1 of 4
1
Shanti Devi case and the “reincarnation is a truth!” .... WTF?!
Posted: 15 February 2012 03:04 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15

Hi, this is my first post.
I found the case of Shanti Devi yesterday and it seemed so bizarre, that I thought “no way this to be true”, however I couldn’t find any scepticism/criticism of it on the internet. Its all “reincarnation is true”, “the ultimate proof” , “the best documented case of reincarnation” etc…
The case is in fact too old and it can be- and I’m sure it is- exaggerated and faked at some degree, however I feel the need to show myself “thats not how things work”.
Anyway here is the story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanti_Devi basic info
http://www.paulwayman.co.uk/plrart3.pdf the whole “story”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

The problem with all these stories is verifying that things decades ago occurred exactly as described by credulous witnesses. Far as I can see there isn’t a shred of independently verifiable evidence here. And there is so much room for mistake and mischief in testimonial evidence, especially given the cultural context in which reincarnation was considered true (and in which someone like Gandhi could very much have desired to prove his native religion true), that it doesn’t rise to anywhere close to the ‘extraordinary evidence’ required to confirm an extraordinary claim.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15

Well from what I found:

Since the late 50s people started writing about it. So basicly all the info they got was old and could easy be faked. The first people to investigate the case were sceptical about it:
- In February 1936, Shri Bal Chand Nahata, a rationalist and staunch disbeliever, interrogated Shanti Devi and some related persons.  He published his report in the form of a small booklet in Hindi entitled Punarjanma Ki Parayyalochana. He concludes his brief study by saying: “Whatever material that has come before us, does not warrant us to conclude that Shanti Devi has ‘former life recollections or that this cases proves reincarnation.” (Nahata, undated). 

However wiki says:
Two further reports were written at the time, one critical of the reincarnation claims,and a rebuttal it’s “Sen, Indra. “Shantidevi Further Investigated”. Proceedings of the India Philosophical Congress. 1938”. Indra Sen MA, LL.B., PH.D was a devotee of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother [since 1934], psychologist, author, and educator, and the founder of Integral Psychology as an academic discipline. So HE CAN’T BE REALLY UNprejudiced And still here is what I found about his argument: Dr. Indra Sen had also made a close study of the case. He took Shanti Devi to Mathura and Brindaban and “tested her memories on new points.” In April 1939 he secured the cooperation of a hypnotist and, “attempted to get her recollection of her former life in a hypnotic state.” Dr. Sen wrote, “I am confident that Shanti has certain memories which are not of ‘here and now’.” Doesnt sound like someone who is sure of it. This however can be explained by modern science [under hypnosis human brain can recall all sort of infromation, known from stories, books…]

-  In July 1939 Mr. Sushil Bose interrogated Shanti Devi and her father in Delhi and Kedarnath Choube at Mathura.  He has reported the interviews in complete details, but has not expressed his own opinion or comments about the case. [If you discover person who can proof that there is a GOD, would you ceep calm or would you share it with the world?! ] Bose also interrogated Shanti about her experiences between her death in her former life and her reincarnation into the present one

Here is what he shows from the interview… However I couldnt find any info about him as a scinetist

Question: Do you remember how you felt at the time of death?

Answer: Yes, Just before death I felt a profound darkness and after death I saw a dazzling light.  Then and there I knew I had come out of my body in a vaporous form and that I was moving upwards…. I saw that four men in saffron robes had come to me… All the four seemed to be in their teens and their appearance and dress were very bright… They put me in a cup and carried me…. It was about nine or ten inches abroad and rectangular in shape…

Q:  Did you not ask them any thing about the river?

A:  When asked they said that those who aspired for a higher life sincerely, but who had committed fleshly wrong in this life, were dipped in the river before moving any higher. They took me… to the fourth place.

Q: Is there any place to live there at night?

A: No, there are no houses or dwelling places. All is open space. …Arriving on the fourth place I saw that there are still more saints, brighter in appearance then those on the third plane.  And in the midst of them, seated on a huge dazzling throne was lord Krishna [one of most popular Hindu gods]. He was showing each person a record of his activities on earth, good and bad, and accordingly what would be his condition in the future.

Q: What happened then?

A:  Then those persons, who had carried me, took me to a place like a staircase where it was very bright. I was seated there.

Q: Is there any thing like darkness or light there?

A: No, nothing like light or darkness. It was all full of light. It was all day and light, very mild, and smoothing and enlivening light.

Q:  Did you have a sense of time? Can you say how long you stayed there?

        A:  No, I can’t say how long I remained there. I had no feeling of time.

Q: Did you feel there was any higher plane above the one where you were?

A: Yes, I observed and felt there was a higher place but I can’t say thing about it. I … in the fourth plane, near the throne of Lord Krishna, I saw one with a long beard.

Q: What finally happened?

A:  After remaining on the staircase for a long time I was taken to a dark room, from all sides of which a very bad smell was coming out. I was made to lie down in a clean place there.

