Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and "demonic" possession.
LostLight
Veteran
This is a topic I've held off on to avoid looking like a loony, but it's something I ultimately wanted to discuss. I was a Christian for most of my life, not just because of upbringing, but because of some VERY convincing personal experiences. I have had bouts with people who were "possessed", they were able to throw people and things around without even touching them; they were the scariest experiences of my life and I was terrified to be alone or in the dark for years. It seemed that the symbol of Christ and Christian type prayers and rituals helped; this is the sole reason why I became a Christian when my mind told me to be an agnostic. Eventually I stumbled onto Buddhism, but the experiences I had have always confused me; I don't believe in a deity anymore, yet all this crazy mumbo jumbo makes me question everything...
Is there any aspect of Buddhism that could explain such experiences?
Is there any aspect of Buddhism that could explain such experiences?
0
Comments
So you could recreate the experiences but they wouldn't actually be happening.
Mod. Note: Edited for OP.
I am not suggesting that it didnt happen, nor that possession is not possible.
I am merely pointing out that there are many many disconcerting issues in the universe that you will habitually ignore - I doubt for example that singularity keeps you awake at night... but it is there none the less - a bold patradox - you may agree that there are more disconcerting issues than not! such is the limit of our cognizance.
If you seek certainty from a 'man made construct' (such as religion) in a universe that consists of more 'not man made constructs' than 'man made constructs' then you will surely be walking towards disappointment and confusion.
You're not a loony - life is full of weird and wonderful sh1t!!
As for what causes the demonic beings, from my reading I believe they say it's mostly evil people entering the Hell realms upon death and becoming what they acted like while living.
Perception and energy are interdependent.
What we view as dieties or demons are just energy that we perceive as such. Its all karmic.
So the way I'd explain it is negativity begets negativity.
In Buddhism there are malevolent spirits and what have you.
You can read about the Dorje Shugden controversy for an example of a malevolent spirit in Buddhism.
It is a controversy though so you'd have to do the research yourself to see which side rings true to you.
For me, I don't want anything to do with that spirit or its practices.
Textual and historical research demonstrates that the spirit Dolgyal (Shugden) arose out of hostility to the great Fifth Dalai Lama and his government.
You could do certain practices that help protect you from spirit harm and the like. I'm not too knowledgeable on a lot of this stuff but maybe others on here can help point you in the right direction.
There are definitely practices in Buddhism to protect oneself against negativity--whether negativity from ourselves, or something as "concrete" as spirit harm. We don't have a great deal of understanding in the West yet about spirit harm, I think, and since spirit harm is often talked about in relation to cancer, I have a deep interest in the concept. I realize that much of it may be metaphorical--just a way to visualize energy and how it works--but I think the visualizations can be helpful. I also think we don't understand all the life forms in the world, and the concept of local spirits which can be upset by our reckless destruction of their environment is not a particularly hard concept to swallow, for me.
I do wonder what the incidence of possession is across cultures. I too was raised fundamentalist Christian, though in a Buddhist country; all the stories of demon-possession I heard were from the Christian side. So I sometimes think that if we are raised in a culture that stresses the existence of demon-possession, than that makes it more likely one will experience it. Not that it is fake, necessarily, but maybe a door is opened (or really, the mind is just focused on it, so whatever one experiences negatively can be experienced as demon-possession).
So if there's a culture that almost never experiences anything called demon-possession, then, I'd be interested to look at why.
It's not so different than pain; if we expect pain, sometimes we experience more of it. It doesn't mean the pain is fake, at all. But the reality of pain is that so much of it is dependent on our mental state. So from a Buddhist perspective, I think the experience of pain, the experience of spirit possession, and any other negative experience can be definitely reduced or eliminated by training our minds.
The Tibetan Buddhist approach in my experience ranges from very general, mind-focused training, where spirits aren't even mentioned, just practices for the general health of the mind--to very specific rituals, some designed to address specific spirits.
If you're not put off by the idea of ritual, than Lama Zopa Rinpoche has a lot of advice on this topic. In general, it's best to contact him directly and he'll email you with his thoughts for you specifically. He's had a stroke recently, though, and I don't know how often he's been able to do this lately. If you're somewhat new to Buddhism, be sure to let him know; then he can advise you according to your needs.
