Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Science and Meditation

RE: Scientific proof for fairies

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
8/26/14 1:31 AM as a reply to Tom Tom.
Oh, goody. I finally found the infamous "fairies" thread!

Tom, Tom, for whatever it is worth, I followed what you were saying. "Psychosis" isn't a measurable state, but a social construct. That is, or should be, understood. So it is really beside the point for anyone to read into the label reactions such as pejoritive, neutral, or whatever value-judgment. The social constructs known as mental illness and codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, are, moreover, always being revised. Currently, for example, the DSM is revising depression to include what used to be normalized as human "grief." Apparently, grieving for more that 2 weeks is no longer "functional" or "normal." Grief is now a disease, not a normal practice, if it lasts more than 14 days. Pretty arbitrary as far as categorical lines go, if you ask me.

I have a history of agitated depressive episodes--what they used to call nervous breakdowns--and sometimes doctors have thought I was "bordering" on having psychotic features, though that diagnosis never was made "official." In hindsight, I think many of these episodes were dark night cycles, and, interestingly, at least one, back in the 1990s, was preceded by a sudden intense interest in casting spells. I was a skeptical existentialist humanist at the time, so my husband watched this change in me with, um, interest. I started putting salt along all the thresholds to "protect" the household--that kind of thing. I read how to cast spells. I felt like what I was doing was reasonable, explorative, and creative. I felt rational and functional, and I went to work every day. But shortly afterward, I was concerned that the telephone wires downtown seemed omninous, encroaching . . . and severe depression ate me alive. . . . 

I also have a close friend with bipolar 1. He has magical, rapturous highs while delusional and hallucinating, and would argue that those states are way more empowering, at least in terms of unmediated perception and feeling, than his medicated state, which is cognitively blunting, a real drag. Even when he is heavily medicated and functional societally, he says things all the time that denote a kind of magickal perspective. So the "lines" between psychosis and nonpsychosis, functional and nonfuctional, good and bad--all are fluid and inscribed in a specific cultural moment subject, like everything, to change. I believe that I have a high level of suggestibility, because practices such as self-hypnosis, taking medications/drugs, engaging in ritual, and engaging in mediation have very fast and dramatic results for me. I'm always mindful that this "ability" to slip over into alternative paradigms is precisely what makes me vulnerable to mental illness, as well.

Some people have leakier boundaries than others. For them, the line between powers and psychosis is likely to be thin, the causes for each being inseparable. That even practitioners who are highly functional keep these practices hush-hush at work and elsewhere, and are cautious about speaking freely even on this forum, speaks to how closely associated psychosis and magick practice are in the realm of social constructions. So know thyself, know thy vulnerabilites.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/1/14 3:06 PM as a reply to J C.
I'm talking about what's actually there.
Why is reality what shows up on the instruments?

Reality, does not "show up on instruments." What does that even mean? So-called facts do not speak for themselves--not ever. Which is to say, there is no such "real" thing as a fact. Human beings design models, design tests, gather data, clean the data, analyze the data, and use language to interpret the data. Human beings came up with the scientific method, which is based on axioms! Beliefs! Science is an act of interpretation. Mathematics is a human creation that is remarkable at predicting sense data, but Daniel is absolutely correct that the vast majority of peer-reviewed journal articles are based on bad math--flawed statistical analysis and flawed reporting. This precisely why so many people have been put on statin drugs for a serum cholestoral level above 200--needlessly, harmfully. 

Quantum physics has made a convincing case that the human observer changes the result. See the double-slit experiment.

Science is a narrow field based on one method. As a closed axiomatically based system, it operates well for talking about certain questions. But "reality"? Are you really prepared to say that anything that the scientific community hasn't reached interpretative consensus on isn't part of "reality"? Everything outside the narrow and continually changing scope of scientific community consensus (ie, peer-reviewed journals) is bunk?

Science is one discipline based on one method, the scientific method. The scientific method is inscribed in a larger circle, known as philosophy, which treats a much broader circle of questions in a rational manner, with any of a number of methods. And philosophy is incribed inside linguistics. Did you know that leaders in the New Physics are studying linguistics and sign systems because of the limits they are up against in relying on the scientic method to describe the universe of phenomena?