Q: Did you feel any pain at the time of death? Did you see any thing at that time?

A: I did not feel any pain. I simply passed into a state of unconsciousness, and at that very moment I saw very brilliant light.

- In 1961 Dr. Ian Stevenson (1974a, 1974b, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1987) also studied the sources for this case.  He writes that “the accounts available to me indicate that Shanti Devi made at least 24 statements of her memories which matched the verified facts.”  —By this time the girl should be 25 years old, a women who can have benefits from the myth about her. However it is possible that she just was still deluded about here past…

- One of us, Dr. K.S.Rawat, interviewed Shanti Devi on February 3, 1986, and October 30, 1987. He had recorded his first interview with Shanti Devi on an audiocassette and the second and third meeting was recorded on a videocassette.  - This can not be taken as any proof at all…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Mistakes that she made:

- Kedarnath
came to Delhi on November 12, 1935, with Lugdi’s son Navneet Lal and his present wife. They went
to Rang Bahadur’s house the next day. To mislead Shanti Devi, Kanjimal introduced Kedarnath as the
latter’s elder brother. Shanti Devi blushed and stood on one side. Someone asked why she was
blushing in front of her husband’s elder brother. Shanti said in a low firm voice, “No, he is not my
husband’s brother. He is my husband himself.
” Then she addressed her mother, “Didn’t I tell you
that he is fair and he has a wart on the left side cheek near his ear?”

Now if she did told them that her past life husband has fair skin and wart on his sheek, and they found one who fits the ide, then it is not a miricle that she was able to identify him.

- The dialect that the story claims is just using the word ” Mathura” and then there happened to be a town, which name was different, but the locals called it Mathura too

- Kedarnath
asked her how she had recognized Navneet as her son, when she had seen him only once as an
infant before she died. Shanti explained that her son was a part of her soul and the soul is able to
easily recognize this fact.

Now this is strange, because then she must be born with the part of the souls of her RIGHTFULL parents, right?! => Every time a person is born he should then have a soul-part of his parents souls, not his own…

-During his stay at Delhi, Kedarnath found Shanti Devi’s behavior similar to that of Lugdi in many
ways. Before retiring for the night, he asked to be allowed to talk with her alone and later said that
he was fully convinced that Shanti Devi was his wife Lugdi Bai because there were many things she
had mentioned which no one except Lugdi could have known.

So I could be that the guy decided to pretend that she told him true facts and that way he could become a “super star”, after all being “husband” of a “saint” should be fun. I mean if you find out that your wife is living in the body of other human, then you probably will try to take care of her, to wait untill she become on age and re-marry her…

- Her story spread all over the country through the media and many intellectuals got interested in it.
When Mahatma Gandhi heard about it, he called Shanti Devi, talked to her, and then requested her
to stay in his ashram.
(When I interviewed Shanti Devi in 1986, she still remembered the incident.)
Gandhi appointed a committee of 15 prominent people, including parliamentarians, national
leaders
, and members from the media, to study the case. T
he committee persuaded her parents to
allow her to accompany them to Mathura. They left by rail with Shanti Devi on November 24, 1935.
The committee’s report describes some of what happened:

So hi might told her a lot of things, which she ten remembered. Its win-win he can then easy make people more eaven religious. After all its like “dont worry that you live like a sh*t this life, because the next life will be soo much better”

-She told that she knows a place with hidden money [by her in her past life]
As for the buried money, Shanti Devi took the party to the second floor and showed them a
spot where they found a flower pot but no money. The girl, however, insisted that the money was
there. Kedarnath later confessed that he had taken out the money after Lugdi’s death.
Yeah… no money, but the guy can always say that he took them.

-“The first incident which attracted our attention on reaching Mathura happened on the platform
itself. The girl was in L. Deshbandhu’s arms. He had hardly gone 15 paces when an older man,
wearing a typical Mathura dress, whom she had never met before, came in front of her, mixed in the
small crowd, and paused for a while. She was asked whether she could recognize him. His presence
reacted so quickly on her that she at once came down from Mr. Gupta’s lap and touched the
stranger’s feet with deep veneration and stood aside. On inquiring, she whispered in L.
Deshbandhu’s ear that the person was her ‘Jeth’ (older brother of her husband). All this was so
spontaneous and natural that it left everybody stunned with surprise. The man was Babu Ram
Chaubey, who was really the elder brother of Kedarnath Chaubey.”

If he looks like the “husband”, who she allready sow, then it can’t be so hard to tell that he might be his older brother. Plus she already knew that there is an older borther . But still it is not sure if she told that, because she “whispered” to Mahatma’s man

- When she was taken to her parents’ home, where at first she identified her aunt as her mother, but
soon corrected her mistake, she went to sit in her lap. She also recognized her father in low.