But he also makes his advice to others available online, to read through. This is very Tibetan stuff--again, if you're put off by specific rituals, and prefer a more general approach, or don't really like to think of negativities in terms of form or spirits, this might not be helpful to you. But if you're interested, it is fascinating to read through the various approaches, I find:
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=352
- this is possibly the most harmful piece of advice I have read in quite a while. Usually if people seem "possessed" this is usually a sign of a mental disorder of some kind and should be refereed to someone who can actually help them. Utilizing the help of shamans/monks/priests/imams to "expel demons" of people that might otherwize be helped makes me sick to my stomach. It's the year 2012 for petes sake and people still believe in demons and jinn? And people ask what's the harm of religion, especially budhism - this. this right here is the harm
The assumption is of an objective realm where there is no ghosts or demons because well "I" can't perceive them. So they don't exist. Pretty sound logic. Except it fails to take account that there actually is an infinite variety of modes of perception that are just as valid as the "perception" society and culture asserts as "objective" perception.
Well Buddhism asserts that all perceptions are invalid, colored, thus not worthy of holding onto. Even the perception of scientific materialism. Same with ghosts, gods, etc. But just because they are invalid doesn't mean they do not occur to individuals.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that they need "help" or need to be "fixed". Maybe to fit a normal working society they may need to "be fixed". But maybe you should really examine your preconceived notions on perception and what you are conditioned to believe in as a whole. Shamans and many spiritual men and women have been working with the unseen realms for centuries. And even we work with the unseen realms. Thoughts are unseen, ungraspable, yet they dominate out whole sense of life.
Not to label you as anything but whenever there is a negation or affirmation that means there is a holding of a belief. And yes the total negation of that which I cannot experience is a belief. Why? Because it is holding onto a perception and ultimately being closed minded.
But thats just my opinion. I don't necessarily believe in demons or ghosts but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And that certainly doesn't mean that people who claim to see them are illogical or do not have valid cognitions. Well from the point of Buddhism its all invalid. Hehe.
To OP if one assumes that one is plagued by demons or ghosts then it is helpful to study/practice and song the heart sutra. Buddhism asserts that emptiness is the only valid form of cognition. What that means is that when you look for anything you cannot find it. This is a looking from the whole being (body and mind). Everything is ungraspable and thus like a magicians trick. This isn't a denial because everything is happening. This isn't an affirmation because nothing is found. Thus the middle way.
No matter what ghost appears. It is an empty apparition. Just like the sounds, smells, thoughts, etc. Vivid, yet totally insubstantial.
That is my personal advice to you.
People who say they are suffering from spirit harm have absolutely received relief from practices that address that spirit harm. We can argue all day about the mechanism, but the fact that the person receives help is undeniable (for anyone who has observed or experienced it).
When I mention a teacher whom I know has advices on practices to address a problem, I am in fact being more genuine than the doctor who prescribes a placebo, knowing and feeling it is a "fake" medicine but hoping to trick the patient in to a mental attitude conducive to healing. The reason the doctor feels justified in tricking the patient into a healing mental attitude is that he/she knows a healing mental attitude is itself healing, or has a good likelihood of being.
I on the other hand believe that spirit harm is possible, and have even a stronger reason for responding to someone's question, "Is there any aspect of Buddhism that could address such an experience?" with "Yes," because the answer is in fact "Yes," Buddhism does have aspects that can address such an experience.
I made it clear that some teachers address such problems with an approach of helping the mind heal--in other words, psychotherapy. Other teachers place that therapy in the context of specific forms; but if you ask even those teachers what their ultimate opinion of that specific form (spirit) is, they will say it is a projection of the mind.
One of the healthiest aspects of Buddhism, in my opinion, is that it acknowledges a very, very wide spectrum of ways humans see the world, and therefore of the ways humans see problems in the world, and prescribes antidotes accordingly. As much as a scientist would love to believe no one believes in demons, the fact is some do, and as much as a scientist wishes they wouldn't benefit from a practice which honors the patient's belief, they do benefit.
Please keep in mind, also, that the person asking the question was not the person suffering from the problem, but wanted to know whether Buddhism addresses this problem, and the answer is, yes.
Who's less wise? Who's more honest? Most doctors, of any persuasion, do their best, but we will have a very hard time proving Eastern doctors are any more reckless than Western ones.
I don't.
What in the here and now would even reasonably support this kind of assertion?
I need not look to otherworldly beings, humans with their high capacity for the three poisons is more than enough for me.
What is possession when compared to the intentional acts of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, and John Wayne Gacy?
To me, the devil is humanity's excuse to lay blame for that which is truely theirs.
An ant doesn't know I exist - he/she only recognizes interaction with me as some momentary, unexpected levitation resulting in relocation. He/she doesn't see me as a whole--to an ant, I'm probably just some darkening of the sky. If an ant could think more deeply, he/she would probably attribute my passing or "rescues" to supernatural events.
