Evidnece for the super natural

[silent thunder]

I've had myriad personal experiences from my earliest memories in my toddler days to just last year, that are beyond my rational mind's ability to explain.  I've had experiences that were shared with others in duos and small groups.  I've had experiences with teachers and random strangers.  I've had so many alone I've lost count. 

 

Suffice to say that for me, there are myriad unexplainable natural occurances in life, on a constant basis at this point in my life.

 

None of these experiences are supernatural to me.  Just natural things that I can't explain with my rational flashlight consciousness.  Flashlight (rational focus on one thought at a time waking life cosciousness) is only one of many, and it seems to me to be the most restricted and least broadband of what's always playing out. 

 

I could describe my unexplainable occurances here and many times in many threads I have over the years, some in exquisite detail, but as freeform adroitly stated it... description on a forum will never be proof.

 

If it happens, it's natural.  If  I can explain it, that just means it's something small enough to fit into words that the flashlight consciousness is capable of relating to...

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

I've had myriad personal experiences from my earliest memories in my toddler days to just last year, that are beyond my rational mind's ability to explain.  I've had experiences that were shared with others in duos and small groups.  I've had experiences with teachers and random strangers.  I've had so many alone I've lost count. 

 

Suffice to say that for me, there are myriad unexplainable natural occurances in life, on a constant basis at this point in my life.

 

None of these experiences are supernatural to me.  Just natural things that I can't explain with my rational flashlight consciousness.  Flashlight (rational focus on one thought at a time waking life cosciousness) is only one of many, and it seems to me to be the most restricted and least broadband of what's always playing out. 

 

I could describe my unexplainable occurances here and many times in many threads I have over the years, some in exquisite detail, but as freeform adroitly stated it... description on a forum will never be proof.

 

If it happens, it's natural.  If  I can explain it, that just means it's something small enough to fit into words that the flashlight consciousness is capable of relating to...

I'd still like to hear about it anyway if you don't mind sharing

[silent thunder]

Decided to remove this sharing...

Edited November 25, 2020 by silent thunder

[CCD]

22 hours ago, freeform said:

In all honesty (and with all due respect) - what you prefer is irrelevant.

 

No one owes you anything. No one is trying to prove anything to you. (and if you find that they are - then I'd suggest caution)

I was just asking, no need to get so butthurt over it.

[freeform]

3 minutes ago, CCD said:

I was just asking, no need to get so butthurt over it.

You're reading the ‘butthurtness’ into my comment

 

I was just stating a fact that might come across a little blunt - (as facts that contradict our assumptions tend to do.)

 

But when I mentioned my due respect - I actually meant it.

[freeform]

14 hours ago, dmattwads said:

This just strengthens my point about seeking true knowledge. It's the only way to dispel delusion.

I completely agree with you. In fact I personally think there’s a real lack of skepticism and a whole load of delusion in the spiritual scene.

 

What I’m trying to communicate to you however is that you’re setting up a strawman argument. And therefor selling yourself short.

 

“No one here has proved to me that there’s anything supernatural - there for the supernatural doesn’t exist.”

 

This is precisely the sort of argument a flat earther would use.

 

True skepticism has to be very sharp, discerning and incisive. You can’t just question things you prefer. You must question everything - including your own assumptions and limitations.

 

The true skeptical statement that you could make is: “I’ve seen no undeniable evidence of the supernatural” (and include your definition of the woolly term of ‘supernatural’)

 

And that would be true. But you probably haven’t seen undeniable evidence of, say, the existence of an albino giraffe... but it doesn’t mean such a thing doesn’t exist - it only means your narrow searching hasn’t turned up any undeniable evidence.

 

If you’re seeking something rare and extraordinary - you will have to go to extraordinary means to find it.

 

Just as the scientists searching out the Higgs Boson had to build the Large Hadron Collider in search of it... It took 20 years, 10,000 scientists and billions of $$ to do.