If she cant recognize her mother, then who ?! Wasnt she who said that “the child is part of the soul, and the soul can recognize the child easy”. Then if there are 2 females in the house sure if not the first one, the second will be the mother…  And then she recognizes the father in low, which is strange, as she has no blood or soul connection with him

- Shanti Devi was then taken to Dwarkadhish temple and to other places she had talked of earlier and
almost all her statements were verified to be correct.

So 60 years from them it is “almost all “, it can be that they were “just few”, but with time people started to exaggerate

———-
I couldnt do any more, and I dont think its enought, but the fact is that the first 2-3 years, when the scientist tolked to her, she told nothing special and she started to show more knowage after Mahatma’s intervention is problematic

Can you give some thoughts?!

[ Edited: 15 February 2012 11:26 AM by georgi ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 10:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

A scientific case can be made for physical reincarnation into other forms with regularity.
All matter animate or inanimate is constantly recycled into other forms. The atoms in our bodies were created some 13+ billion years ago after the Big Bang and were first assembled in the formation of stars, then dissassembled in novae, then reassembled in another form, etc. etc., until reassembled in us. When we die we return to the earth and are reincarnated into other forms which have absorbed our atoms. It is said we all have atoms which once belonged to say Genghis Khan. We could say that a flower blooming on our grave may well contain atoms from our bodies and we were reincarnated (partly) as a flower. When the goat eats the flower we become reincarnated in the goat, ad infinitum.

The problem lies in the concept of spiritual reincarnation for which (to my knowledge) there is no evidence whatever.

[ Edited: 15 February 2012 11:39 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 01:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15
Write4U - 15 February 2012 10:29 PM

A scientific case can be made for physical reincarnation into other forms with regularity.
All matter animate or inanimate is constantly recycled into other forms. The atoms in our bodies were created some 13+ billion years ago after the Big Bang and were first assembled in the formation of stars, then dissassembled in novae, then reassembled in another form, etc. etc., until reassembled in us. When we die we return to the earth and are reincarnated into other forms which have absorbed our atoms. It is said we all have atoms which once belonged to say Genghis Khan. We could say that a flower blooming on our grave may well contain atoms from our bodies and we were reincarnated (partly) as a flower. When the goat eats the flower we become reincarnated in the goat, ad infinitum.

The problem lies in the concept of spiritual reincarnation for which (to my knowledge) there is no evidence whatever.

Yes, this is fact. I do nt argue with that, I argue with the spirit. Because split brain patients [whos brain is split] became two persons in one body, each part of the brain being able to make own decisions, to make new memories, to lern new things, in fact a it is often when a the left and the right “brains” start to argue and then fight each other [e person whos right hand wanted to hit his wife and his left hand wanted to safe her, by hitting this right hand ; a person whos right brain didn’t wanted to sleep as much as the left one; a in experiments it is all prooven with a lot more facts like] a person whos brain was damaged and made HUGE changes his personality and a lot more, a man whos brain was damaged in specific region and he always writes his name if given pen, cant explain why, but cant control himself its automatic ....
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html here is the best evidence thath there is not spirit… i mean really the best source with huge amount of information

So I know it is impossible for one to remember other man’s memories, because that would mean that the spirit has memories, but then if the brain is damaged it can lost meomories, it can lose the ability to make new memories [a man who every day writes in his book “today is the first day after the surgery” and when people tell him that the surgery was 1 year ago, or 10 years ago he doesnt beleve it, because he doesnt remember anything after the surgery, he doesnt remember writing about it ]

It is impossible for one to feel other mans love, because there are people who :

Mrs. D, a 74-year-old married housewife, recently discharged from a local hospital after her first psychiatric admission, presented to our facility for a second opinion. At the time of her admission earlier in the year, she had received the diagnosis of atypical psychosis because of her belief that her husband had been replaced by another unrelated man. She refused to sleep with the impostor, locked her bedroom and door at night, asked her son for a gun, and finally fought with the police when attempts were made to hospitalise her. At times she believed her husband was her long deceased father. She easily recognised other family members and would misidentify her husband only.

BUT, if you give her a phone and her husband call her she will feel the love she has to him, [because there is a problem with her brain and the information form the eyes cannot be transported to the brein region which is about husband’s feelings, so she sees him, but doesnt feel anything… but if she hear him from the phone the info from the ears goes to the brain center with the feelings and she can “feel that its her man”] [for more info there is a clip with VS ramachandran, who is the best human ever to study the brain]

It is possible to even to manipulate humans morality using magnets [applay magnets to the brain and it will become less moral, because the neurons become confused]

so thats why I really want to show myself for last time that this things with the souls are bullshit and to live healty and not deluded life :] 10x for your thoughts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15

From http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19371212&id=CG9IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7100,2534256 newspaper from 1938


So after the girl made her claims: That she is merried to a man called Kedarnath Chaubey, who has a shop in the town of Muttra [and some claims about the shops lacation and their hous’ color, which werent true] her uncle finds a person who fits the idea and writes to him, about the girl’s claims.  He answers that there are some true facts, but he will sent his cousin to talk with the girl. So the uncle surly said that to the gilrs perants, and it is extreamly possible that she knew about it. When the girl met with the cousin he ask her

He- do you recognize me?
She- yes

he -Whats my name
she – I don’t know

————————————————————————————————————doesn’t know

He- then how you recognize me?
She- you’r my husband’s [younger] cousin

He- how to doy know that since you can’t tell my name?
She- i recognized your features!