Likewise, I don't presume there isn't some other sentience that I don't understand. And to be fair, I don't understand life from an ant's point of view, either.
Of course it's totally okay if someone doesn't want to look into the existence of other types of sentience, or isn't interested, or outright denies it. But these beings are referred to quite clearly in Buddhism, so one shouldn't assume a fellow Buddhist is off-base to accept these theories. Why would I accept so many other things about Buddhism and spontaneously reject that particular info? My experience teaches me to lean in favor of the teachers and writings; I'm saying this not at all to pressure others to accept anything, but rather that they shouldn't be surprised if Buddhists conclude these beings exist in the way anything else exists--which is to say they are empty of inherent existence like anything else.
Who knows - some day a nagascope may show the existence of nagas, just as Dr. Leeuwenhoek's "animalcules" (protozoa) were finally proven via microscope to those who originally claimed he was round the bend.
"In other traditions demons are expelled externally. But in my tradition demons are accepted with compassion." ~ Machik Labdron, patron of the Chod practice.
"Take a demon as a demon and it will harm you.
Know a demon is in your mind and you'll be free of it."
~ Jetsun Milarepa
Beyond the boundaries we petty humans construct to feel safe from realities chaos, lies stuff beyond imagination. The openness that accompanies a sincere meditation practise can deconstruct those boundaries so that if you choose to look out there, something may well decide to pay you the return courtesy. Good luck after that of finding a way back to the world you thought you knew..
You might want to read http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html
if you have not already.
"As by thy omniscience, thou hast looked on (mankind with a knowing eye), even the non-humans pay reverence to thee. This we have often heard. We, therefore, request the Yakkhas to pay homage to Gotama, the Conqueror (the Buddha). They too say: 'We reverence, Gotama, the Conqueror, we reverence Gotama who is endowed with knowledge and virtue.'
32. "Where lies delightful Uttarakuru (the Northern continent), where towers beautiful Mount Meru, there are born men who are selfless and unattached.
33. "They neither sow the seed nor use[8] the plow. Spontaneously grown corn is there for them to enjoy.
34. "The rice, purged of the red powder and of husk, clean and sweet-scented, is boiled in golden vessels; it is this that they partake of.
35. "They make of cows a single-seated mount (like mounting on horseback)[9] and ride about from place to place.
36-37. "They make use of women and men, girls and boys as vehicles, and travel from place to place in them.
This sutta also describes how to exorcise/stop these Yakkas.
"If any monk or nun, layman or laywoman learns by heart this Atanata protection, and be word-perfect in repeating it, and if any non-human male or female Yakkha, youth or maiden Yakkha, Yakkha Minister or any Yakkha, or Yakkha attendant; male or female Gandhabba... (as before); male or female Kumbhanda... male or female Naga... were to walk with him or her, or stand or sit or lie down with him or her with malevolent intent, such a non-human, Happy One, will not obtain hospitality from any town or township, will not obtain a place to dwell, nor could live in the Kingdom of Alakamanda. He will not be able to attend the meetings of the Yakkhas. Further he would not be accepted or given in marriage, he would be reproached (by casting remarks on his deformed teeth or eyes or any part of the body), and the non-humans would put an empty bowl over his head and split it (head) in seven pieces.
and further down:
"Happy One, if any non-human — male or female Yakkha, youth or maiden Yakkha, yakkha minister or any Yakkha, or Yakkha attendant; male or female Gandhabba... (as before); male or female Kumbhanda... male or female Naga... were to walk with a monk or nun, or a layman or laywoman, or stand, or sit, or lie down with him or her with malevolent intent, then should (the molested one) inform, cry aloud and shout to those Yakkhas, to the mighty Yakkhas, their commanders and chief commanders saying: 'This Yakkha is seizing me, takes possession of me, is harassing me, assailing me, is harming me, harming me intensely and would not let me go!'
"Who are the Yakkhas, mighty Yakkhas and commanders, and chief commanders (to whom such appeal should be made)?
49. Inda, Soma, and Varuna, Bharadvaja, Pajapati, Candana, Kamasettha too, Kinnughandu, Nigahandu, 50. Panada, Opamanna too, Devasata and Matali, Cittasena and Gandhabba, Nala, Raja, Janesabha, 51. Satagira, Hemavata, Punnaka, Karatiya, Gula, Sivaka, Mucalinda too, Vessamitta, Yugandhara, 52. Gopala, Suppagedha too, Hiri, Netti, and Mandiya, Pañcalacanda, Alavaka, Pajjunna, Sumana, Sumukha, Dadamukkha, With these Serisakka.
