Re: [UFOnet] #8 Counting coup in the final conflict
- Krsanna wrote: ...........A compass pointing to magnetic north is the
ultimate direction finder ......
Even after Pole shift?
Krsanna wrote:........"Primitive religion" is another outstanding issue that
needs to be addressd, by the way. What is a primitive religion in contrast
to a sophisticated
religion? Again, you introduced the "primitive religion" as part of your
theories; therefore, I am most interested in getting a definition for
"primitive religion" with an example of an advanced religion.
I used definition from encyclopaedia. You appear to wish to redefine this
concept. This particular question does not interest me, as much as it does
you. What is defined as primitive religions is more advanced than what is
called modern religions. So, what? Who cares. Religion bores me. I much
prefer (proper) science.
Krsanna: ......I pointed out that Jung never said anything close to what
you suggested and offered to post Jung's own definition of the collective
unconscious. You have
introduced several wild ideas as theories to explain data that you cannot
explain with other theories that you find acceptable.
I look forward to information on Jung. But I am not a follower of Jung. His
idea of Collective Unconscious can probably be applied in other ways than he
envisaged, but I give credit that the initial idea of Collective Unconscious
Is Reincarnation not itself a wild idea from what passes for modern
mainstream science. So, if a person introduces one wild theory, why can
another person not be allowed to introduce a second wild theory?
The point I was trying to make was how do you test one wild theory against
another, not that I believe in any of the two wild theories.
Krsanna: ... The facts are not important to you if they do not support
Well, partly right. Facts are unimportant to me, if I do not know how to
interpret them. I have no 'preconceived ideas'.
Krsanna :...This is getting better and better.
Why? You have avoided answering my question of how do you prove
Reincarnation is real. You have cited data, but not said why it should be
interpreted in one way and not in another way.
You cite the meeting between Sagan and Dalai Lama and miss the important
part, namely what the Dalai Lama did not say.
The Dalai Lama is in his 14th incarnation on earth, and he did not say that
HE KNEW REINCARNATION WAS REAL. Does this not strike you as odd? Instead he
said something else.
Does that mean anything to you?
When an Enlightened Person is asked about Reincarnation does he say
something different from an Unenlightened person.
Compare what you say with an Enlightened response and an Unenlightened
response. Which category would you fit in?
If you do not answer this last question, then I am too bored to contiune
----- Original Message -----
From: "TimeStar" <timestar@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: [UFOnet] #8 Counting coup in the final conflict
> Roger wrote:
> You cite Weiss as backing your belief in reincarnation, thus his
> conclusions of his study must be in agreement with your point of view. I
> have read similar studies, and doubt their interpretation. Thus infer this
> must also apply to him.
> Krsanna wrote:
> You are more concerned about who has read and accepted his Dr. Weiss' data
> than the data and/or proofs per se? Does this mean that the data
> by Dr. Weiss is secondary to what you infer about those who have read his
> In summary:
> 1) You do not know anything about Dr. Brian Weiss' work;
> 2) You formed an opinion without any knowledge of Dr. Weiss' work based on
> what you infer because I have read his books; therefore
> 3) The facts are not important to you if they do not support your
> preconceived conclusions?
> This is getting better and better.