He - Whats the name of your husband?
She- Chaubey Kedarnath
—————————————————————————————————————true

He - How many brothers had your husband? [but it might be „does he have one or two brothers; it can be „does he have brother“]
She- one

He- had your husband an older or younger brother
she- an elder
—————————————————————————————————————true

he- was kedar nath’s father then living?
She- yes

he- can you recognize him?
She-yes
———————————————————————-  true

He- Where is you house situated in Muttra?
She- It was situated in chaubey St.

He- can you give me other particulars regarding the situation of your house
She- There was a grocery shop in front of my house
——————————————————————————————————————————————— false

He- did you ever lend money to anybody in your previous life?
She- I dnot rimember. But I tresured some money underneath the ground in my house.
———————————————————————————————————————————————- seems like the real one did lend some money – doesn’t know

He- how much money did you treasure and in what place of the house?
She- about Rs. 150 – in a room in the upper-story of the house

He- can you point out that place?
She- yes
—————————————————————————————————————————————she couldn’t find any money at the man’s house, however she found a place for hiding money, but it’s a hindu tradition, so it could be really easy to guess if you are indian

He- how many children were born to you in your previous life?
She- 2. A son and one doughter
———————————————————————————————————————————- true, but her firtst was stillbon, and no info about its gender, so it might as well be false…. 50/50

He- where and how did your death take place?
She- I don’t remember
———————————————————————————————————————————- she doesn’t know- false

He- were your parents present at the time of your death?
She- yes, they were all present
————————————————————————————————————————————? if it means if they were alive, then its true, but if he asks if they were at the hospital when she died- prob not, because the hospital was in some other city

He- If you were lef alone at the Muttra Railway station, could you go and find your house unaided?
She- it is far from the station, but yes I can reach it all alone

He- what ornaments did you wear then?
She- Heavy „Chureys“ on my legs

He- What other ronaments did you wear?
She- An ornament on the forhead, bangles on the arms and a necklace
————————————————————————————————————————————————- nothing special, but seems like the real wife had some special ornaments, which this guy was trying to see if she could remember. Like if you ask me to tell you how modern girlls look like “jeans, shirts, suglass”

So then the man and his wife and child went to delhi and met the girl. Again no such things that some people say, they went and said who they are, there was no role playing. So so far nothing special. Then they talked and the man might really gave her a lot of info about his life with or without purpose. Then the family gos back to their home town, without the girl. Again nothing special, and the guy never merried her again, which for me seems like good possibility that he never truly believed the story.

So the first interview is nothing special and the visit was nothing special, but then Mahatma Gandhi kicks in. I found some great info about the situation in india in the 30’s. It is in Bulgarian, but I’ll translate it.
By that time india was put on great disturbance. India was “fighting” for its independence and on the other hand Hindus and Muslims were in conflict too. Mahatma decided to use the Shanti Devi story to shift the attention and to find peaceful resolution of the conflicts. However most of the people ,eaven Hindu didn’t beleave in the story, the Muslims on the other hand found it to be Hindu propaganda. For the believers this was proof that their religious laws rule the world. So if you are hindu this comes to tell you : “Listen, I dont know how much you believe in the religion, but thats the proof, so be happy of your life, no metter how hard it is, because it is hard as a reslut of your past life mistakes and sins”. Gandhi was strong supporter of the caste system, and defended it

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.

When Mahatma Gandhi [the strong caste supporter] heard about it, he called Shanti Devi, talked to her, and then requested her to stay in his ashram. Gandhi appointed a committee of 15 prominent people, including parliamentarians, national leaders, and members from the media, to study the case [one of them was an Indian NATIONALIST, so guess what happens when religion and state seek mutural benefit]. However except that the girl showed great knowage about the local temple and some guiding skills, which could verry well be fake. Then she met with the borther of her “husband” [she already knew that there is a older borther] and after she stopped and looked at her she asked if it is the elder brother of her husband. - if it looks like him, but older and they ask you her who he is,  it wont be hard to guess. Then in front of her “husband’s” house she recognized her father [again it might not be so hard since the old man was in front of the house and there was a crowd looking at him]. Then she said that there is a well in the house and soon found it, but it is not so hard to guess since most indian houses had a well [wiki : Water is obtained from hand-drawn wells.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_India ] . Then they went to the house of “her parents” where she couldn’t recognize her mother and her aunt [thought her aunt to be her mother], but recognized her father, her brother and her mother’s brother. Seems like she was just guessing by the age [ the youngest guy should be her brother, the oldest- her father]. Again nothing that can not be guessed.
Keep in mind that she didn’t know any of their names, just her “Husband’s” name