Cheers
Victor
If I could somehow be granted one wish for Buddhism, (in general, cultural terms) it would be to free it from ancient negative superstitions & mythology, and "paradox-logic".
How does one diminish the importance of one's own ego, then go on to believe they can control and manipulate unseen 'forces' in this world -and even in other (supernatural) worlds - by sheer will and magical chants? Pretty powerful stuff, for one without 'ego' or concern beyond the here and now moment... no?
How does one surrender to the inner Buddha and flow along moment by moment within the universe, while at the same time trying to change /blame / manipulate "reality" as it appears to be, and it is believed to be - unseen?
I wouldn't be diminishing my ego if I settled on a belief without investigating it--if I said, "This exists" or "This doesn't exist," as if I knew for sure, that would be ego.
My Hocak dad used to say, "I only know one thing, and that's that I don't know a thing," lol. If there's anything I myself have learned in my time on earth, it's that life is surprising--I don't feel the need to be 100% sure. And at the very least, I don't feel I should be 100% sure without having really investigated something.
As an ex-missionary, I've changed a lot from the person who assumed indigenous people (whatever that means) are childlike, uneducated and superstitious and I am a scientific person with the right answers; some of what has changed my mind is the consistency of descriptions between cultures of things we would call "superstition," not to mention the consistency of uses for native plants for the same illnesses across cultures. "Witch doctoring," we would have called it in the missionary days.
I don't believe it's really necessary to try and convince anyone one way or the other; we all look into things which interest us, and it's good if our conclusions come from really looking at something, rather than blindly accepting it or writing it off as superstition.
True science doesn't have an ego, and accepts anything that can be proven to its satisfaction; it doesn't say, "supernatural beings don't exist," it says "there's no current evidence." Many people who proposed new scientific theories across history were labeled demon-possessed wackos; haven't we seen this over and over again, enough to think that at least, it would be good to keep a more neutral mind? Why do we need to state definitively that something is this way and only this way?
From a truly Buddhist perspective, the world is what we make it, and if we label our demon this or that, doesn't it make sense that the medicine matches, at least partially, the individual's own labeling system?
A very, very large component of healing--and this is being revealed more and more in modern testing--is the relationship between doctor and patient.
I think we are living in a time where healing is being redefined--in the other thread we cited a physician who said that even in conventional medicine, healing, which used to be defined as "best choice of medicine" is rapidly being defined as "best choice of medicine+placebo effect."
Certainly for healing of the mind, therapies which honor the mind itself seem appropriate for consideration.
Incidentally, both the Dalai Lama and my Hocak dad speak/spoke about taking the best of both systems when dealing with health issues.
I hope you didn't read more into my words than I intended. :-) I honestly do not view all superstition as necessarily 'bad' or even "ignorant". I don't disrespect indigenous people or look down on them (as you may have thought from my post).
But that being said; Every single religion in every part of the world has elements of mythology, folklore and superstition. That is the basis from which all (old) religions spring, no?
Every culture around the world also has its own set of folk-beliefs and superstitions.
Mythology I have no issue with, because most people see it for what it is... lessons by way of parables, stories, legends.
Observing superstitions always come with reward and/or punishment. You do this, this will result; you do that, that will result. It is some sort of exchange of "power" - for lack of a better word - between oneself and the unknown forces we THINK we can control and or bargain with. Why do we think that? Well a number of reasons, depending on who one's God is, what religion one follows, what saints and angels one has on 'their side', etc ...
Buddhism is no different; culturally or religiously.
Like TheSwingisyellow, I don't believe in demons, devils, evil spirits and or the magic prayers/chants/talismans to protect oneself from them. Those are superstitions that at one time people used to explain mental illness or deviations of the mind, abnormal physical defects, as well as deviations from the "good/godly" path and (their) society's rules of acceptable conduct.
And in the off chance they DO exist, despite my disbelief....? I honestly think it's very arrogant and egotistical to believe we can manipulate, stop or control them in their realm or ours, merely by chants, rituals or wearing talismans. What power (we need to assume we have) to do such a thing!
Either that, or how weak and easily turned those evil spirits and demons are - to be so quickly defeated. So why are we worried? Why do we waste the time and effort when the very core of our Buddhist beliefs tell us to strive for inner peace, living in the moment, being compassionate, learning detachment from negative as well as positive, etc?
Buddhism can work and does work - beautifully - even without the superstitions.
I don't believe they are needed any longer in this modern world of science and the vast wealth of practical, scientific knowledge the average person now has access to.
Healing, to me, does not fall into the category of 'superstition'. I didn't even think of it while writing my original post, nor this one, until now. That is a whole other topic to me.
Peace.
