2 of 4
2
Shanti Devi case and the “reincarnation is a truth!” .... WTF?!
Posted: 02 March 2012 03:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15

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.

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.

It is a proof that he DID frequent a favorite sweetmeat shop which was located within a few yards only of Shanti Devi’s home.. Which means that he used to visit that shop a lot and there is a big chance that she heard his story one day. Then on the other hand she told her husband name at the age of 9, so eaven if she didnt know him before- if she started scholl at the age of 6 /Gandhi started at that age, so it seems that the indian kids started at that age at that time/ then she sow him between the age of 6 and 9, which means there were 2-3 years period in which she sow him once for sure and after that she knew his name and told it to the teacher [age of 8 or 9].
More ways for her to know his story: The “husband” who visited the shop knew the seller and told him some of his drama-story, the seller then after a while told it to someone of the neighbors [ what if some of them said “WoW, That women passed away one year before Shanti was born, she might have been reincarnated into her” or “this little girl claims that she is a grown women and that she remembers her past life, what if she is that women, from the story?” or they might just told the sad story of the “stranger who visits the shop to buy sweets for his childrens, who have no mother” and shanti heard it].

Here claims were just few and they were that she had a husband with the name Kedarnath, that he had a shops. Thats what the reoprt of the cousin, who visited first, say [page 24 from the newspaper link]. Her other claims werent, but Kedarnath send his couisn ot talk with her, in the interview she guessed right that her husband have a older borther, the his father is alive and that the guy who asks her is a cousin of the “husband”. It is not much, and it gets even less, because we dont know how he asked her, he might asked her “my cousin has a bigger brother, hasen’t he?” or she just guessed it [there are a lot of people in india, it is not hard to guess that one is not the onely childern in the family… she for instance had 1 sister and 1 brother]. As for knowing that the guy who speaks with her is the cusin - it was not hard, as Kedarnath send message to her uncle that he will send him to visit the girl. Other claims: that ther is a well in the house - most indian houses had a well by that time [i posted an article abou the indian housing]. She said that she had a secret place for hiding money- there were no money.
I found an article by famous hindu rationalist.

Manabendra Nath Roy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._N._Roy
just a quote from him, to make you see his general point of view and then I’ll post his criticism

Once upon a time, man had reason to
invent a soul ; they must believe in their own
invention. There are those, who, having known
better, are scornful of antiquated toys. Their dis-
belief is vehemently condemned or loftily deplored
by others. I do not share the belief in truths
invented by man when he was incapable of dis-
covering objective truths. Truths discovered are
a different matter. Being physical facts, they
belong to the world of reality.

Yep… seems a rational man and here is what he said:

The Committee was received at the station
by a crowd eager to see a miracle performed.
It was, therefore, in a state of great emotional
excitement, which does not tolerate caution, and
rules out criticism. In short, pre-occupation was
the dominating factor of the mental atmosphere
in which the story was ” verified.” How is it
possible to be sure that her would-be relatives
did not hail the girl before she recognised them?
In the given situation, such a possibility could
not be excluded. Granted that precautions were
taken against their actually doing so, although the
reports do not say that such was the case. Even
then it was impossible to control the emotions
of a whole crowd. It can be reasonably presumed
that immediately on their appearance on the scene,
there were such exclamations as “There comes
her husband or father-in-law or son ! ” Such ex-
clamations would be totally involuntary, none
would act with the purpose of giving the girl a
tip. For the crowd, there was no doubt about the
story. The idea that the girl might not recognise
her relatives would not occur to anybody. So,
why should any one ever think of coming to her
aid?
The members of the Committee, granted
that they were sufficiently critical, would be
naturally closely watching the girl, and conse-
quently fail to notice the behaviour of the crowd.
It would be quite natural for the credulous popu-
lace, already acquainted with the story, to specu-
late who might have been relatives of the girl in
her previous life, in which house she might have
lived, so on and so forth. Equally natural it would
be for them to .believe that only people distin-
guished for piety could have been related to such
a spiritually gifted girl. Many must have aspired
for that distinction ; and most probably the pre-
tenders had staked their claim publicly. Conse-
quently, the identification can have no value as
reliable evidence, unless it was assured that all the
necessary precautions had been taken. The assur-
ance is lacking. The fact is that preconditions for
a scientific investigation were totally absent. The
unreliability of the ” verification ” results from the
circumstances in which the enquiry was conduc-
ted, as well as from the method adopted. The
enquiry was hopelessly prejudiced by the fact that
the story was publicly known at Muttra previous
to the arrival of the Committee of Investigation.
Having had previous information, it would be
only natural for the would-be relatives to present
themselves proudly and prominently at the station.
One must have a very high degree of credulity to
believe that, under the given circumstances, the
girl’s behaviour was not aided and influenced in-
voluntarily.
The essential condition for a reliable
test would be to keep the people at Muttra totally
in the dark. This condition was absent. The pre-
caution was not taken. It could not be done.