They didn’t go on a physics forum and demand proof as evidence...

 

The sad truth is that anyone who is actively promoting that they can do supernatural things are usually lying. Or at least have questionable agendas. Not always - but often.

 

The ones who can actually do supernatural things are usually trying to stay out of the limelight because they’re aware of all the issues surrounding something like that... and they’re usually way beyond the lure of fame - and can clearly see the problems inherent in it instead.

 

So unless you’re trying to simply confirm your strawman - and you’re really sincerely looking to find some proof of the supernatural, you’re going to have to work for it... and to be honest not even work that hard for it either. Not Hadron Collider hard  anyway  

[CCD]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

The ones who can actually do supernatural things are usually trying to stay out of the limelight because they’re aware of all the issues surrounding something like that... and they’re usually way beyond the lure of fame - and can clearly see the problems inherent in it instead.

My understanding is that people who pursue these things do so for egotistical reasons rather than aversion to them, since test subjects in experiments usually remain unnamed. Having supernatural abilities makes someone feel unique or special compared to those who don't, which is why so many seem to promote their own anecdotal evidence or beliefs as facts pertaining to the supernatural. Both disproving & proving it would be a major blow to the ego, so it's easier to avoid doing so entirely. Failure to preform would be a simple, obvious blow to the ego, but proving it would have a longer-term impact. If rigorous scientific testing could prove the existence of the supernatural, it'd be explained & then simply become natural. More would learn it, excel at it, explain & understand it better than you ever could, so it would become logical, ordinary & mundane. The easiest way to feel like an expert at something is to be the only who does it.

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

 

What I’m trying to communicate to you however is that you’re setting up a strawman argument. And therefor selling yourself short.

 

“No one here has proved to me that there’s anything supernatural - there for the supernatural doesn’t exist.”

 

Actually that's a bit of a straw man argument in and of itself because nowhere did I state in any of this that I did not believe that the supernatural exists nor did I state I was trying to disprove it.

 

 What I did state was that I was interested in evidence for it.

[qofq]

10 hours ago, CCD said:

The easiest way to feel like an expert at something is to be the only who does it.

 

"claim that your own ideas for the measures and observance of said subject are the only valid ones"  

 

These threads are like watching people go through the stages of grief.  Usually stagnating around the first 3.

 

Many of us understand the frustration of realizing there might be more to life than you have otherwise been lead to believe. 

 

That empathy is the door for a conversation for which you could be the main beneficiary.  

 

 

 

 

 

[freeform]

19 hours ago, CCD said:

existence of the supernatural, it'd be explained & then simply become natural.

we can agree on that. In fact it doesn’t take rigorous scientific study - just as it doesn’t take rigorous scientific study to prove that there’s a screen in front of your face. 
 

19 hours ago, CCD said:

people who pursue these things

We can also agree with that too.
 

But the truth is that the majority of people (at least the ones I know) who develop something ‘supernatural’ are in pursuit of spiritual development not the supernatural - what’s being called the supernatural is just a byproduct of that development.

 

I would avoid anyone who pursues the supernatural for its own sake - because firstly it’s of no interest to me and secondly that scene is filled with egotism and delusion - as you say.

[freeform]

18 hours ago, dmattwads said:

nowhere did I state in any of this that I did not believe that the supernatural exists nor did I state I was trying to disprove it.

Fair enough

 

18 hours ago, dmattwads said:

What I did state was that I was interested in evidence for it.

And I’m saying you won’t find that evidence on a forum.

 

Search for an albino giraffe in a lake, then a desert, then the alpine wilderness and soon enough you’ll be convinced that it couldn’t possibly exist.

[C T]

On 11/23/2020 at 7:09 PM, freeform said:

 

Oh well if you're that motivated, it couldn't be easier.

 

Book an appointment with Robert Peng and get zapped with yang qi - it's as objective a proof you're ever likely to experience yourself.

 

Or go for a few months to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur or even Chiang Mai and hang out in the parks in the early hours and just meet people - I promise you if you're sincere you'll find someone who'll happily show you what appears to be supernatural...

 

Anyone coming to Malaysia do hit me up for a bit of a supernatural adventure into the world of black magic, witchcraft, Asian voodoo, siddha/taoist/buddhist 'magik', nature spirits, Qi masters and so on. You'd need to be here to taste the stuff & determine the validity, or call bs in person. Little is achieved talking about it here. Too abstruse. 

 

Alternatively, there are quite a few reliable works available on the subject, two of which comes to mind: 

 

- Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism published by Brill 

48 page taster https://books.google.com.my/books/about/Chinese_and_Tibetan_Esoteric_Buddhism.html?id=Mz-9DgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

- Buddhist Magic by Sam van Schaik

Intro: "In Buddhist Magic, van Schaik takes a book of spells and rituals--one of the earliest that has survived--from the Silk Road site of Dunhuang as the key reference point for discussing Buddhist magic in Tibet and beyond. After situating Buddhist magic within a cross-cultural history of world magic, he discusses sources of magic in Buddhist scripture, early Buddhist rituals of protection, medicine and the spread of Buddhism, and magic users. Including material from across the vast array of Buddhist traditions, van Schaik offers readers a fascinating, nuanced view of a topic that has too long been ignored."

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, C T said:

Anyone coming to Malaysia do hit me up for a bit of a supernatural adventure into the world

If I make it there, I'll definitely look you up, but would be more interested in the best noodle houses, tea shoppes, parks and temples...

[Maddie]

5 hours ago, freeform said:

 

And I’m saying you won’t find that evidence on a forum.

 

Search for an albino giraffe in a lake, then a desert, then the alpine wilderness and soon enough you’ll be convinced that it couldn’t possibly exist.

 

While I realize that my examples technically don't count as evidence to me the fact that there were witnesses that saw the clouds part and then come back together based on the timing of my intention is at least objective as far as observation goes and can be observed by more than one person is probably as close to evidence as one can get for these types of things. 

 And people have shared some stories that again while not evidence are very interesting and compelling. So for me this thread has been worth it.

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, C T said:

 

- Buddhist Magic by Sam van Schaik

Intro: "In Buddhist Magic, van Schaik takes a book of spells and rituals--one of the earliest that has survived--from the Silk Road site of Dunhuang as the key reference point for discussing Buddhist magic in Tibet and beyond. After situating Buddhist magic within a cross-cultural history of world magic, he discusses sources of magic in Buddhist scripture, early Buddhist rituals of protection, medicine and the spread of Buddhism, and magic users. Including material from across the vast array of Buddhist traditions, van Schaik offers readers a fascinating, nuanced view of a topic that has too long been ignored."

 

You can imagine my disappointment the first time I went to my local Buddhist monastery to do a meditation retreat and the main monk that I spoke to was a western Monk with a PhD in science and technology from a major university he flat out told me there was an absolutely no such thing as magic and that the Asian monks belief in such things was just superstition. I wasn't even sure if he believed in enlightenment and Nirvana or even reincarnation so I began to wonder why he was even a monk in the first place. Though he was very big on insisting that I bow to him frequently.

Edited November 25, 2020 by dmattwads

[SirPalomides]

44 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

You can imagine my disappointment the first time I went to my local Buddhist monastery to do a meditation retreat and the main monk that I spoke to was a western Monk with a PhD in science and technology from a major university he flat out told me there was an absolutely no such thing as magic and that the Asian monks belief in such things was just superstition. I wasn't even sure if he believed in enlightenment and Nirvana or even reincarnation so I began to wonder why he was even a monk in the first place. Though he was very big on insisting that I bow to him frequently.

 

So much of American "Zen" in a nutshell there.

[C T]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

If I make it there, I'll definitely look you up, but would be more interested in the best noodle houses, tea shoppes, parks and temples...

 

That can be arranged, as a matter of fact. 

[C T]

55 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

You can imagine my disappointment the first time I went to my local Buddhist monastery to do a meditation retreat and the main monk that I spoke to was a western Monk with a PhD in science and technology from a major university he flat out told me there was an absolutely no such thing as magic and that the Asian monks belief in such things was just superstition. I wasn't even sure if he believed in enlightenment and Nirvana or even reincarnation so I began to wonder why he was even a monk in the first place. Though he was very big on insisting that I bow to him frequently.

 

This western PhD monk mustn't have travelled much, nor does he sound right for the calling. 

[freeform]

8 hours ago, dmattwads said:

objective as far as observation goes and can be observed by more than one person is probably as close to evidence as one can get for these types of things.

Qi emission is more ‘objective’...

 

clouds move whether you will them or not - but you don’t usually receive electric shocks that travel through your body when people touch your hand... 

 

Animals and babies aren’t taken in by mental biases either - but they react just the same to Qi emission.

 

Qi emission is pretty ‘common’ once you’re accepted into the right ‘inner door’ groups.

 

But Qi emission can be faked - so you need to see something like that in person, for yourself.

 

Some examples of the effects of Nei Qi emission:

 

Example of Yang Qi emission:

More Yang Qi emission:

 

 

Its important to point out that these skills don’t mean these masters necessarily have a high level of spiritual attainment (which is what’s a lot more interesting for me) - or ethical development.

 

Also for me personally - seeing videos like this is not good enough evidence.

[edit] Though I’m as certain as I can be that these videos show genuine Qi emission - because I’ve either met these teachers or their senior students who can do the same.

But once you experience it over and over from many different people - many of whom have no vested interest... or maybe one day you even experience being able to do the same yourself... then that’s as good evidence as you’re gonna get.

 

These things are real.

They seem special - but once you understand the mechanics of it, the mysticism is dispelled - and it doesn’t seem all that supernatural at all. Just a combination of many years of dedicated practice and sincere application of genuine methods.

Edited November 25, 2020 by freeform

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

 

So much of American "Zen" in a nutshell there.

 

Interesting that you say that because previously he had been a Zen priest for 10 years.

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

 

clouds move whether you will them or not - but you don’t usually receive electric shocks that travel through your body when people touch your hand... 

 

 

That's true, but not usually only directly over one's head and no where else, and usually not only for the duration for which it was intended, and not usually is this repeatable more than once in order to rule out mere coincidence.

[anshino23]

59 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

That's true, but not usually only directly over one's head and no where else, and usually not only for the duration for which it was intended, and not usually is this repeatable more than once in order to rule out mere coincidence.

 

So you're not interested in Qi-emission as "evidence" but more stories about altering the weather or more natural phenomena? 

 

How about asking fish to form a line? Better evidence? 

 

 

Not really sure what criteria you're judging your "objective evidence" based upon if you're interested in anecdotal stories about "clouds parting way over one's head".  

Edited November 25, 2020 by anshino23

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, anshino23 said:

 

So you're not interested in Qi-emission as "evidence" but more stories about altering the weather or more natural phenomena? 

 

 

I didn't say I wasn't interested in that.

[freeform]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

That's true, but not usually only directly over one's head and no where else, and usually not only for the duration for which it was intended, and not usually is this repeatable more than once in order to rule out mere coincidence.

For me personally, that would be pretty low quality of evidence. Fun but not nearly some kind of proof of the supernatural.
 

The pattern recognition aspect of cloud watching is way too prone to confirmation bias.

[Maddie]

38 minutes ago, freeform said:

For me personally, that would be pretty low quality of evidence. Fun but not nearly some kind of proof of the supernatural.
 

The pattern recognition aspect of cloud watching is way too prone to confirmation bias.

 

Agreed. Noteworthy perhaps, but not evidence.