I too am not sure that remaining open to all possibilities is of help to the Buddhist path or not but I am sure that me saying what folks should be open to or not is pretty presumptuous.
Buddhism nicely side steps much of the question of what people should or shouldn't be like by just focusing on whether what they are doing results in craving or not.
I actually had to say "wait, does Buddhism really mention this stuff or is it just people talking out of their ignorance - and Yes- Wikipedia says yes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_possession
Yes, we can now see these formerly-invisible beings in the microscope, but we didn't use to be able to. And of course, not all vaccines work, and some people die from vaccines. No science is perfect--in the final judgement, only outcome matters.
Despite the fact some people (seem to) use mantras as "magical incantations," they aren't meant as such. They are meant to focus the mind in a certain way, on a certain topic, in much the same way a pediatric oncologist tells a child, "Imagine your army of white blood cells attacking the invaders."
And the truth is, that when one investigates old "magical incantations," we find, often, the same mechanism at work. For problems, there are antidotes, and in traditional cultures the mind is often taken into equal consideration as the body.
We have such a very long tradition of denigrating older sciences--we would never even call them that--that it's exceptionally hard to get past (for me, too). But all cultures arrived at their own practices through hundreds of years of trial and error, like us. We may disagree with their conclusions, but they didn't pull their practices and medicines out of thin air, using no reasoning or intelligence. Gone are the days when a wandering California botanist hears from a villager, "We use this plant for cysts," and laughs it off. Instead he makes a quick call to the pharmaceutical dudes who sent him, lol.
I do realize it's harder to qualify traditions that have to do with mental objects, as opposed to physical objects. I'm just saying that labels like "superstition" are very problematic--they are not fixed, and have changed remarkably in our own lifetime. The use of yew tree salve for cancer was considered a (devil-inspired) superstition in my grandfather's day; now it's called Paclitaxel and goes for $87 per milligram.
But I think worries as to traditional doctors failing to address patient needs can be mostly quelled, at least in this country--most Tibetan teachers I've seen take full advantage of the medical system and are not unfamiliar with psychology. If a student in my gompa exhibits symptoms suspicious of schizophrenia, the Geshe or staff will recommend a consult at University Hospital.
But there are problems whose pathology seems clearly to lie outside such obvious cases of gravely serious disorders; problems which seem more emotional and personal. If a mind is troubled, so much of that trouble often has a component(s) reachable via emotional support. Meditations, mantras, and other ways to work with the mind and emotions, have clearly proven to support mental health in that respect.
At the bottom of it, it goes to a prevention-based approach instead of symptom-based; the Eastern physician assumes that the patient is not helpless to do anything towards his mental/emotional health, but that the underlying problem is an imbalance or problem in the mind which makes it susceptible to a more serious illness, and that rather than throwing a drug at the symptom, the underlying mental/emotional problem can often be addressed directly.
A frantic, anxiety-ridden person is generally more susceptible to what we would label "mental illness." If meditation (for example) addresses the anxiety, the patient is often less-susceptible. It doesn't really matter if the patient's mind is calmed by Mozart, mantras or an anxiety drug; susceptibility is reduced. But if the patient can reduce susceptibility by altering his/her habits, rather than resorting to a drug, there's a greater likelihood of lasting health (and being able to send the kids through college).
I guess in summary, we can say that one person may utterly reject a pill, but find success with a mantra; another may do the opposite. Is this a matter of addressing each patient's needs, or insisting that one of them discard what we see as a belief in magical incantations, because we personally find such a thing ridiculous?
I'm sorry this go so long...not trying to be difficult...just find this a fascinating topic. If I've made wrong assumptions as to anyone else's position, I apologize in advance (and retrospect!)
[P.S. I promise to try and do a better job editing things down in future, but have to run to work.]
please see the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy for this one
Please demonstrate the effectiveness of incantations VS placebos/random chance in a controlled environment - you could win a Nobel Prize for this and change science for ever and for the better! The good ole "call my belief a science so it'll sound sciency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Especially have a look at:
Replication, External review, Data recording and sharing
When it comes to the supernatural stuff, Buddhists are always experimenting, recording, sharing their results and showing how to replicate them an stuff like that? Why any doubter could pick up a Buddhist writing and find technique that when followed, would demonstrate a supernatural thing to him and other doubters and it could be repeated, observed and tested?
So what you are saying is - "O well anything can be true so don't call us superstitious just cause we can't support our claims " - well I AM calling you out on it, deal with it. The comforting nature of assertions does not make them true, and that is what is being discussed here. Yess, meditation and other Buddhist practices can bring peace to people. However we were talking about possession. Huge generalizations here. when it comes to some anxiety/ mental issues - sure, I'm sure this happens - but the question is - would you go to a Buddhist monk for anything other than "not feeling at peace with yourself" like, say, a broken arm or a tumor if there was a hospital with free socialized healthcare nearby?