In fact the report tells about crowds everywhere… as for the way she recognized her relatives - the report says that when she was taken to the house of her prenets there was a crowd and when they sow her her “parents” started crying so it would be easy to guess that the two old perosns, who are crying and who the crowd is watching are your mother and father [as they were the onely one left for here to visit ]. The same wit her father in low and her brother in low [espec. for the brother in law, who was the first to met her, he did stay for a while in front of her and with him there was a crowd of 20-30 people, she was asked if she knows him and she asked if it is the brother of her “husband”... not hard ]

as for the investigators he talks of two possible scenarios

1 the “objective investigators”

The members of the Committee, granted
that they were sufficiently critical, would be
naturally closely watching the girl, and conse-
quently fail to notice the behaviour of the crowd.
It would be quite natural for the credulous popu-
lace, already acquainted with the story, to specu-
late who might have been relatives of the girl in
her previous life, in which house she might have
lived, so on and so forth.

2 The “subjective investigators”:

Then, as far as I know, not a single member of the
Committee was sceptical about the doctrine of soul
and the belief in life after death. That fact alone
is sufficient to disqualify the gentlemen for the
undertaking is psychologically impossible. The desire to test it
signifies that the faith is lost.
As long as you
believe a thing to be true, you don’t feel the neces-
sity of verifying it. If you do so, that is with the
purpose of convincing others who do not share
your belief. There is sufficient reason to think that
that was the purpose of the investigation. Indeed,
it was not investigation, but verification. Investi-
gation pre-supposes scepticism. There was a con-
crete instance of transmigration. The proposition
was to verify it so. as to adduce empirical evidence
in support of the doctrine.
Obviously, the Com-
mittee was prejudiced. Its object was not to find
facts to ascertain if what appeared in the story as
facts, were really facts. Its object was to prove
that the story was true.
Apart from these psychological and methodo-
logical considerations, there are other grounds for
doubting that the enquiry was conducted with
rigour. There are discrepancies in the details of
different reports. The Committee’s report avoids
these details. But pressmen deal with them, and in
doing so, expose that the whole affair was rather
a procession to celebrate a miracle than an enquiry
for checking up the veracity of assertions made by
an illiterate female infant.

Thus, from the scientific point of view, the
verification does not prove anything more than the
tenacity of the belief in transmigration. But
tenacity of belief is not the test of its truth.
Obviously, the story was not put to a test. The
report of the Committee is worthless as evidence.

Her is the text of the books http://www.archive.org/stream/indiasmessage031443mbp/indiasmessage031443mbp_djvu.txt

So if one knows that it is not possible form biological and physical point of view, and if he reads all the sotry and then apply criticism then he would easy tell that this story is just a fairy-tale.  Not to mention that in the history of Bulgaria [from 681 when the first bulgarian empire was formed till now 1300 years there is not a single case of reincarnation…. and history is one of my strong subjects]

Shanti devi strongly behaved as ludgi devi.

This is just comically… Now human has certain traits, which most humans posses at some degree. I can find any of my traits in any person if I try hard to. I can even find myself the same as you If I really want to. [the funny thing is that I have anxiety dissorder and there was a time when I was afrait that I have tumor, I knew I probably don’t, but my brain was able to trow me all kind of “proves”... so imagination is powerful ] For example I can say about you “ouu this member is just like me- likes to converse, holds his believs and his english is bad, just like mine, ouuuu and I just like him used to believe in supernatura at some point of my life… and he likes to read books just like me… man I we are the same”
But Shri Bal Chand Nahata, a rationalist, interrogated Shanti Devi and some related persons. He was a psychoanalyst and after his talks with the girl said that “SHE HAS THE EGO OF A CHILD, not of a grown woman” . So again false ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

It is a proof that he DID frequent a favorite sweetmeat shop which was located within a few yards only of Shanti Devi’s home.. Which means that he used to visit that shop a lot and there is a big chance that she heard his story one day. Then on the other hand she told her husband name at the age of 9, so eaven if she didnt know him before- if she started scholl at the age of 6 /Gandhi started at that age, so it seems that the indian kids started at that age at that time/ then she sow him between the age of 6 and 9, which means there were 2-3 years period in which she sow him once for sure and after that she knew his name and told it to the teacher [age of 8 or 9].
More ways for her to know his story: The “husband” who visited the shop knew the seller and told him some of his drama-story, the seller then after a while told it to someone of the neighbors [ what if some of them said “WoW, That women passed away one year before Shanti was born, she might have been reincarnated into her” or “this little girl claims that she is a grown women and that she remembers her past life, what if she is that women, from the story?” or they might just told the sad story of the “stranger who visits the shop to buy sweets for his childrens, who have no mother” and shanti heard it].

In any report it was not told that kedarnath frequently visit to delhi and a sweetmate shop which was located near shanti devi’s house.It was just a pure imagination of critics to make their argument correct.You know my grand mother also did n’t tell to any one her husband name.Is it mean that she didn’t know her husband name?To criticise also some moral values needed.It was not customacy of indian wives in hindu families to tell husband name in olden times.According to critics imagination she saw kedarnath while she was returning home from school oneday. But before going to school itself she used to said her name was lugdi devi and she was a native of mathura and many more facts.(Read completely her story before going to school how she bahave and how many facts she told).How many times you argue also there are lot of limitations in your arguments.Because you just relay on your imagination not on real facts.All the arguments made by critics were pure imagination like they might just told the sad story of the “stranger who visits the shop to buy sweets for his childrens, who have no mother” and shanti heard it.Again that might sound clearly shows that critics were just relay on imagination but not on real facts.

[ Edited: 02 March 2012 08:15 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

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.

What is thought?Is thought also a kind of physical energy?Absolutely not.Even though you said that it was physical energy there are lot of limitations in your arguments.
Is thought a form of material energy?If that be true that thought ,like all energy has mass and propagated.Further if thought is propagated,it surely has some velocity of propagation.can anyone say what velocity of thought is?can any one give the mass or weight of thought?
The latest theories of science consider the speed of light as ultimate top-speed of the universe.The light,they say takes about eight minutes to travel from the sun to our earth.After one has carefully listened to latest findings about the sun,one can sit back and try to recapitulate these facts.It surely takes much less than a minute to think of the sun.Does it not mean then that thought flies to the sun in a matter of seconds if it is a physical thing?How does one explain this if one consider thought is a form of material energy?

More over all will agree on this that thought is abstract and dimensionless because we can think and imagine the sun and far off galaxies with in all most same time.Also thought cannot be constructed or reckoned in scientific terms because it can fly into the past and the future,the dimensions of which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.So it is clear that thought is not a form of physical energy.

Thought is basis of all actions and it is the soul which thinks through the mechanism of brain.Good thoughts bring one peace and evil thoughts result in metal tensions and peacelessness.One should therefore know the self-the thinker-and should purify the thoughts so as to be in peace and to spread vibrations of peace.As the soul thinks through the mechanism of brain the disturbance in soul causes disturbance in body also.It experience pleasure and pain also through the medium of living body through nerve cells.You are a soul and your living body is a wonderful medium for manifestation.Brain did not know the meaning of the words you listen but the soul understand and act according to that.If some one prised you your brain did nt know what that but it is the soul which is perciver of that word.All the body parts are not for them selves for the use of consciousness.

[ Edited: 02 March 2012 08:17 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
Prakash - 02 March 2012 07:23 AM

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.

What is thought?Is thought also a kind of physical energy?Absolutely not.Even though you said that it was physical energy there are lot of limitations in your arguments.

 

OK, I like the fact that you are taking a logical stance on this.

Is thought a form of material energy?If that be true that thought ,like all energy has mass and propagated.Further if thought is propagated,it surely has some velocity of propagation.can anyone say what velocity of thought is?can any one give the mass or weight of thought?

 

Very good. As I said, thought is a physical/chemical process. It is not so much mechanical so it is not like a ball moving through the air but rather current moving through a wire or a bit being “held” by a memory chip. If you think about moving your legs, specific parts of your brain are engaged. That is energy. If your brain does not receive energy from the food you eat, then their is no energy with which to produce thought. (Because it is a physical/chemical process)

The latest theories of science consider the speed of light as ultimate top-speed of the universe.The light,they say takes about eight minutes to travel from the sun to our earth.After one has carefully listened to latest findings about the sun,one can sit back and try to recapitulate these facts. It surely takes much less than a minute to think of the sun.Does it not mean then though flies to the sun in a matter of seconds if it is a physical thing?How does one explain this if one consider thought is a form of material energy?

 

Right, science says that information can not travel faster than light. And yes, it takes me less than a fraction of a second to think about the sun. That is a local process and I cannot fling that thought back at the sun. There is no information in that space occupied by the sun indicating I am thinking about it. My thought does not fly to the sun in a matter of seconds… or ever, for that matter.

More over all will agree on this that thought is abstract and dimensionless because we can think and imagine the sun and far off galaxies with in all most same time.Also thought cannot be constructed or reckoned in scientific terms because it can fly into the past and the future,the dimensions of which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.So it is clear that though is not a form of physical energy.

 

Now you are leaving the realm of science and making stuff up. You are conflating thought with the content of thought. Thought is not abstract or dimensionless, but the content of a thought may be. If I think of how life might be in 100 years, I am thinking of that now. My thought of 100 years in the future is a current event. My thought does not transcend time. It cannot, because it is a form of physical energy.

Thought is basis of all actions and it is the soul which thinks through the mechanism of brain.Good thoughts bring one peace and evil thoughts result in metal tensions and peacelessness.One should therefore know the self-the thinker-and should purify the thoughts so as to be in peace and to spread vibrations of peace.As the soul thinks through the mechanism of brain the disturbance in soul causes disturbance in body also.It experience pleasure and pain also through the medium of living body through nerve cells.You are a soul and your living body is a wonderful medium for manifestation.Brain did not know the meaning of the words you listen but the soul understand and act according to that.If some one prised you your mind did nt know what that but it is the soul which is perciver of that word.All the body parts are not for them selves for the use of consciousness.

Now you have really gone over the edge. You are introducing the term “soul.” I have no idea how you define that term, but I suspect it will be in some way to mix woo with science. While you began with science, you end with a very disappointing wasteland of woo.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
Prakash - 02 March 2012 07:23 AM

More over all will agree on this that thought is abstract and dimensionless because we can think and imagine the sun and far off galaxies with in all most same time.Also thought cannot be constructed or reckoned in scientific terms because it can fly into the past and the future,the dimensions of which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.So it is clear that though is not a form of physical energy.

This is like saying books aren’t physical things because they contain words about the past and future. It’s complete nonsense.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18
dougsmith - 02 March 2012 07:52 AM
Prakash - 02 March 2012 07:23 AM

More over all will agree on this that thought is abstract and dimensionless because we can think and imagine the sun and far off galaxies with in all most same time.Also thought cannot be constructed or reckoned in scientific terms because it can fly into the past and the future,the dimensions of which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.So it is clear that though is not a form of physical energy.

This is like saying books aren’t physical things because they contain words about the past and future. It’s complete nonsense.

Books did not know what matter in them about future or past.Because there is no perceiver.But who wrote those books knows about the words containing past and future.Here the conscient entity understand the matter about past and future in the books.And it experience the meanings of those words.That entity is perceiver.Again the computer not for itself but for the use of conscient thinking person.Like that brain is also not for itself but for the user who uses it and experience pleasure and pain through the medium of it.
My intention is that thought can travel in past,and future ,the dimensions which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
Prakash - 02 March 2012 08:37 AM

Books did not know what matter in them about future or past.Because there is no perceiver.But who wrote those books knows about the words containing past and future.Here the conscient entity understand the matter about past and future in the books.And it experience the meanings of those words.That entity is perceiver.Again the computer not for itself but for the use of conscient thinking person.Like that brain is also not for itself but for the user who uses it and experience pleasure and pain through the medium of it.
My intention is that thought can travel in past,and future ,the dimensions which cannot be converted in the concept of velocity.

Thought isn’t “traveling” anywhere. It’s referring. Just as words don’t travel anywhere.

A footprint in the snow is an indication that a deer passed by. But the footprint doesn’t “travel” with the deer. It just refers.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

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).

Emotions and feelings are not physical/chemical manifestations.But they are the manifestations of a conscient entity.Any human being,whether it be seeing with the eyes,hearing with the ears or any other organ employed to do the action appropriate to the organ is accompained by its relevant experience.Imagine a poor man approching a rich friend for help and telling him his mother was very ill and that he needed money.The ear is the organ of hearing but hearing the poor man’s words does bring in the feelings of kindness,compassion,sympathy etc.But this is not felt by ears but that conscient thing through the brain.Again suppose a person goes to another and offers him a flower out of love.Now eyes are only the organ of sight and see flower also as they have seen other things.But to understand this persons love and to delight is an experience,a composite experience which is that some thing other than eyes.That some thing is observer and who really enjoy through the medium of organs.

Experiecing pleasure,pain,astonishment kindness etc is not the attribute of work of matter.Never have we seen any material engaged in thinking or feeling joy or grief.Hence it is the fact the observer is different from the perception.


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.

[ Edited: 02 March 2012 09:04 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
Prakash - 02 March 2012 09:00 AM

Never have we seen any material engaged in thinking or feeling joy or grief.

False. We do every time we see a person engaged in thinking or feeling joy or grief.

Prakash - 02 March 2012 09:00 AM

Hence it is the fact the observer is different from the perception.

Sure, just like the computer is different from the computer program.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04
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.

Yes, I, the conscious physical entity with my body and neurological system, percieves.  Not some imaginary entity that dwells in my hypothalamus.

 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: 02 March 2012 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
Prakash - 02 March 2012 09:00 AM

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).

Emotions and feelings are not physical/chemical manifestations.But they are the manifestations of a conscient entity.Any human being,whether it be seeing with the eyes,hearing with the ears or any other organ employed to do the action appropriate to the organ is accompained by its relevant experience.Imagine a poor man approching a rich friend for help and telling him his mother was very ill and that he needed money.The ear is the organ of hearing but hearing the poor man’s words does bring in the feelings of kindness,compassion,sympathy etc.But this is not felt by ears but that conscient thing through the brain.Again suppose a person goes to another and offers him a flower out of love.Now eyes are only the organ of sight and see flower also as they have seen other things.But to understand this persons love and to delight is an experience,a composite experience which is that some thing other than eyes.That some thing is observer and who really enjoy through the medium of organs.

Experiecing pleasure,pain,astonishment kindness etc is not the attribute of work of matter.Never have we seen any material engaged in thinking or feeling joy or grief.Hence it is the fact the observer is different from the perception.


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.

I’ve tried to explain my thoughts on this, but they seem not to travel at any speed to reach you. I suggest you learn more about the brain and neuroscience. That is the only way you will purge yourself of your delusions.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 09:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04

Prakash: ...Hence it is the fact the observer is different from the perception.

Saying that the perciever is different from the perception is only like saying that someone who is behaving in a certain way is different from the behavior he is doing.  The person does not need a massless soul puppeteer to be guiding him in doing the behavior.  The person is doing the behavior.

 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: 02 March 2012 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2012-02-18

@Jr. Member:Dear brother,Who told that is imaginery entity?You are feeling consciousness real or imaginary?As you are feeling that you are exist real so that of conscient entity whitch is you also real.

[ Edited: 02 March 2012 09:58 AM by Prakash ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2012 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3183
Joined  2011-11-04
Prakash - 02 March 2012 09:52 AM

@Jr. Member:Dear brother,Who told that is imaginery entity?You are feeling consciousness real or imaginary?As you are feeling that you are exist real so that of conscient entity whitch is you also real.

I did not say that the imagination is not real.  You really are imagining that there is a soul.  But in doing so, it is simply neurons that are firing off in your brain in a certain pattern.  That is physically happening.  But the soul that you are imagining is an unneccessary explanatory construct.

 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: 02 March 2012 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-02-15

Can you read? I hope you can
This is the REPORT OF THE CASE http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19371212&id=CG9IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7100,2534256 it sais it all at this page and page 24

In any report it was not told that kedarnath frequently visit to delhi and a sweetmate shop which was located near shanti devi’s house.It was just a pure imagination of critics to make their argument correct.

I gave you like 4 different people who said it. One of then Ian Stevenson, whos goal was to proof it! The other one was Shri Bal Chand Nahata, who did investigation on the behalf of the indian psychoanalysts organisation.

You know my grand mother also did n’t tell to any one her husband name.Is it mean that she didn’t know her husband name?

Is that a proof that Shanti knew her “husbands” name before? Not its not. The difference is that you grandmather brain was able to know that information, abd shanti’s brain wasn’t ....

But before going to school itself she used to said her name was lugdi devi and she was a native of mathura and many more facts.(Read completely her story before going to school how she bahave and how many facts she told).

The report doesn’t tell that, and the reports object was to prove that the story was true. If that happened be sure that the investigator would write about it in the report. The cousin himself on page 24 under oath:  in my previous life I was chauban by caste, my husband was kedarnath form Muthra. He has a shop near the temple and his house is yellow. - this is what she said about the case. Kedarnath send letter to his cousin and told him that the claims about the name and the shop were true [just this claims, not all] and send him to investigate. Thats all, and this man siad it under oath, so… This is exactly as much as a girl can hear from a conversation in the shop.

.Because you just relay on your imagination not on real facts.

The facts are in the report, and the investigators weren’t sceptics so again it is the best of the case

All the arguments made by critics were pure imagination

Hahahha syas it a man who has an imagenary soul : ]

Again that might sound clearly shows that critics were just relay on imagination but not on real facts.

Third time - The facts are in the newspaper and are the best-case-scenario of the case. Then after reading the text you should apply critical thinking on it, and then it turns out that there is nothing special about it.

[ Edited: 02 March 2012 10:51 AM by georgi ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2