as clearly as Tao you´d know the truth.

lol, seems no matter what I say it would be patronising. Mr mind reader. You are behaving like you want to seduce Linda, hows my mind reading?

All I ever give here is my opinion, you not got that yet?

I get that you think your opinion is the truth.

I think my opinion is a truth. Not the whole truth. I present an alternative for consideration no more. But it seems Linda only wants people to fall off their chair in sympathy or congratulation because she had a 'feeling'. As it was a response from Linda to my account of my past self-delusion I feel entitled to comment dont you?

Well, yes, I'm getting an impression of someone who is quite disturbed.

Thats so sweet of you to say!!

I´m not credulous not by a long way but I can recognise sincerity when I see it. And Tao is a guy who replies only to the points he believes he can knock down. The rest he ignores. He never says he doesn´t know. He´s selective and cynical and he´s sure he´s right. I think zealot is the correct word.

I am selective dependent on how busy I am or how bored I am. Do you just post randomly?
I was sincere. Like I say you are behaving like someone trying to compete with a love rival. Really very amusing.

[Admin edit by I, Brian - removed personal abuse]

 

[citizenzen]

I was sincere.

Was Tao being sincere, Breeze?

The world awaits your decision.

 

[Raksha]

I don't think the problem was the personal nature, so much as the refusal to provide anything beyond it. It's pretty hard to do anything with, "I had this experience. I know it's true, but I can't tell you more about it."

If you're going to explore issues of this nature, it doesn't help your cause to withhold information.

Zen,

I wasn't aware that I had a "cause" to be helped or not helped, but it's getting more and more obvious that some people do--or more likely an agenda.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

I was sincere. Like I say you are behaving like someone trying to compete with a love rival. Really very amusing.

Sheesh...hyperbole much? He was just being sympathetic. I should never have brought it up at all. Note to self: Make sure brain is in gear before engaging keyboard!

--Linda

 

[citizenzen]

Note to self: Make sure brain is in gear before engaging keyboard!

That's not a bad idea... not because I think that you shouldn't speak your mind — far from it — but because it seems you're really looking for confirmation and aren't quite ready to handle countering opinions... at least when discussing an experience as sensitive as the one you brought up.

It's very personal. A lot of your identity is wrapped up in that moment you refuse to discuss. It's probably a good rule of thumb: when you can't talk openly about a subject, then don't talk openly about that subject.

 

[citizenzen]

I wasn't aware that I had a "cause"...

In a forum we all have a "cause": to be heard, to share our ideas and experiences, to challenge others when we think they are mistaken or not seeing the whole picture.

Forums are a unique environment. We can't soften our words with a soothing tone of voice, a casual glance, or an open gesture. All we can rely on here are our ideas and the ability to put them together in a coherent manner.

Tao, myself and many others here have long given up on trying to soft-peddle our posts, comfortably speak our minds and don't fall apart when others present opposing views. That IMHO is what a forum is all about.

 

[Raksha]

In a forum we all have a "cause": to be heard, to share our ideas and experiences, to challenge others when we think they are mistaken or not seeing the whole picture.

Zen,

Oh, hell yes...I have plenty of causes! Reincarnation just isn't one of 'em. I'm glad you mentioned that we're here to share ideas and experiences, because it made me realize that there's a clear difference in the way I handle the two. When it comes to other people's ideas which I may vehemently disagree with, I can be every bit as challenging, tactless and aggressive as anyone else (except maybe bananabrain). In fact, I'm known for that on every forum I post on.

But it's a whole other story when it comes to other people's experiences, especially intensely personal experiences like the one I described. It doesn't matter how I feel about the other person, whether I've been fighting with them for the past week, or whether I have certain reservations about the reality or validity of their experience. I will still treat their experiences with the same respect and consideration I expect for my own.

The ONLY exception to that is when the person claims to have a direct pipeline to God or the Truth that is somehow more special than my own, and therefore should be given more credibility or be elevated to the level of universal truth, as someone was saying earlier. That extends to the prophets of the Bible, BTW. "God said so," doesn't cut it with me. My standard retort: "Well, God didn't say it to ME."

Like that anti-Semitic crank on the other forum who claims to be a prophetess, on the basis of an NDE she had about 45 years ago--and then she posts lists of "proofs" of fulfilled prophecies from fundamentalist websites! I cleaned her clock for her, and she's still hiding out. Hasn't posted in over a month.

But I never ridiculed the NDE itself, because as a matter of fact I don't doubt its validity. But I have PLENTY to say about the garbage she's been filling her head with since then!

--Linda

 

[Tao_Equus]

Zen,

I wasn't aware that I had a "cause" to be helped or not helped, but it's getting more and more obvious that some people do--or more likely an agenda.

--Linda

What is your agenda Linda? It was obvious from my initial comment on my own experience what my response would be to yours. Why feign superiority/indignation in this way? I took my time to respond to your account. I attempted to be tactful, something that does not come naturally to me. I was trying to be nice, sincerely. (you can believe the breeze if you like but it strikes me he might be one of these people that criticises other people when he sees or suspects something of himself in them.) But what's the point? You really have no idea how I restrain myself here sometimes.

I liked your attack on atheistic existentialism. A clever little self deceit. Did you think it up for yourself or read it somewhere?# The trouble with using romance as an excuse for ignoring facts ascertained from systematic observation is that you always see what your heart wants to see. Now that is attractive, I know, but it is not honest. You and a few others here like to throw it into the long grass of the subjective/objective interpretation of the possible. But for anything to even be considered possible it has to have something more substantial than anecdotal hearsay and 1001 crappy books for happy romantics hooked on their preferred fiction. Systematic observation, science, never really gives answers. It only manufactures more questions. Asking questions is actually what it is all about. Not answers. Not truth. Not belief. Just more questions.

#Genuine question not smart ass comment.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I guess what bothers me is the notion that if we can't prove or disprove something belief, any belief, is just as valid as disbelief. While almost anything may indeed be possible, until something is demonstrated the value of speculation about it can never achieve greater validity than the zero position of admitted ignorance, which is indeed the only intellectually honest position available.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

I guess what bothers me is the notion that if we can't prove or disprove something belief, any belief, is just as valid as disbelief. While almost anything may indeed be possible, until something is demonstrated the value of speculation about it can never achieve greater validity than the zero position of admitted ignorance, which is indeed the only intellectually honest position available.

Chris

Yeh but we can still use probability. It is irrational to think a mouse will give birth to a moose because it is extremely improbable. In the same way there have been many thousands of people who have made reincarnation claims. Not one of them has ever come close to proving it and the vast majority are actually demonstrably bullsh!t. Apply probability to that and there is only one logical conclusion to reach, scepticism. The thing is if the only evidence you really accept has to be filtered through and agree with a pre-chosen romantic notion it is no longer valid belief at all. Valid belief needs some kind of rationality in informing that belief or its just daydreaming. In the real physical world that our minds evolved to survive in - probability has to inform our choices. The cognative dissonance of the believer in refusing to use logic is to the atheist their most striking feature. If you do use logic to study the whole spectrum of religousness/spirituality, put it on trial as you would an alleged fraud, it can produce no evidence to support itself. That is not my fault. I didnt ask that to be the case. It just is, empirically. I think using the word belief to support an illusion lends it credibility it does not deserve. I posit that believers do not believe at all. God I need a drink.

Chris you need to pm me ur address so I can send you a bottle of my rowanberry and grapefruit vermouth. Makes a lovely martini on a warm afternoon.