I am open to the fact that tomorrow a religion might be shown to be correct, or that souls or afterlives exist, and while this would surprise me, I would accept it after consuming some alcoholic beverages (unless it was Islam in which case I would refrain from consuming alcohol since that would not be allowed). Would you, on the other hand, be open to the possibility that YOUR beliefs are wrong - that there might be no afterlife, that after we die we return to the same state of nonexistence as before we were born, and that that fate befell the Buddha as well? That Karma doesn't exist, and stuff happens randomly and evil deeds do not get punished in the afterlife? I have, and I am now more at peace with myself than I ever was.
Mantras regulate energy. Energy which coordinates our body and thoughts.
Thoughts which express in the body through energy.
Its a feed back loop. Good vibrations = good energy = good thoughts = good sensations = good thoughts = good vibrations = good energy = etc.
Anyhow, as far as demons go. I tend to not believe in them as well. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Satan. I realize there are stories of demons in Buddhism, but I don't have to believe them to practice Buddhism. Just like a Christian doesn't have to believe in Noah's Ark to practice Christianity. There are stories in every tradition, it doesn't make them true. I have never experienced demons, so I can't say that they exist. I have read many case studies on possession, and I find it a fascinating subject. Many of the victims HAVE been extensively treated by medical and psychiatric professionals, and no reason for what happened to them has always been found, certainly not to the degree they experienced it, and how those who witnessed the so-called possession experienced it. I guess I don't concern myself with whether possession is real. I enjoy reading about it, and I'm open to be it being true or untrue. Either way those who feel they experience it undergo significant suffering, and regardless of the reasons for it, I feel bad for what they and their families go through.
When something strikes someone, whether it's cancer, the flu, mental illness or possession, I find nothing wrong with seeking help from many avenues. Is turning Buddhist going to cure you from cancer? Most likely not. But learning how to control stress in your life, and using mindfulness to control your diet and lifestyle can affect you positively if you have cancer, and it can help prevent cancer, so there is nothing wrong with trying while you also seek medical help.
If that doesn't cut it, I can say from personal experience that when squabbling with my sister, expecting and receiving a well-delivered whomp, I experienced quite a bit of pain even though no bruise was left. However at other times, I'd get huge incidental bruises while playing hard, with my mind on something other than my body, and not even notice getting the bruise. My own mental state was different in both cases. Fair enough! Not sure what you mean here, but as a descendant of MacDuffs I'm intrigued... The Noble will likely go to someone else - meditation sometimes trumps morphine (and as someone who's seen people on morphine, this surprised me - not because I think great practitioners can't trump morphine, but I was surprised brand-new ones did):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1374037/Meditation-better-morphine-easing-pain.html Scientific method is not the same as science. Science has a multitude of definitions, including (I as is my intention) a label which differentiates systems that say "just because" from those that investigate and, just as importantly, advise continued investigation.
Would you consider dreams supernatural? We can investigate and come up with analyses of what people call dreams, and then say that basically the pool of subjects is large enough to suggest dreams exist, given the conformity of use of this term, but we can't devise an experiment that can be repeated which proves the existence of dreams, or at least specific dreams. As far as science can tell, there is no difference between a person dreaming of a red ball versus a blue ball.
This doesn't mean that everything that's ever been proposed is on-target; it just means that within the accepted definition of science we already accept the existence of phenomena that are nearly impossible to analyze by our current standards. Merely showing that the label "superstition" is not well-defined, and that there are clear cases of yesterday's superstition being today's science. I would say, for example, that science accepts the likelihood of dreams largely due to an overwhelming sample size. But maybe there are no dreams - maybe it's just wishful thinking, creatively deluding ourselves that we experience something at night besides a dark, unconscious void. We're pretty far beyond assertions, in the field of emotional and mind science. Psychotherapy itself is nothing less than acceptance that the mind benefits from focus, positive (re)direction, and targeted communication--in addition to (and sometimes in place of) medicines. But without question there are other areas of what you might call supernatural which have not been studied and/or accepted. Much of the formerly supernatural became natural with study--that doesn't mean all of the supernatural will or can be. But that historical fact definitely inspires me to be quite happy with neutrality as opposed to rejection, as a baseline. But possession is a label--in Buddhist terms, it covers a spectrum of perception from "nagas can be a problem - this mantra will help" to "all phenomena are projections of your mind - realize this and your fear will subside." Ask a teacher who says "nagas exist- this mantra will help" what he means, and he'll likely explain it in the second way. The difference is that he/she believes there is a time and place to acknowledge the person's mental state and disposition; if the person sees negativities more clearly as a certain form, it's appropriate to deal with it accordingly.