Science is a beautiful thing. But the degree to which people in our society tend repress from mind its limitations and axiomatic origins is astonishing and a little, um, psychotic.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/1/14 7:29 AM as a reply to _.
Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that humans are capable of controlling their subjective experience to an incredible and perhaps limitless degree. When we discuss magick, we shouldn't argue over this point that we all agree on. So I have no problem believing in the effectiveness of using energy channels to eliminate back pain, or seeing golden light emitted from your body while doing so. All of this is in the realm of subjective experience.

However, I, and some of the other people arguing here, have a big problem with mystical claims about abilities to control others, read the minds of others, etc. That is because these claims are in a different category, outside the realm of subjective experience. I don't understand why it is that so many arhats believe in these sorts of claims, and readily fool themselves into believing in these mystical ideas with such a low level of evidence. Let's take the example with the marker: it seems to me not the slighest bit unlikely that the guy with the marker also noticed the smell, and decided to do something about it shortly after Daniel decided to do something about it. This story doesn't strike me as even slightly unusual. However, I'm sure if people who buy into this magickal paradigm dig, they can come up with more unusual stories. Considering there are more than 10000 days in 30 years, it's not at all unlikely that someone will experience a highly unusual coincidence over such a long period of time. We have science because anecdotal evidence isn't valid, because bizarre coincidences are practically guaranteed to occur over a long span of time, not to mention faulty observations of the observer. This is why we need science to test these sorts of claims. There are some fluke studies that could be used as evidence but the bulk of scientific evidence is against these sorts of powers. I will certainly need more evidence than "this one time someone closed a marker in a smelly room shortly after I willed him too, also people I know who buy into this magical paradigm have similar stories."

I find it strange that so many arhats seem to overestimate the probabilistic value of anecdotal evidence. It's a bit disturbing to me and I hope if I become an arhat I won't have the same problem.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/1/14 10:00 AM as a reply to _.
First of all this is a weird fucking thread.

Second of all, anyone here who doubts the existence of "powers" is invited to experiment for themselves. If you can attain hard jhanas, particularly formless realms, you will have absolutely no problems.

You Are Psychic: The Art of Clairvoyant Reading and Healing

The Way of the Shaman

Cave and Cosmos

The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal is Bringing Science and Spirit Together

Life After Life

If you should decline this experiment, please keep your views to yourself. There is no sense in muddying up a reasonable discussion regarding this topic if you are too afraid to see for yourself due to your personal psych issues surrounding western materialist bullshit.

One further comment: The theory that consciousness is generated by the brain is debunked by the first nana, Mind and Body. 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/1/14 8:15 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Jen Pearly:


Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by this, Eric. I'm not sure that I drew that conclusion from my experiences of Mind & Body. In MCTB2, in the front matter, Daniel talks about meditation as "rewiring" the "brain." I've pointed out there in marginalia that in MCTB1 he later says that we never experience as sense data any "brain." Elsewhere, Daniel has written that "mind" and "consciousness" don't really exist as entities, either: all that exists is "sensations" manifesting "awareness," where "awareness" is also a problematic reification. Trying to use a representational system to parse representational distinctions is dicey at best.

When I attended a Tibetan center, students there were taught about multiple "levels" of consciousness, the most subtle one having really no attributes, being only a kind of energetics that survives biological death, whereas all the other levels die with the physical brain's death. Their explanation was that the brain is a "support" for consciousness, though not the same as that subtle consciousness.

Much is written these days about the hypothesis that what we Westerners call "consciousness" is an epi-phenomenon of a complex brain, an "emergent" meta-behavior, such that the result is greater than the sum of its parts, though still reliant on them as a substratum. 

Right, let me clarify.

The brain obviously plays a huge part in consciousness. Consciousness can be dramatically affected by brain trauma, psychoactive chemicals, medical conditions such as dementia, and so on. This is basically indisputable, and it would seem perfectly reasonable to say that the brain generates consciousness based on these cases as evidence.

But, there is some trouble with this approach. First of all, dreams. Why do we dream? There doesn't seem to be an answer in the scientific community, at least not yet. This is one example of a normal but very altered state of consciousness that doesn't seem to fit into the materialist framework. But it's not a huge problem, it's merely an oddity. 

But there are some more data points that conflict with the materialist viewpoint. Near-death experiences, for example. There are cases when a patient reports floating above the room while being revived, and accurately reporting details such as the words of the medical staff. What do we do with this? Even the DMT-dump hypothesis (debunked in this book, btw) can't explain things like this. Consciousness would have to exist independent of the brain for this to happen, which doesn't fly if we are adopting the materialist viewpoint.

And of course, the powers and the paranormal in general really fly in the face of the materialist view. If one masters concentration practice and hits really hard formless realms, or meditates with certain kasinas or mantras, this stuff is bound to pop up. Seeing visions, communicating with beings, and that sort of thing-- what is going on? Especially in situations where we can travel out of body and see what is going on in a certain location, and finding out later that we were perceiving accurately.

So we're at an impasse. On one hand, the brain is obviously very important in how consciousness manifests and operates. On the other hand, siddhis. What to make of all this?

Here's the theory I learned when I was first getting interested in this sort of thing, and I think I've seen it reiterated in a few other places. The brain and consciousness are like a television and a signal, respectively. The television does not generate the signal, but it interprets and "manifests" it. The signal is still quite independent of the television. If the television is damaged in any way, it does not mean that the signal is altered or destroyed. It simply means that the apparatus is not functioning properly.

As for Daniel talking about rewiring the brain, I can't speak for the man himself, but I think he's more or less using conventional language to communicate with a Western audience. Daniel also talks about powers, for example.

My personal pet theory, be it right or wrong, is that enlightenment is more fundamental than the brain. The brain is impermanent and not a self, part of the conditioned field of sensations that we call "reality." The fundamental shifts in perspective that are called Paths are not conditioned. Now, I'm certain that the brain of an arahat is very different than your average joe. The big question is: do changes in the brain cause enlightenment, or does enlightenment cause changes in the brain? 

As for the first nana, it's another one of my pet theories, but notice: there are physical sensations, there are mental sensations, and there is also the primordial awareness that is watching both occur. Maybe I'm running into some kind of anagami-cage with this interpretation, but it seems that this awareness is separate from mental and physical sensations, and thus separate from the brain,

I hope all that makes sense.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/2/14 3:45 AM as a reply to Eric M W.
I just want to say a congratulations to Jen, Mark and Eric for getting through this thread - you all win a free hat. Sorry to say, I have no Arhats left in stock, just Sotāpanamas (though if I find out you have skimmed read posts I reserve the right to withdraw said gift).

Paul:


I find it strange that so many arhats seem to overestimate the probabilistic value of anecdotal evidence. It's a bit disturbing to me and I hope if I become an arhat I won't have the same problem.



I must say I am bit confused - you want to end the endless cycle of rebirths so you can reach ultimate peace by becoming annihilated and reaching nirvana? Really, life can't be that bad, can it!?

Eric M:

If you should decline this experiment, please keep your views to yourself. There is no sense in muddying up a reasonable discussion regarding this topic if you are too afraid to see for yourself due to your personal psych issues surrounding western materialist bullshit.


I can see why you might be grumpy Eric, having to use these inventions of Western materialist bullshit, such as "a computer" and "the internet". Perhaps we could continue this discussion off-forum by communicating with our psychic powers, or perhaps arrange a time to meet in an astral realm?

Jen Pearly:
Eric:
First of all this is a weird fucking thread.

This is a monumentally fantastic fucking thread! In fact, it is my favorite DhO thread of all time (so far)!

Also, I want to go ahead and say here what I have wanted to say for a good while: I appreciate Sawfoot's presence on this forum. And the minute we exclude these other perspectives is the minute discussions here become significantly less helpful to me, my practice, and my ability to think clearly and articulate counterperspectives. And I suggest that I'm not the only one to benefit. For example, his challenges provoke Daniel's most penetrating, inspiring, and subtle writing--this alone is reason to thank Sawfoot for continually challenging what may otherwise become a too settled and comfortable groupthink forum, which would be boring and much less helpful than it is. The Judas kiss makes both the case and conditions for liberation.

Also, Sawfoot is funny as hell. Even when people think he is being nasty, I'm over here laughing my ass off. 



I am not sure where all these people are that think I am being nasty. I admit I often give "Saint" Daniel a hard time, but then it is an utterly centreless, utterly agentless, truly remarkable field of being, which has massively reduced its level of suffering (orders of magnitude less than the past), and so being nasty to "Sage" Daniel is a bit like being nasty to small bookshelf, or a whicker chair.

If you want to see a nasty comment, check out the Sutta Arahat Chuck. Now that man is a serious bad-ass.

Speaking of kisses, and asses, "his challenges provoke Daniel's most penetrating, inspiring, and subtle writing" c'mon Jen, based on your three doors thread, I have tiny little sense you are starting to make some progress....

Jen:

Some people have leakier boundaries than others. For them, the line between powers and psychosis is likely to be thin, the causes for each being inseparable. That even practitioners who are highly functional keep these practices hush-hush at work and elsewhere, and are cautious about speaking freely even on this forum, speaks to how closely associated psychosis and magick practice are in the realm of social constructions. So know thyself, know thy vulnerabilities.

I mainly wanted to say thanks for your contribution above (part excerpted here) - people yourselves and Tom Tom provide an invaluable (and balanced) perspective on the powers, and I felt that we did find a rough consensus in this thread in seeing the powers as a form of "functional psychosis" (though some might be put off by that term or slant). 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/2/14 2:01 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
I can see why you might be grumpy Eric, having to use these inventions of Western materialist bullshit, such as "a computer" and "the internet". Perhaps we could continue this discussion off-forum by communicating with our psychic powers, or perhaps arrange a time to meet in an astral realm?

The funny thing is I've actually done this before. Unfortunately, the progress of insight has put a stop to such things for me, at least for now.

I don't have a problem with computers or the internet. Science and materialism aren't the same thing, as much as some people want them to be.

Where can I buy the hat in your user icon?

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/3/14 3:45 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Actually, there is now a chapter in MCTB2 called "Those Damn Fairies" inspired by this thread and the Powers section is significantly expanded in general, mostly because of this thread.

@Paul: not everyone here (or in general) agrees or understands that you can modify your experience in extreme ways and to suit your tastes and paradigms. A few do, and somewhat fewer can and have done it, but most people haven't ever seen that as part of the level of experience that would cause them to agree with you on that. Just so you understand that you are making assumptions about everyone here would agree on.

As to science and the influence of others and the interaction of various people's consciousness in ways that might not fit with a narrow scientific materialist framework, I suggest you read a very nice book that takes this on called The Sense of Being Stared At, by Rupert Sheldrake. Fascinating stuff, very down to earth, very scientific, very clean writing.

Actually, in the spirit of wanting to play more with these things, my next retreat (the first since 2003) will be my birthday present to myself, two weeks, and hopefully will be a small group retreat (if we do it here, I can't reasonably host more than about two other people, if we do it elsewhere then it gets easier but much more expensive, and larger groups make for more risk of unfortunate group dynamics, which an be a serious problem in this sort of work). If all goes well, it will take place next February around my 46th birthday. The theme of the retreat will be Group Powers. I hope to have a few dedicated, talented, mature practitioners who can get down to business and not mess around. The general plan will be to do candle-flame nearly all day long for about 10 days until concentration is extremely strong and then spend about 4 days or so playing with what a small group of people with really strong concentration can do with that in an interactive sense with a reasonable set of scientific methods in place. The real problem will be finding a few people who have the required skill-sets, those being a proven ability to get to the Malleable and Wieldly stage of concentration (where you can modify your reality in extreme ways just by inclining gently in that direction), who have a proven track record of being able to handle the very strange stuff that can happen when you get your concentration that strong and not freak out, who will be willing and able to follow some pretty strict ground-rules of conduct (both internal and external), and who can keep a handle on interpersonal issues and just stick to the task at hand, as well as who have the time and interest. That's unfortunately a pretty high bar. This is not an open invitation, BTW, just putting it out there to see what happens. Given that I have so little time for this sort of thing and that this will be such a rare opportunity for me, I am going to be really picky about who I share this experience with, as the potential for disaster is very real, and if the opportunity were wasted on interpersonal stuff getting out of hand or people not being able to stay on track, that would be a real loss. I have been thinking about asking Leigh Brasington if he would be interested, if that gives you a sense of who I think might fit the bill. That I wrote this in a dense block of text about 8 months after first thinking about it at the end of a very long thread shows you how much I am hesitant to put this out there.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/5/14 7:33 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Ive been reluctent to share these videos in the past but am putting a few of them out there. They were taken nearly 10 years ago when I was in China training and searching for answers. Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. It ws required as part of the training. I can understand were stories of vampires come from as this was basically what it was. Is it scientific proof, no. I have a background in Physics and Applied Mathematics, as a scientists it did shake my world view.
The training is not very complex but requires dedication, it is for monastics and that is why we dont see much evidence around.

https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures

oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/6/14 2:11 AM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
Jeff Grove:
Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. 
https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures

oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries
Thanks Jeff.  

I'm not sure why everyone was laughing at whatever was going on with that cow.  It wasn't funny at all.  Also, a lot of magicians pull off stuff like this, but it isn't actually real.  Since these videos are from your personal experience I'm assuming it wasn't some type of illusion or trick and that you were able to do these things yourself.

When you say shapeshifters I'm assuming you're referring to people like "Odo" from Star Trek Deep Space Nine or "Mystique" from X-men?  I can accept the small amount of telekenises and pyromancy in the videos, but shapeshifters!? If that's real...Holy smokes, wow...

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/6/14 9:47 PM as a reply to Tom Tom.
I was wondering the same thing as Tom: Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious "spiritual" training? The atmosphere in each video seemed more like that of a parlor trick party buzz. Odd.

Every week when my husband flips the channel to one of those paranormal shows on A&E channel we hope to no avail for some proof of monsters or goblins this week. Every week we are disappointed that, yet again, not a single undoctored photo or recording emerges, not a single one.

Yesterday one of my local dharma friends told that the Rainbow Body is "real and has been documented." Really? Wouldn't such a thing make it onto the evening news, at the very least? Wouldn't everyone know about it if it had, even one time, been documented--such that I wouldn't have to hear about it at a private lunch with said dharma friend?

Can't we have some bona fide evidence of faeries and shapeshifters, for god's sake--some digital captures, something? A&E awaits rating boosts from Faeries and Shapeshifters: The Season. 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/6/14 9:56 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel,

How about an essay contest for the prize of admission to the Group Powers retreat. emoticon 

Why I Should Be Admitted to the Group Powers Retreat Even Though I'm Such a Hopeless Noob and Sycophant 

By The Sotāpanna Jen Pearly


RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 4:01 AM as a reply to _.
Hi TT

Yes magicians pull stuff like that off but it takes alot to prepare  prior to the trick and this sort of stuff happened daily. I have only put a small proportion of the videos up there or spoken about the experiences. I think the laughter was more like a f@#k me he can do that, you know how people can laugh when they are nervous.I dont think anyone found it funny. As to the shapeshifters I was being a bit mischevous and throwing it out there. My teachers teacher told a story of some master he knew that could change into an animal form. From all that I have seen and experienced I have no reason to think he was lying.

Hi Jen

"Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious "spiritual" training?"

Who said this was serious spirtual training, or is there really a proper way we should have behaved during training, luckily we weren't made to stand in the corner.

These teachings have been perserved within Martial Arts and are used for healing


"Every week we are disappointed that, yet again, not a single undoctored photo or recording emerges, not a single one."


Here is another one of my teachers teacher. This was shot when filming a BBC Documentery called the Ring of Fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqonp6VYuoE

Here is another teacher I trained under

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Ki2-VzUVs

Here is another master I trained with that could demostrate different abilities

http://www.tiandiqigong.com.au/id1.html

His gung fu brother is Robert Peng who can also demonstrate these abilities

Check out Wang Li Ping he is another high level master who can demstrate these abilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Liping_%28Taoist%29


Jen two years ago would you have thought it was possible to be enlightened. Meditation has a strange side affect in that you become sensitive to change. You start to perceive things that you didnt notice before. Have you ever had acupuncture. How do you think they come up with the complex energetic mapping of the body, how they discovered all the points and how they worked. It wasnt by making some person a voodoo doll and sticking needles into them using trial and error. If you persist with meditation you will start to feel qi and its movement. The points will start to vibrate. You will start to see qi and the subtle body field. It is shame that this knowledge could be lost, there are only a few people around that pratice acupuncture with qi manipulation it feels like you are plugged into a power socket.


"Yesterday one of my local dharma friends told that the Rainbow Body is "real and has been documented." Really? Wouldn't such a thing make it onto the evening news, at the very least? Wouldn't everyone know about it if it had, even one time, been documented-"


Actually it has been well documented. The funny thing is that this is not unique to Tibetan Buddhism, you will find it in Taoism, western mystism pratcies, india. Probably the most well known case for westerners can be found in the bible. There is a strong tradition of this in Tibet of over 1000 years, what is wrong with the documented evidence that exists there.

Look up  Br. David Steindl-Rast and Rev. Francis V. Tiso they have been recently researching the rainbow body

You have been following a buddhist tradition and so far what you have learnt has become possible. What do you make of the other half of the teachings that cover the powers is it just cultural baggage


Believe nothing do the experiment yourself

appreciated
Jeff

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 4:50 AM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
Perhaps some day we can settle the debate once and for all on whether re-birth is true or not.  After all it was the Buddha's primary reason for doing these practices.  With the advent of actualism the forum started leaning toward re-birth not being true. Notable disbelievers in re-birth being Trent, Tarin and Emu Fire Golem.  Before meditating or learning of Buddhism I did not believe in re-birth, but then came to believe it with practice.  However, when the forum started leaning toward it not being true I began to have less conviction about it.

I consider re-birth a perfectly logical possibility, but I have not been able to determine 100% whether it is true or not.  This is despite many many visions and strange experiences.

Before enlightenment I was afraid of death and wanted re-birth to be true.  Now I find the notion of re-birth a disturbing possibility that I'm hoping isn't actually true. 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 3:01 PM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
Jeff Grove:
Ive been reluctent to share these videos in the past but am putting a few of them out there. They were taken nearly 10 years ago when I was in China training and searching for answers. Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. It ws required as part of the training. I can understand were stories of vampires come from as this was basically what it was. Is it scientific proof, no. I have a background in Physics and Applied Mathematics, as a scientists it did shake my world view.
The training is not very complex but requires dedication, it is for monastics and that is why we dont see much evidence around.

https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures

oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries

I feel like the "voice of reason" might be needed here, by a notable disbeliever in rebirth. 

TomTom"Also, a lot of magicians pull off stuff like this, but it isn't actually real.  Since these videos are from your personal experience I'm assuming it wasn't some type of illusion or trick and that you were able to do these things yourself."
Jen P "Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious "spiritual" training? The atmosphere in each video seemed more like that of a parlor trick party buzz. Odd."

Just because it from your personal experience is does not mean it isn't a trick or illusion. That is the whole point of a trick - a personal experience that isn't "real", but appears to be.

And yes, it does have the atmosphere of a parlour trick put on to impress people...The people witnessing these tricks appear to be western and asian tourists, and people like yourself - "seekers" who are pretty keen to have their faith in such things confirmed, and you have people in a poor country putting on these shows and training for which such things are a pretty good income stream - paying for interpreters, transport, accommodation, "donations" etc...The lighter trick I expect was "pulled" off with a magician's staple - "invisible" see through nylon thread. The burning hole - not quite sure, perhaps a lazer, or a chemical reaction. I feel sorry for cows though, who I assume had been drugged.

For an insight into the power of these illusions, check out this video by chi master demonstrating by his "powers" with his loyal students
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdUxPLIJVgI&list=PLDtc_uppNe1puLrZj289siVmojKAy9moC&index=1
and then see what happens when he encounters somebody who isn't quite as believing in his powers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jf3Gc2a0_8

Jen, there is a bona-fide photographic evidence for the existence of fairies - see my first post. 
 
Daniel, Rupert Sheldrake is a bit of a interesting character, and evidence for the psychic staring stuff just seems like pseudoscience at work, however nicely he writes his books. 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 5:08 PM as a reply to Tom Tom.
Another question to consider: If re-birth is not true, why is enlightenment real?  Why do the stages occur as they do?  

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 7:12 PM as a reply to Tom Tom.
Tom Tom,

For rebirth to be true, there must be a "self" to be born again. However, from a high vipassana point of view, there is no self, and never has been. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but if I recall one of your posts, you have attained 4th path, and no-self should theoretically be obvious at all times at the arahat level.

That being said, I have had plenty of what I would consider "past life" experiences, including a very specific military rank and rather unusual name that I was able to track down "in real life." Very interesting, and a little unnerving. There has been no shortage of more vague experiences-- standing in a field of some kind next to a large structure, a woman in Victorian dress. No hard clues to those, but always a feeling of familiarity, like I am recovering a long lost memory.

Interdependence is vast, and in theory, sensations ring on forever. So there is certainly merit to the idea of rebirth even if we set aside the notion of a separate self. It certainly has never stopped Buddhists (and Sikhs, Hindus, certain shamanic cultures, etc...) from believing.

As for AF, it's an axis of development related to emotions. What that has to do with rebirth, I have no idea. I'm not sure how folks make that connection, unless they are parroting Richard's "flesh and blood" rhetoric.

Speaking of AF, I am under the impression that they don't believe in any kind of afterlife at all. If I were a little more cynical, I would say this is wonderful news, because then (DISCLAIMER: DO NOT DO THIS) we could all just kill ourselves and have the Nirvana that those silly Theravadins spend so much hard cushion-time pursuing. If there is no memory after death, it doesn't matter who we hurt by doing this, so we may as well be done with it, right? (DISCLAIMER: REALLY DONT DO THIS)

Obviously the above view is severely flawed, as the powers show.

I used to be in the same boat as you. I once believed that beings reincarnated in various realities as a sort of "school" for spiritual development, with the end goal being some kind of union with the Absolute, or what have you. Now, after hitting the Dark Night a couple of times, rebirth sounds pretty shit. 

It's a complex topic, that's for sure.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 8:09 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Eric M W:

Speaking of AF, I am under the impression that they don't believe in any kind of afterlife at all. If I were a little more cynical, I would say this is wonderful news, because then (DISCLAIMER: DO NOT DO THIS) we could all just kill ourselves and have the Nirvana that those silly Theravadins spend so much hard cushion-time pursuing. If there is no memory after death, it doesn't matter who we hurt by doing this, so we may as well be done with it, right? (DISCLAIMER: REALLY DONT DO THIS)

Who'd want to?
Why is not existing at all preferable to living just this once?
Why is a permanent not-anything (with no one and nothing there to know it) preferable to a temporary experience of everything?
I'll never understand this.

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/8/14 3:21 AM as a reply to Eric M W.
For rebirth to be true, there must be a "self" to be born again.


There most certainly does not need to be a self for re-birth to occur. There is a difference between the Buddhist term "re-birth" and the Hindu notion of "re-incarnation."

In Buddhism re-birth occurs due to the continuity of cause-and-effect process and the false internalized notion of a self/controller (clinging to "self-view"), not from an actual self that is getting reincarnated.  

Anyways, when I was referring to re-birth I wasn't specifically referring to myself.  

Regardless, I am a perpetual "late-into-it" anagami (for a little over 2 years now) and not yet an arahat by Daniel's definition. 

When I proposed the question of "why would enlightenment exist if re-birth is not true?" I mean why would we have a notion of self-clinging to begin with?  Why does the entire process of disenchantment with phenomena and seeing through an independent self/controller/doer exist if there is no process of re-birth? 

RE: Scientific proof for fairies
Answer
9/7/14 10:14 PM as a reply to John Wilde.
When I first got into meditation I didn't believe in rebirth and meditated to have a happier life.  I was prepared to live the life I had ahead of me, but I thought that a nice peaceful oblivian awaited me when I died.  But after steeping myself in Buddhist thought for a few years, I began to worry about this rebirth thing, and my peaceful oblivian seemed to be slipping away.  I wouldn't say that I'm a total believer in rebirth now, but I've heard and read enough things that inclines me to believe it, and the thought of living life after life after life sounds terrifying.  Now it's a big motivation for practice.

If you want to read some interesting acounts of children who remember past lives, check out Francis Story "Rebirth as doctrine and experience" and Jim Tucker "Return to life.  Pretty eerie accounts.

As for the mechanics of rebirth: from what I understand, it's not the self per se that is reborn, but our whole mass of consciousness and kamma.  Our consciousness in this body is causally connected from one moment to the next, and when we die our consciousness causally arises in another body or another realm.