Has anyone been with a possessed Thai person?

[nidieunimaitre]

What's this got to do with Buddhism?

Umm....it happens at temples, it happens in front of monks, it happens after they finishing chanting or during. It's about something to do with spirits or being spiritual....I'm not really an expert but am pretty sure Buddhism is something to do with spirits.

Have you ever been to a temple??

1/ you are not an atheist

2/ yes I have been to business places, that some refer to as temples

What am I then? I don't believe in God or Jesus or thanksgiving or birthdays or Xmas or Independence Day or Easter or praying to ghosts and I will get money ....so if it's not atheist...whatever name there is for that, I am that.

Every temple I have been to especially in the countryside I am the only non Thai there...I have hardly seen any white farangs, so I can understand most of the comments on here are dismissive of the temple ceremonies.

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Do you believe in ghosts, or even in the possibility that their might be ghosts?

An atheist does not!

Not even a little bit, just like a woman can not be a little bit pregnant.

[notmyself]

Sounds like some kind of narcotic mixed with a mild poison.

The fact that you have offered a viable alternative shows that the original conclusion is an argument from ignorance at the very least.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

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

Girl was acting strangely for unknown reasons so a conclusion is unjustifiably jumped to that she is possessed. This is also known as 'God did it' in that if a cause is unknown then God must have done it. Though this absurdity is found the world over it is more prevalent in cultures that are steeped in superstition.

[notmyself]

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Do you believe in ghosts, or even in the possibility that their might be ghosts?

An atheist does not!

Not even a little bit, just like a woman can not be a little bit pregnant.

While what you say is likely true, it does not follow that it has to be. Atheism is a position on a single proposition (claim) which is that an intervening god exists (theism). Though unusual, one could logically believe in ghosts or some such and be an atheist. People who label themselves as spiritual are an example. It could, and is, argued that Buddhists are atheists as there is no god figure involved.

[wichianburi1]

I'm surprised you were only 'a bit confused'; try a few more journeys with this lot in your car and, perhaps, you will change from being an atheist and becoming a believer. Yes, spirits are REAL and all around us on a 24/7 basis. Learn to 'listen within you'; take an interest in medidation, think positivly and you will get closer to them. Mind you, the emphasis is on thinking "good/positive" versus "bad/negative" given that there are good and bad spirits. Ever wondered why there are good and bad people?

Good luck

[nidieunimaitre]

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Do you believe in ghosts, or even in the possibility that their might be ghosts?

An atheist does not!

Not even a little bit, just like a woman can not be a little bit pregnant.

While what you say is likely true, it does not follow that it has to be. Atheism is a position on a single proposition (claim) which is that an intervening god exists (theism). Though unusual, one could logically believe in ghosts or some such and be an atheist. People who label themselves as spiritual are an example. It could, and is, argued that Buddhists are atheists as there is no god figure involved.

Would you not consider a ghost that has powers over humans, to be a god?

[notmyself]

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Do you believe in ghosts, or even in the possibility that their might be ghosts?

An atheist does not!

Not even a little bit, just like a woman can not be a little bit pregnant.

While what you say is likely true, it does not follow that it has to be. Atheism is a position on a single proposition (claim) which is that an intervening god exists (theism). Though unusual, one could logically believe in ghosts or some such and be an atheist. People who label themselves as spiritual are an example. It could, and is, argued that Buddhists are atheists as there is no god figure involved.

Would you not consider a ghost that has powers over humans, to be a god?

No, I wouldn't. Would you?

[dotpoom]

When I hear people almost boasting about how sure they are that they are (according to themselves) the greatest force in the Universe and that there is nothing in existence that is a Power greater than themselves...it almost makes me laugh. Not only are they missing out on so much but it must be a hell of a burden to have to carry on one's shoulders.

[super22k]

I am being serious.Where ever I stay with my Thai girlfriend in Hotels,Condos or at home, we get visited by a different spirit.European,Thai,male,female. Mainly about 5am 6am ish.I am normal but my girlfriend seems to attract them.She comes from Issan (Mukdahan).Sometimes I wake up to find them looking down at me and sometimes they seem to blend in with items of furniture etc.I am worried that these spirits will possess me and if there is anything I can do about this other than leave her.I have asked her for an explaination but she bluffs her way out of it.She speakes good English.She goes to the Temple and claims to be a Buddist.She says her prayers in the Temple but on two occasions she has been asked to leave by the monks.She told me,many people are possessed by spirits.Sometimes she trembles during the night and when she is "visited"she always heads for the bathroom.(No jokes)I have never experienced anything like this before.I am just an ordinery every day man.Can anyone explain what is going on? I am English and I live in Chiang Mai.