When an oncologist tells a child to visualize his white blood cells, he often shows pictures of white blood cells - sometimes rather cartoony pictures. The important thing is to direct the mind generally toward the idea of white blood cells. If cartoon white blood cells help, or if the image of nagas nelps, the mind is still directed. It's not a lie, it's a cognitive aid appropriate to that particular patient. Initially, I would go to both a Western and traditional doctor for a tumor. Depending on the cancer, I might at some point abandon Western oncology, based on past experience with this issue. For a broken arm I'd go to a hospital (as would any of the monks at my gompa). Ha
That said, one of the coolest things I ever heard was an NPR interview with a man who came to accept death as a liberating concept - he said he realized he was part of this thing called life, which includes death, and that he felt it was an honor to spontaneously arise, do his part, and then disappear back into the earth - that to him, in fact, this concept was very spiritual. I absolutely loved that interview. I'll try to find it and post; and because I do, of course, have fears about that being the case, I found peace in it as well. So now my position is, "It's all good, whatever it is."
Read back - my initial comment was that reality is objective.
Either "demonic possessions" exist in reality or they don't. And yes, people have subjective views on the matter.
However, there has been a lack of evidence to support such claims, otherwise there would be anti-demon government branches everywhere and stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman hmm let me check....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science
Yes, you are right. There are actually more liberal interpretations like " An activity that appears to require study and method" , "skill or technique", "Archaic knowledge" and even " Christian Science". However don't you think it's a bit dishonest to use the term like that, since to most people the word "science" evokes images of scientists with beakers and graphs and the like? Following your usage, I could call anything "science", like "The science of counter strike" - since some people play it systematically and increase their skills based on their observations/ gained knowledge/etc - the word then begins to loose it's meaning and becomes, well, meaningless. But alas, I concede this point . Some experiments have already been carried out.
http://lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html
Here we go again.
1.We have a hypothesis X ( an idea, for example about unicorns existing somewhere)
2. Here is where we differ. What we do about this in most cases is we reserve judgement about such matters until more evidence comes to light - be it the greek gods or dragons, we simply "lack belief in them". However when it comes to our "cherished" beliefs, some people tend to do quite the opposite and "wait till science "catches up"" to their beliefs - will science "catch up" to unicorns, the greek gods, flat earth theory, witches? This is special pleading that you apply different standards to "some" beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superstition
seems fine to me actually scientists can use fancy devices to show that people are dreaming, and soon will be able to record videos n stuff. neat stuff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/06/medicalresearch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement_sleep
regarding superstition becoming science - yes, that's the beauty of the scientific method - it corrects itself, discarding mistakes and gaining knowledge
Some previous dialogue: mm seems you responded to something different as to what I was talking about.
So there are no actual spirits/possesions and it is but a "metaphor"? If so it would be a very harmful one as unfortunately many people actually believe in demonic beings that can possess them.
good
do you mean conservation of matter/energy? while it is true that the matter/energy in your body will go on, there is no reason to suppose that the end result of the functioning of your brain, the consiousness, will go on, more than it is to suppose that the digestive functions would also "live on" since the atoms would still exist, or that your appearance would be preserved for ever since those atoms would also still exist. That is a truly good position good sir.
If you want good stuff about how the brain works and stuff, read (or listen to audio books) by Stephen Pinker (he has a lot of books, all brilliant) , also "the magic of reality" is a great book, as well as "religion explained"
on the "how to spot pseudoscience" checklist found at:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
Energy and energy fields are the basis of quantum theory as we know it.
Your existence does not terminate at the barrier of your skin, anymore than existence is restricted to just what's outside your skin barrier. The skin of your being is just the Ego's barrier. In reality (as is usually meditatively experienced) there is a great intermingling across that barrier of skin from the inside and the outside. I am not suggesting that you believe or diss believe what I'm saying, only that you hold it as a possibility, yet to be proved to you.
If I (and many other ardent practitioners) are right, then just allowing that these experiences may be real might keep you open to seeing the sources of affecting phenomena you would otherwise have difficulty illuminating.
If we are wrong, your openness to these possibilities can just be a display of equanimity in the face of a bunch of self deluded nutters.
Allowing that it might be possible, even though it has not been part of your experience, is just a win/win situation for you. The other option is to win an argument in your own mind for...What?