And her is why :
After her death i was found out that her “husband” did go to Delhi a lot and in fact as a seller he was visiting a shop right in front of Shenti devi’s REAL HOUSE in Delhi. So could heard his story or sow him in the shop. Having this knowage in her brain and If she experianced cryptomnesia + the cultural believe system could easy cause this delusion she had. And Gandhi could really exaggerated the case in order to keep the peace and to keep the system. [ as some say that he was defending Brahmins interests]

So I think that the case is pretty much clear

[ Edited: 17 February 2012 04:22 AM by georgi ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18
georgi - 16 February 2012 10:45 AM

From http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19371212&id=CG9IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7100,2534256 newspaper from 1938

After her death i was found out that her “husband” did go to Delhi a lot and in fact as a seller he was visiting a shop right in front of Shenti devi’s REAL HOUSE in Delhi. So could heard his story or sow him in the shop. Having this knowage in her brain and If she experianced cryptomnesia + the cultural believe system could easy cause this delusion she had. And Gandhi could really exaggerated the case in order to keep the peace and to keep the system. [ as some say that he was defending Brahmins interests]

So I think that the case is pretty much clear

How you was found out that her husband did go to delhi a lot and as a seller he was visiting a shop in front of shanti devi’s house?
Give evidence of your statement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2012 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15
Prakash - 18 February 2012 09:16 PM
georgi - 16 February 2012 10:45 AM

From http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19371212&id=CG9IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7100,2534256 newspaper from 1938

After her death i was found out that her “husband” did go to Delhi a lot and in fact as a seller he was visiting a shop right in front of Shenti devi’s REAL HOUSE in Delhi. So could heard his story or sow him in the shop. Having this knowage in her brain and If she experianced cryptomnesia + the cultural believe system could easy cause this delusion she had. And Gandhi could really exaggerated the case in order to keep the peace and to keep the system. [ as some say that he was defending Brahmins interests]

So I think that the case is pretty much clear

How you was found out that her husband did go to delhi a lot and as a seller he was visiting a shop in front of shanti devi’s house?
Give evidence of your statement.

In the case of Shanti Devi, for example, which I have summarized elsewhere,27 I have learned that the husband of the previous personality often traveled from his native city (Mathura) to Delhi to purchase cloth for his shop.


Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research:  26   books.google.bg
American Society for Psychical Research (1906- ), American Society for Psychical

Dr. Stevenson’s investigations revealed to him that Chaubey often traveled from his native city of Mathura to Delhi to buy cloth. While in Delhi, Chaubey would go to a candy shop that was within yards of the Devi home. While in Delhi, Chaubey would go to a candy shop that was within yards of the Devi home. Shanti saw him there one day as she was passing by on her way home from school. This would be years after her first reports of a former life. 


And she told the name of the “husband” a while after that, could it be that she heard what this man was talking with the seller, could be that she had seen him before too. Anyway now knowing that she doesn’t know any other name, that she couldnt recognize her mother [and in fact seems like the real Investigators report, which is a bit different from the report in the newspaper, said onely about her father in law, husband’s brother, father and her mother, who she couldn’t recognize at first] it makes it possible fake story

Living with death  Osborn Segerberg

Ian Stevenson mentions the Shanti Devi case in his book, and adds that he has discovered that Ludgi’s husband often came to Delhi, and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from Shanti Devi’s home. There is no suggestion that Shanti Devi met her former husband there

This says that she didnt see him, but no metter if she did make contact with him or didn’t, it shows that he did go to the shop in front of Devi’s house

Now Dr Stevenson, while a believer, was investigating scientificly [his goal was to find real proofs for the reincarnation, in which he strongly believed] and his works are objective, so if he found that then it was most propbably true.

The rationalist Nahata, who’s report was that there is no evidance for reincarnation in his investigation :

The investigator Nahata had been told Chowbey sometimes went to a sweetmeats shop in Delhi, and Shanti as a child might have seen him there, it was suggested .

In search of the dead: a scientific investigation of evidence for ...  books.google.com
Jeffrey Iverson

EDIT: The commision which gandhi formed siad it was real reincarnation case, but guess what: ^ a b L. D. Gupta, N. R. Sharma, T. C. Mathur, An Inquiry into the Case of Shanti Devi, International Aryan League, Delhi, 1936
International Aryan League = Arya samaj [a hindu sect, that was for reincarnation and other hindu believs and that was verry strict, + it was against the musilms as it was nationalistic too, It had some influence in the Indian National Congres . Gandhi kind of liked them]
L. D. Gupta  as chairman = Manager of Daily Taj newspaper [Daily taj was started by Arya Samaj and was nationalistic too] and Gandhi’s friend
N. R. Sharma = Leader in the Indian National Congress
T. C. Mathur = Lawyer [a lot of lawyers happened to be part of the Arya Samaj, but no idae about him]

So the investigation was made and published under the influence of a hindu nationalistic sect, which makes it eaven less reliable

[ Edited: 24 February 2012 01:04 PM by georgi ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2012 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research:  26   books.google.bg
American Society for Psychical Research (1906- ), American Society for Psychical

This is in Bulgarian language.I translated it into English.I did n’t find in this any where that her husband often traveled to Delhi.
So this is not an evidence.

Ian Stevenson mentions the Shanti Devi case in his book, and adds that he has discovered that Ludgi’s husband often came to Delhi, and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from Shanti Devi’s home. There is no suggestion that Shanti Devi met her former husband there

I have Ian Stevenson book “childrens who remember previous lives"with me.No where in his book he mentioned that he has discovered that lugdi’s husband often come to delhi and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from shanti devi’s home.So this is also not correct proof.And even though if stevenson mention it any where in his other books also he is not witness for that.He started investigation in 1961 about this case.And these things happen in 1935.As he complied all the comments of different persons he may write the comments who have negative comments about this case also.More over if shanti saw kedarnath any where before she would definetly tell that she saw him before.As she never told any where that all the negative comments told by any one comes to an end and are not at all correct.

The investigator Nahata had been told Chowbey sometimes went to a sweetmeats shop in Delhi, and Shanti as a child might have seen him there, it was suggested .

where nahata told that choubey some times went to sweetmeats shop in delhi?Do you have his report?
Also that might word used that he is not sure about it.(false proof)

I have reports of some critics who studied this case and found it is the best reincarnation proof.
Example:One critic, Sture Lonnerstrand, when he heard of this case, came all the way from Sweden to expose
the “fake,” as he thought it to be, but after investigation wrote, “This is the only fully explained and
proven case of reincarnation there has been.”

remarks of Dr. Ian Stevenson, leading authority on
reincarnation, who said: “I also interviewed Shanti Devi, her father, and other pertinent witnesses,
including Kedarnath, the husband claimed in her previous life. My research indicates that she made
at least 24 statements of her memories that matched the verified facts.”

So with these it was proved there are many eminent persons studies this case inspite of Gandhi Ji’s opointed committee.Many reports are given that this is true story of reincarnation.

[ Edited: 12 August 2012 07:56 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2012 03:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15
Prakash - 25 February 2012 08:28 AM

Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research:  26   books.google.bg
American Society for Psychical Research (1906- ), American Society for Psychical

This is in Bulgarian language.I translated it into English.I did n’t find in this any where that her husband often traveled to Delhi.
So this is not an evidence.

Ian Stevenson mentions the Shanti Devi case in his book, and adds that he has discovered that Ludgi’s husband often came to Delhi, and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from Shanti Devi’s home. There is no suggestion that Shanti Devi met her former husband there

I have Ian Stevenson book “childrens who remember previous lives"with me.No where in his book he mentioned that he has discovered that lugdi’s husband often come to delhi and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from shanti devi’s home.So this is also
not correct proof.

The investigator Nahata had been told Chowbey sometimes went to a sweetmeats shop in Delhi, and Shanti as a child might have seen him there, it was suggested .

where nahata told that choubey some times went to sweetmeats shop in delhi?Do you have his report?
Also that might word used that he is not sure about it.(false proof)

I have reports of some critics who studied this case and found it is the best reincarnation proof.
Example:One critic, Sture Lonnerstrand, when he heard of this case, came all the way from Sweden to expose
the “fake,” as he thought it to be, but after investigation wrote, “This is the only fully explained and
proven case of reincarnation there has been.”

remarks of Dr. Ian Stevenson, leading authority on
reincarnation, who said: “I also interviewed Shanti Devi, her father, and other pertinent witnesses,
including Kedarnath, the husband claimed in her previous life. My research indicates that she made
at least 24 statements of her memories that matched the verified facts.”

So with these it was proved there are many eminent persons studies this case inspite of Gandhi Ji’s opointed committee.Many reports are given that this is true story of reincarnation.

The fact that someone said it is or it isn’t doesnt mean you should believe in it. You should search for the answer yourself. Believe thouse who serach for the truth, doubt who found it.
As for the book, there is not a single line in bulgarian language. Here

In the case of Shanti Devi, for example, which I have summarized elsewhere,27 I have learned that the husband of the previous personality often traveled from his native city (Mathura) to Delhi to purchase cloth for his shop. And while in Delhi he used to frequent a favorite sweetmeat shop which was located within a few yards only of Shanti Devi’s home. She saw him there one day as she was passing by on her way home from school. I have the impression that the more one penetrates into these cases the more one is likely eventually to find some person or persons who have known both families or, failing that, known both areas and who although ignorant of each other, had common acquaintances

Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research volune 26
http://books.google.bg/books?ei=vPNJT679GorCtAbsydiUBQ&hl=bg&id=QCcxAAAAMAAJ&dq=often+traveled+native+city+mathura+delhi&q=native+city+mathura+delhi#search_anchor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Psychical_Research

In February 1936, Shri Bal Chand Nahata, a rationalist, interrogated Shanti Devi and some related persons.  He published his report in the form of a small booklet in Hindi entitled Punarjanma Ki Parayyalochana. He concludes his brief study by saying: “Whatever material that has come before us, does not warrant us to conclude that Shanti Devi has ‘former life recollections or that this cases proves reincarnation.”

and one more from 4th investigator

example, the case of Shanti Devi can be found in Frank Edwards’s Stranger than Science. ... and adds that he has discovered that Ludgi’s husband often came to Delhi, and frequented a sweetmeat shop not far from Shanti Devi’s home.

As for Stevenson’s book, from what I found he mentions it in his book 20 cases suggestive of reincarnation and he does it to rise the hypotesis of telepathy. I don’t believe he would mention the weaknesses of his cases in every book. + He never said it was real case, just a suggestive. As for the documentation- it was documented after the girl met her “husband”, his cousin,Gandhi and the investigators, which mean she could had learned a lot of the life of the previous wife’s life. And for that reason the case from that point to the end of the investigation is doubtful [Arya samaj is a sect and could manipulated it to get more followers, gandhi could have manipulated it to move the attantion of the people away from the hindu-muslim conflict, the Congress could have manipulated it to get the world attention to india, as they were working for its independence… etc, etc ].

As for Sture Lonnerstrand- he was a jurnalist, he was a writer and being sceptical about case, doesnt mean he is sceptic by nature. He made verbal interviews about a verbal case, and he made it in the late 50’s, which is 20 years after the case. He wrote a book and made a lot of money of it, so it could be that he just saw the easy way to make some money, by writing a book about “the miracle”, There are a lot of naive people, and there are a lot of people with strong ego, and you know what Einstein said about people with strong ego: “Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

Here you can see some of the criticism
5dtser.jpg
by “The search for yesterday: a critical examination of the evidence for reincarnation”
by D. Scott Rogo
about him: He wrote or co-wrote 20 books and more than 100 magazine and journal articles[1], 7 books were reprinted in 2005 by Anomalist Books[2], Leaving the body was reprinted in 2008 by Simon & Schuster[3]. Rogo was active at the Psychical Research Foundation (formerly at Durham, North Carolina) and at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. The D. Scott Rogo Award was established in 1992[4] to benefit authors working on manuscripts pertaining to parapsychology[5]


More criticism:
r6xqte.jpg
from John Hick: an autobiography
John Hick is well known philosopher, so I don’t think I need to show you info about him [just for makng it sure, that he is not a fake storyteller He has also held teaching positions at Cornell University, Princeton Seminary, and Cambridge University]
——————————————————————————————————————————-
As for the case you could get more rational if you see this:
Dirac equation
dirac.jpg

Don’t worry about the details; it’s the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It’s the Dirac equation — the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia — coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.
If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

[ Edited: 26 February 2012 09:25 AM by georgi ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

In the case of Shanti Devi, for example, which I have summarized elsewhere,27 I have learned that the husband of the previous personality often traveled from his native city (Mathura) to Delhi to purchase cloth for his shop. And while in Delhi he used to frequent a favorite sweetmeat shop which was located within a few yards only of Shanti Devi’s home. She saw him there one day as she was passing by on her way home from school. I have the impression that the more one penetrates into these cases the more one is likely eventually to find some person or persons who have known both families or, failing that, known both areas and who although ignorant of each other, had common acquaintances

This is absolutely wrong.where the author summarized?what he mean by else where?He told she saw kedarnath one day as she was passing by her way home from school.This is another wrong statement.She used to say all these before going to school itself.As far as the proofs she used to spoke about her husband at the age of 4 years which was before she was going to school.stevenson started investigation on 1961.And these things happen in 1935.How he knows that she saw him oneday while she was going to school from home?He is not the witness about it.This was all came from negative comments of critics in those days.And stevenson compile all the comments.

Shanti devi strongly behaved as ludgi devi.What about she told about her past life is meticulously became true.By just listening a little girl cant able to make this many verified proofs.If shanti saw kedarnath before any where she would definetely tell that she saw him before.As she never told it all these negative comments become wrong.

Even critics also did n’t rule out shanti devis statements.
Example:D scott rogo told in his criticism article that perhaps shanti devi really did somehow recall her past life in accurate details.

What ever article they(critis) all wrote was on their self imagination.they are not sure about what they are saying.they are saying that could happen like this.that could word clearly shows that they are not sure about what they are saying.

Science can not find so many facts of nature.Still it is in its searching stage.
It has to search the ultimate truth.Many of the before statements given by science proved to be wrong in the later stages.Always refine statements given under new revolutions.

What is consciousness?Rene descartes statement is worth saying.I am here.So I am.
What is thought?
Thoughts are not physical form.You cant explain thoughts with physics as it occupies no space and it has no mass.
The central consciousness is not of a physical thing.It has emotions and feelings unlike physical things.
Physical laws can apply only with physical world.But consciousness is meta physical.This conscient entity is very subtle and is a point form.you know point has no perimeter and no diameter.That is smallest than all the three sub atomic particles.(electrons,protons and nutrons). This concient entity is called soul and hypothalmas is the seat of it.From here it controls all the parts of the body through nerves.For example you listen a song.Brain dont know the meaning of the words in the song.It is the soul which knows the inner meanings of the words of the song and enjoy it.The emotions and feelings clearly evidence it.

[ Edited: 12 August 2012 08:06 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04

Why the need to conceptualize some massless entity that sits in the hypothalmus and controls our body and interprets our words and songs and modulates our emotions?  This conception of a soul is un-necessary.  Our neurons fire with no need for what you are calling a soul.  Our thoughts are covert behavior which include perceptions and verbal behavior.  Our consciousness is the covert behavior that we do when we are aware of our thoughts.  All of these behaviors have neurological correlates.  It’s a physical process.  No “soul” needed.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
Prakash - 29 February 2012 09:21 AM

Thoughts are not physical form.You cant explain thoughts with physics as it occupies no space and it has no mass.

Thoughts absolutely have physical form. Thoughts are the current state of the brain. Your thoughts can change quickly with a dose of LSD or similar substance. Why? Because they have physical form.


The central consciousness is not of a physical thing.It has emotions and feelings unlike physical things.
Physical laws can apply only with physical world.But consciousness is meta physical.This conscient entity is very subtle and is a point form.you know point has no perimeter and no diameter.That is smallest than all the three sub atomic particles.(electrons,protons and nutrons). This concient entity is called soul and hypothalmas is the seat of it.From here it controls all the parts of the body through nerves.For example you listen a song.Brain dont know the meaning of the words in the song.It is the soul which knows the inner meanings of the words of the song and enjoy it.The emotions and feelings clearly evidence it.

Again, feelings, emotions, and thoughts are all physical/chemical manifestations. BTW, there is no such thing as a soul (although I used to love soul music).

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

georgi,
Don’t worry about the details; it’s the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It’s the Dirac equation — the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia — coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.
If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?)

From wiki,

In physics, more specifically relativistic quantum mechanics, the Dirac equation is a wave equation, formulated by British physicist Paul Dirac in 1928. It provided a description of elementary spin-½ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity, and was the first theory fully to account for relativity in the context of quantum mechanics

Thus in order to fit the concept of an “immaterial soul” into physics, you need to alter not only the “Dirac equation”, but also “quantum mechanics and “special relativity”? IOW do away with modern physics in order to “believe” in an immaterial soul. I am not opposed to the concept of “metaphysics”, but only if it fits with what we do know.
Therefore the argument for a metaphysical immaterial soul has not been made and we return to “belief without evidence”.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2012 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

You are the perceiver as the perception going on.you enjoy the song.who is that enjoying the perception?
That is you the conscient entity.

Dirac equation
dirac.jpg

Don’t worry about the details; it’s the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It’s the Dirac equation — the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia — coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.
If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?)

Dirac originally thought his equation applied to every particle of mass m, and hence that all massive particles must have “spin 1/2”. This is indeed the case for the particles that were known in 1928, namely electrons, protons, and neutrons, but other kinds of particles (including photons) are known to have spins different from h-bar/2.
It’s not a complete description; that equation haven’t included the weak nuclear force or some other particles(Massless particles) and also less than zero mass particles(Comparatively) like Tachyons.
  Soul is an entity which has less than zero mass(comparatively).so the above dirac equation is not applied to soul the spiritual energy.The physical laws can not applied to the spiritual entity soul.It is not measure by any known physical laws.It is smallest than all sub atomic particles.It is there in the hypothalamus.Soul is meta physical.Its speed is faster than light when it is free of body.
Gravitation, friction, forces of Nature also cannot affect the incorporeal soul.

Dirac clearly mentioned that his equation only applied to the particles which has certain mass m,but soul is less than zero mass entity.So its not applied to the soul the spiritual entity.
when the mass of particle decreases then its speed increases square times.The mass of light particle photon is taken as zero as it is fastest in the physical world.We know that light travels at a speed of 3 lakh kms per second.Because it is massless or zero mass particle(All most zero).But souls can move faster than light thats why comparatives it has taken as less than zero mass.Tachyons are the particles which can move faster than light.So they are called comparatives less mass than light particles.As light particles taken as zero mass particles so tachyons are comparatively taken as less than zero mass particles as they move faster than light.Because to increase speed mass should be decrease.As photons mass is taken as zero comparatively tachyons mass is taken as less than zero.For which dirac equation is not applicable.

Before you say any thing first check the limitations of that equation.
It was clearly mentioned in the limitations of that equation.

[ Edited: 20 August 2012 04:46 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2012 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Prakash - 01 March 2012 04:07 PM

You are the perceiver as the perception going on.you enjoy the song.who is that enjoying the perception?
That is you the conscient entity.

I am the musician and I make the music to which I dance.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1