[ClutchClark]

This wouldn't have happened in the provinces of Buriram or Surin would it? Or, with people who are from there?

Other forum members might be able to elaborate on the Thai word for black magic. Mun Dumn.

People in Buriram and Surin are keen practitioners of the art of Munh Dum, which I'm not sure but think equates with Black Magic..

They believe in it, and that is the most important thing people like you and me, who are unbelievers, need to know.

No. We are central near Chachoengsao, between Pattaya and SVB Airport. I guess this weekend was some sort of Buddha festival and everyone goes to temple. Definitely she wasn't pretending, because after when we arrived at the temple and she was normal again after about 20 more minutes, she started to throw up like in The Exorcist lol. And she was very pale. My gf says the spirits take away a lot of energy from the host.

When we got to the temple and the monk finished his chanting another guy was seemingly possessed....his body convulsed, then voice deeper and started smoking lots! It's about the 4th time I have seen it now so that's why I posted here. I don't know what scam can be really going on?? It seemed to be of no benefit to them to be in such a state unless for the publicity, yes I am farang but I don't look like it since I am half chinese, so it's not as if they are trying to scam me or ask for money! I have done ouija board when I was a kid and sometimes that worked so I guess it's possible all these Thai spirit possessions could be real.

There must some believers on this forum that can shed light on what's going on?

The gf knows I'm a non believer but always gets me to go to temples anyway, I always say to her, I will believe and devote my life to Buddhism once I am very rich moneywise.....haha. I know that's not how Buddha works but if I'm going to believe then I need to be paid first!

Do you know if the ghosts who possess these people were smokers when alive or did they just start in death?

I suppose the ghastly warnings of health issues caused by smoking have far less influence on the dead?

[slipperylobster]

Flakey. I would be suspicious of a history of drugs and/or alcohol. Is she employed? I seen lots of people running around muttering stuff to themselves....mostly angry farangs, possessed by imagined demons that seem to be destroying their day.

[notmyself]

When I hear people almost boasting about how sure they are that they are (according to themselves) the greatest force in the Universe and that there is nothing in existence that is a Power greater than themselves...it almost makes me laugh. Not only are they missing out on so much but it must be a hell of a burden to have to carry on one's shoulders.

Not seen any such thing in the thread which suggests to me that it is the usual straw man argument used by people who believe something for no reason to justify such belief. I and most other 'unbelievers' do not discount the existence of ghosts but rather see that there is no reason to believe they exist. I don't believe in the claim that ghosts exist for EXACTLY the same reason that I don't believe the claim that an invisible leprechaun called Colin lives in my shed.

[nidieunimaitre]

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Do you believe in ghosts, or even in the possibility that their might be ghosts?

An atheist does not!

Not even a little bit, just like a woman can not be a little bit pregnant.

While what you say is likely true, it does not follow that it has to be. Atheism is a position on a single proposition (claim) which is that an intervening god exists (theism). Though unusual, one could logically believe in ghosts or some such and be an atheist. People who label themselves as spiritual are an example. It could, and is, argued that Buddhists are atheists as there is no god figure involved.

Would you not consider a ghost that has powers over humans, to be a god?

No, I wouldn't. Would you?

I am surprised by your question.

Yes, I consider ghosts as gods, since they have supernatural powers over humans.

Of course, because of our upbringing in a christian / jewish culture, we tend to identify "god" with a fatherlike figure, such as Zeus, god the father, Jehova - not with childish ghosts that get their kicks from doing silly voices while rolling their eyes.

And what about Indian gods? Too playfull? Or the Greek ones, too jealous, the Viking ones, too belligerent?

Let's not discriminate!

Ghosts are gods, an atheist does not believe in them.

And yes, there are phenomena that we can not explain (yet), but explaining them by referring to other unexplainable things does not make sense.

[nidieunimaitre]

Sounds like some kind of narcotic mixed with a mild poison.

The fact that you have offered a viable alternative shows that the original conclusion is an argument from ignorance at the very least.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

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

Girl was acting strangely for unknown reasons so a conclusion is unjustifiably jumped to that she is possessed. This is also known as 'God did it' in that if a cause is unknown then God must have done it. Though this absurdity is found the world over it is more prevalent in cultures that are steeped in superstition.

Agreed!

But perhaps too difficult for some.

I took a course of philosophy with a major follower of Bertrand Russell, who simplified this idea to:

A statement can be

1/ true

2/ false

3/ meaningless (not even false.....)

No need for "between true and false".

For "entertainment" I like the circle in which one writes "every statement in this circle is false".

A splendid example of a statement that is neither true nor false, but meaningless.

[pitchag]

I too am pretty much a non-believer but some things defy an explanation. I fell over some newly installed curb stops while exiting a bar/restaurant in Pattaya. Landed on my hands but pitched forward and scraped my forehead. My wife's uncle was the Abbot of a Wat in Bangkok. I had met him a couple of times before he passed away and really liked him. My wife was in BKK when this happened and received a phone call from her father in Nakhon Si Thammarat who asked how I was after falling and hitting my head. No possible way he could have known about this. The father said his brother, the Abbot came to him in a dream and told him about the accident. He also told him that the Abbot was coming to live with us for a while to watch over us. Every day since we have put out a breakfast for the spirit of the Abbot. So far, so good

Interesting ,does he eat the breakfast?, my T/g/f puts food on the Bhudda table but alas he never visits to eat it, but as a kid I remember Santa always took a bite from the biscuit and a sip of milk I left out for him, I was a believer then

[tifino]

wifey follows the same, and the food put out:

- never goes off

- never get taken by cats or birds

I get to have the fruits etc after they are eventually taken down and brought back to the kitchen.

Good luck for me to have the 'lucky food' she says; but strangely, she refrains from it herself, as she says she's never allowed to take something back that has been given to the Buddha.

Same goes for Temple foods. Anyone else can re-pack & take uneaten foods home, but wifey cannot, unless for me...

Edited July 15, 2014 by tifino

[reenatinnakor]

Sounds like some kind of narcotic mixed with a mild poison.

The fact that you have offered a viable alternative shows that the original conclusion is an argument from ignorance at the very least.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

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

Girl was acting strangely for unknown reasons so a conclusion is unjustifiably jumped to that she is possessed. This is also known as 'God did it' in that if a cause is unknown then God must have done it. Though this absurdity is found the world over it is more prevalent in cultures that are steeped in superstition.

Agreed!

But perhaps too difficult for some.

I took a course of philosophy with a major follower of Bertrand Russell, who simplified this idea to:

A statement can be

1/ true

2/ false

3/ meaningless (not even false.....)

No need for "between true and false".

For "entertainment" I like the circle in which one writes "every statement in this circle is false".

A splendid example of a statement that is neither true nor false, but meaningless.

Yes it was meaningless to me the day before the spirit possession happened in my car. Now it's true or false. I'm a total non believer so it's likely to be false even I saw it with my own eyes. The problem with all these dismissive comments from white farang is that hardly any have been to pray at a temple. I've never seen another farang at temple praying... Even if just to make wife happy.... Not here in the countryside anyway. So off course it's all bullshit to a non Thai. But the same farang can believe in Jesus without issues! 70 per cent of Americans believe in a guy that walks on water and will only vote for a president that believes the same... And yet they are dismissive of Thai beliefs! Edited July 15, 2014 by reenatinnakor

[smileydude]

A lot of things in this world cannot be explained. Just because we cannot logically rationalize it does not mean it does not exist.

As a scientist I believe there are forms of energy that we are unable to detect with our 5 senses.

I prefer to keep an open mind and take these unexplainable phenomenon for what they are, unexplainable.

I will not use these unexplained phenomenon to make decisions so much so I do not use reasoning and common sense in living a normal life.

All I know is that a few hundred years ago we knew nothing about molecules, microorganisms, infrared, microwaves, bipolar and personality disorders etc. so I wouldn't be suprised when we discover life on other planets in the next few decades and are able to detect energy forms previously unknown to us. Heck we don't even know how the brain exactly functions so we know very little about what forms of energy could cause human behavioral changes as seen in the OP's post.

Modern medicine now suspects Werewolves could have been those afflicted with hirsutism and Vampires people with porphyria. Try explaining that in the 14th Century.

Supersitition and accepting we still have much to discover are two very different things in my mind.

Edited July 15, 2014 by smileydude

[tifino]

@ reenatinnakor

well, there are some of us go for real...

got my Pali prep'd and practised for recite, and over the last few weeks, the Elders have even let me Lead the Offering to the Monk, before and after Meal

Edited July 15, 2014 by tifino

[AnotherOneAmerican]

1. It's always women in her 3rd decaade.

2. Hysterical possession.

A variation on multiple personality disorder, where the secondary persona is a supernatural being appropriate to the culture of the deluded person.

Edited July 15, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[nidieunimaitre]

Sounds like some kind of narcotic mixed with a mild poison.

The fact that you have offered a viable alternative shows that the original conclusion is an argument from ignorance at the very least.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

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

Girl was acting strangely for unknown reasons so a conclusion is unjustifiably jumped to that she is possessed. This is also known as 'God did it' in that if a cause is unknown then God must have done it. Though this absurdity is found the world over it is more prevalent in cultures that are steeped in superstition.

Agreed!

But perhaps too difficult for some.

I took a course of philosophy with a major follower of Bertrand Russell, who simplified this idea to:

A statement can be

1/ true

2/ false

3/ meaningless (not even false.....)

No need for "between true and false".

For "entertainment" I like the circle in which one writes "every statement in this circle is false".

A splendid example of a statement that is neither true nor false, but meaningless.

Yes it was meaningless to me the day before the spirit possession happened in my car. Now it's true or false. I'm a total non believer so it's likely to be false even I saw it with my own eyes. The problem with all these dismissive comments from white farang is that hardly any have been to pray at a temple. I've never seen another farang at temple praying... Even if just to make wife happy.... Not here in the countryside anyway. So off course it's all bullshit to a non Thai. But the same farang can believe in Jesus without issues! 70 per cent of Americans believe in a guy that walks on water and will only vote for a president that believes the same... And yet they are dismissive of Thai beliefs!

Yes, it is beyond comprehension that someone can believe in Jesus AND be dismissive of Thai ghosts.

A couple of posts ago, one of those (the jesus people, not the ghosts) appeared on this thread.

[camerata]

Some posts talking about Christianity have been deleted. Since this is the Buddhism Forum, let's stick to spirit possession as it relates Buddhism.

AFAIK, spirit possession and shamanism is or has been present in all Buddhist countries, and it predates Buddhism. Monks and temples get caught up in it because people think they can exorcise spirits or protect against spirits.

The subject is covered in the book Thailand: Spirits Among Us, which can be found at Asia Books:

"The unique occult art of Thai tattooing, common beliefs in ghosts and supernatural practitioners including spirit mediums, magical monks and Brahmin priests are all debated and explained in this colourful and spellbinding book. Having lived in Thailand for many years, author, photographer and anthropologist Marlane Guelden draws on her personal and academic experiences to introduce the complexity and allure of the spirit world in Thailand."

[notmyself]

Yes it was meaningless to me the day before the spirit possession happened in my car. Now it's true or false. I'm a total non believer so it's likely to be false even I saw it with my own eyes. The problem with all these dismissive comments from white farang is that hardly any have been to pray at a temple. I've never seen another farang at temple praying... Even if just to make wife happy.... Not here in the countryside anyway. So off course it's all bullshit to a non Thai. But the same farang can believe in Jesus without issues! 70 per cent of Americans believe in a guy that walks on water and will only vote for a president that believes the same... And yet they are dismissive of Thai beliefs!

How do you know it was spirit possession? How do you know that the level of surety you have is not the same surety that we have seen before such as ripping the hearts out of living people to calm the angry volcano?

As member Camerata correctly pointed out, possession and shamanism predate Buddhism and are found the world over. On what basis can one say that going to a Buddhist temple will pacify the spirit of a possessed person while spreading the entrails of a goat in animistic sub Saharan Africa will not?

I suggest two books that deal with possession and its origins.

Red Strangers is a 1939 novel by Elspeth Huxley.[1] The story is an account of the arrival and effects of British colonialists, told through the eyes of four generations of Kikuyu tribesmen in Kenya. The book immerses the reader so completely in the pre-Western Kikuyu culture, that when the Kikuyu are paid money for their labour, it is quite easy to understand why they throw the coins into the bushes. After all, what does money do?

Epic in its scale, Red Strangers spans four generations of a Kikuyu family in Africa and their relationship with European settlers, who were nicknamed "red" strangers due to their sunburns.[1] The book, by describing a Kenyan tribe and their way of life, with its rituals, its beliefs, its codes and its morality, shows European customs in stark, unflattering contrast with Kikuyu traditions. The differences in cultural attitudes to war, methods of cultivation, the administering of justice, and the use of money are played out in this semi-fictional view of the damaging forces of colonization.

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

Freud defines religion as an illusion, consisting of "certain dogmas, assertions about facts and conditions of external and internal reality which tell one something that one has not oneself discovered, and which claim that one should give them credence." Religious concepts are transmitted in three ways and thereby claim our belief. "Firstly because our primal ancestors already believed them; secondly, because we possess proofs which have been handed down to us from antiquity, and thirdly because it is forbidden to raise the question of their authenticity at all." Psychologically speaking, these beliefs present the phenomena of wish fulfillment, "fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind."

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

Since possession predates Buddhism one must by necessity step outside of Buddhism to find out where it came from and why Monks and Temples within Buddhism are involved. If you don't take a step outside then all that can be said is that possession and shamanism exist in Thai culture and nothing more. You may as well be standing there holding an empty sack.

[YeaBiGgiEs]

Oh no biggies! Eventually ALL Thais show their true colors, some sooner than others. THEY ARE ALL POSSESSED!!!

[reenatinnakor]

Some posts talking about Christianity have been deleted. Since this is the Buddhism Forum, let's stick to spirit possession as it relates Buddhism.

AFAIK, spirit possession and shamanism is or has been present in all Buddhist countries, and it predates Buddhism. Monks and temples get caught up in it because people think they can exorcise spirits or protect against spirits.

The subject is covered in the book Thailand: Spirits Among Us, which can be found at Asia Books:

"The unique occult art of Thai tattooing, common beliefs in ghosts and supernatural practitioners including spirit mediums, magical monks and Brahmin priests are all debated and explained in this colourful and spellbinding book. Having lived in Thailand for many years, author, photographer and anthropologist Marlane Guelden draws on her personal and academic experiences to introduce the complexity and allure of the spirit world in Thailand."

But the temples I have been to, they seem to actively encourage a spirit taking over someone's body and the monks facilitate it with their chanting rather than discourage it! Most of the spirit possessions I have seen just involves a girl with high voice or bloke with deep voice, and the other people will talk to them like they are talking to a child sort of way. I don't speak Thai so don't know what they are asking the spirit.

I did the ouija board loads when I was a kid and that was spooky also, but not as weird as this!

[notmyself]

I am surprised by your question.

Yes, I consider ghosts as gods, since they have supernatural powers over humans.

Of course, because of our upbringing in a christian / jewish culture, we tend to identify "god" with a fatherlike figure, such as Zeus, god the father, Jehova - not with childish ghosts that get their kicks from doing silly voices while rolling their eyes.

And what about Indian gods? Too playfull? Or the Greek ones, too jealous, the Viking ones, too belligerent?

Let's not discriminate!

Ghosts are gods, an atheist does not believe in them.

And yes, there are phenomena that we can not explain (yet), but explaining them by referring to other unexplainable things does not make sense.

I would say that that is amalgamating two things which share some similar characteristics in the same way that all oranges are fruit but not all fruit are oranges. That all ghosts are gods is not something I have come across before so I think perhaps I will reflect on it for a while.

[nidieunimaitre]

I am surprised by your question.

Yes, I consider ghosts as gods, since they have supernatural powers over humans.

Of course, because of our upbringing in a christian / jewish culture, we tend to identify "god" with a fatherlike figure, such as Zeus, god the father, Jehova - not with childish ghosts that get their kicks from doing silly voices while rolling their eyes.

And what about Indian gods? Too playfull? Or the Greek ones, too jealous, the Viking ones, too belligerent?

Let's not discriminate!

Ghosts are gods, an atheist does not believe in them.

And yes, there are phenomena that we can not explain (yet), but explaining them by referring to other unexplainable things does not make sense.

I would say that that is amalgamating two things which share some similar characteristics in the same way that all oranges are fruit but not all fruit are oranges. That all ghosts are gods is not something I have come across before so I think perhaps I will reflect on it for a while.

I will look forward to your comments.

[notmyself]

I am surprised by your question.

Yes, I consider ghosts as gods, since they have supernatural powers over humans.

Of course, because of our upbringing in a christian / jewish culture, we tend to identify "god" with a fatherlike figure, such as Zeus, god the father, Jehova - not with childish ghosts that get their kicks from doing silly voices while rolling their eyes.

And what about Indian gods? Too playfull? Or the Greek ones, too jealous, the Viking ones, too belligerent?

Let's not discriminate!

Ghosts are gods, an atheist does not believe in them.

And yes, there are phenomena that we can not explain (yet), but explaining them by referring to other unexplainable things does not make sense.

I would say that that is amalgamating two things which share some similar characteristics in the same way that all oranges are fruit but not all fruit are oranges. That all ghosts are gods is not something I have come across before so I think perhaps I will reflect on it for a while.

I will look forward to your comments.

There is certainly some overlap between ghosts and gods but there are distinctions which are no doubt culturally created that define one from the other. Ghosts are seen more as being able to interfere with the material world while gods are able to change its very properties Because the whole subject is nebulous in nature it is hard to find some analogy to use but I came up with this....

Within the world of physics, ghosts would be chemistry while gods would be atomic elements. Think of alchemy.

Alchemy is an influential philosophical tradition whose practitioners have, from antiquity, claimed it to be the precursor to profound powers. The defining objectives of alchemy are varied but historically have typically included one or more of the following goals: the creation of the fabled philosopher's stone; the ability to transform base metals into the noble metals (gold or silver); and development of an elixir of life, which would confer youth and longevity.

Alchemy differs significantly from modern science in its inclusion of Hermetic principles and practices related to mythology, magic, religion, and spirituality. It is recognized as a protoscience that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine. Alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today.

Specifically

the ability to transform base metals into the noble metals (gold or silver)

Given a suitable environment, we could change the characteristics at a molecular level but no further. Lead was often used in an attempt to create gold because they shared some similar characteristics and mercury was often used to create silver. Many things have and still are being discovered using the same processes such as ink, vulcanised rubber and medicines Food preservation starts from a very early age with cooking, smoking and drying in the sun followed by salting, picking etc. All these have ever done is alter chemical bonding between atoms rather than change the atoms themselves. I would say that this is akin to a ghost while a god is an element so all gods are ghosts but ghosts are not elements.

You may find this interesting by the University of Nottingham.

All Chemical Elements in Order[/]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A1F4CF36C085DE1

First one..

And finally tonight a good one for the kids.

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

[sabaijai]

This is the Buddhism forum, so please keep posts relevant to Buddhism. Off-topic posts will be removed from this point forth.

[Neeranam]

I have witnessed this sort of possession on numerous occasions as I have made a bit of a study of it. This sort of thing is something that is practiced mostly among those in Thailand that have strong ties with animism (many Buddhists are also animists). This is commonly found with tribal people or those who live in the countryside.

In practice, the practitioner will put themselves in a trans-like state which facilitates their being open to possession. They then summon a spirit that they have found to be helpful in answering questions in the past. The spirit then manifests itself into the body of the subject who then becomes totally under the control of the spirit. Other persons present can then seek advice or information from the spirit

One spirit or entity that is summoned a lot by Thai practitioners is called “Luci nirot” (spelling?) who is a 5,000 year old spirit of a pre-Hindu monk from India. You will know it is Luci nirot if it walks hunched over or needs a cane for walk. The practitioner will sometimes wear a tiger cloth to help attract Luci nirot to her body because the entity seems to associate itself with tigers. Of course there are many other entities that can be summoned and sometimes even the spirits of loved ones or ancestors that have passed will be summoned.

These entities coming from the spirit World are thought to have connections to all things and therefore can see what we can’t and can give information or advice.

This same practice is also common in the west in Hispanic and African cultures such as Sanitaria, voodun, yaruba , palo mayombe and many other lesser known cultures.

ฤษีนารท or reusi naarot I think is the correct spelling.

[Neeranam]

Thai Buddhism , if there is such a thing involves ghosts. I personally know someone who has seen a 'bret' - these tall ghosts are seen in many temples in paintings/statues.

When studying Tibetan Buddhism in Darmsala in India I was amazed at the representations of hell - hungry ghosts etc.

Ghosts are in Buddhism and in Thailand they are everywhere, tv, movies, nearly every house has a spirit house.

Of course possession happens and can be helped by monks.