As always, there is the possibility of delusion arising with the cleaving to or dismissing of any belief but that is very different to just remaining open minded.
I don't believe consciousness is the same as brain activity. I believe in the Buddhist theory that consciousness can be seated in a physical body, but does not consist merely of brain activity belonging to that body. The reasonings behind this theory make more sense to me than the theory that consciousness is mere brain activity.
"That is a truly good position good sir."
For what it's worth, I'm a girl
I believe ultimate reality is objective, but conventional reality is subjective.
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
yes, please see my comments regarding subjective / objective reality above it's perfectly fine to be "open" to the possibility that all sorts of things might exist. Dragons, unicorns, etc - but until there is good evidence one doesn't usually act on those things. Nutters? No. Deluded - from my subjective worldview - yes
can you elaborate what you mean by " conventional reality is subjective"?
What I said above was that there is most likely an objective reality, and we have our subjective "models" of that reality in our minds - is that different?
I have seen this myself. I have psychotic voices every day. It does no good to say they are not real (which is the truth of course).
The refuge is in the heart. In Tibet the mind is pointed to in the chest. Primal man beats it's chest and even in man today a feeling in the chest is correspondent to wanting to speak out and so forth.
At the same time I loved what you said about keeping skepticism.
If dreams weren't already accepted by scientists, skepticism (if it were applying the same rules equally) would disbelieve in the existence of dreams or remain skeptical about them.
No offense to skeptics--and maybe I'm misunderstanding the art--but skepticism strikes me as sort of a culture of contrariness. If skeptics were just as skeptical about being skeptical--which they should be, by their own definition--that would seem logical, but it always comes off as, "I'm skeptical about your beliefs, not mine." I think that's interesting, and wonder if skepticism has overlooked this logic knot. Again, I might well be undereducated as to what skepticism is all about.
Though, on the other end of the spectrum, a "christian" could survive a horrible accident and thus believe that God saved him/her; so a person who believes in ghosts could therefor label an odd experience as something more. Though, what I'm claiming is a little harder to disprove with science as it is now.
It's a topic that I'm both interested in and anxious about; I'm either exploring a science that hasn't been documented yet, or I'm slowly drifting towards insanity. I'm very hesitant to talk about/blame things on the paranormal nowadays; it can easily lead one into delusion.
Something that helps me is to think that there's really no such divide between paranormal and normal; I mean, whatever is, is, it's all normal. History is full of stories of the known, the unknown, and the in-between. Nothing, really, is that unusual.
My Hocak dad used that reasoning when talking with the tribe about using computers for the first time--he said, "It's all natural. Everything in this computer came from the Earth at some point."
I think removing the labels really helps so, so much. Instead of something being "natural" or "supernatural," it's just "what it is." If we don't have a way of understanding it fully, it's "what it may be." There's simply no need to divide objects or experiences into separate camps which, right off the bat, are judged differently.
Humans pursue the eternal quest for knowledge--it's in our DNA, lol!
you mean as in loosing your consciousness through death? Why the most reasonable conclusion thus far is that we return to the same state of non existence as before we were born.
If you are talking about loosing your sanity - well, your question would be "what happens if you loose your sanity and there is no soul"? - do you mean how do you come to terms with that emotionally? I am having trouble understanding you here.
Hope you get better Do you mean that as a metaphor? thanks!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You got it half-right here. It would mean that there is "something" to investigate, however jumping to the most "cool" conclusion is where people go wrong. One would try to select the explanation which makes the least unreasonable claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Right, let's take an extreme example - say there was only a single person ever that could have dreams/visions/hallucinations/etc. He would then give this account to his compatriots. It could indeed be possible, that if the scientific scanning/observation techniques of that time would be insufficient, he would not be believed. But imagine the alternative - what if he WAS believed without good reason? This would mean, that all of the other millions of people, with their "cool" and sometimes contradictory claims (invisible tentacles, ability to astrally project to a distant planet, telepathic communication with aliens, etc) would also have to be accepted. There would be no "Bullshit Detector" or firewall to prevent all of the crazy from seeping in. then those are some bad skeptics
One does not have to. the burden of proof lies on the one making a claim.
something that has not been documented yet, by definition cannot be a science. Maybe a "phenomenon" the observation of which would lead to a science after some reproducible experiments, combined with making predictions based on observations that would either be true or false? what's the more likely explanation?
I for one enjoy a good lucid dream even though many people would not think such a thing possible, yet nothing supernatural about it. For said reasons, places like this are a great place to talk. a proven/explained "paranormal" phenomenon would by definition become "normal"
wow your family sounds intriguing -"Hocak" sounds cool
reminds me of: