Yogi 'Survives Without Food' For 70 Years

[Commoner]

The difference is that I'm not claiming that he pays people off. It's something that people do and Randi happens to be a person. It's all fine to say 'fraud' to someone who proclaims to have supernatural abilities and assume the worse but someone like Randi must be legitimate, right?

I may have been worng to say he is a fraud but I'm definitely skeptical.

Yes, Madhuri, that's exactly right. It's fine to assume people are generally trustworthy, and it's fine to assume that people who claim supernatural abilities are full of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The library's free, too, so that argument is kinda moot.

The nearest library is about 4 miles away. Wikipedia can give me an answer in a couple minutes, rather than an hour of travel & searching. Wikipedia wins this one.

(I've gotten a lot more from a simple trip to the library.) Sure, you can correct errors, but you can be erroneous yourself without realizing it, so your "correction" could turn out to be completely wrong.

Any source can be wrong. One must judge what one reads. Wikipedia provides sources & immediate links to them. It also provides a discussion
of the controversies on the topic. Thus equipped, I can properly evaluate the information. But it isn't for every question, & nor is a library.

The only advantage it has is it's size, which you bring up. But the internet is about that size, anyway.

You may prefer whichever resource you want. But I recently wanted a quick summary of various aluminum alloys & their properties for material selection for a project, & I found
Wikipedia quick & accurate. I had my info before you'd even arrive at the library parking lot. I'm not trying to talk you into using it. I just want to correct some unjust criticisms.

 

[Riverwolf]

The nearest library is about 4 miles away. Wikipedia can give me an answer in a couple minutes, rather than an hour of travel & searching. Wikipedia wins this one.

Huh. For me, the nearest library is literally right down the street, and it's connected to several other libraries in a system, so I can place books from other libraries on hold. It may take about a week to arrive, but it's still awesome.

I will admit: if the nearest library is that far away, then yes, Wiki is certainly the most convenient. But not for me.

Any source can be wrong. One must judge what one reads. Wikipedia provides sources & immediate links to them. It also provides a discussion
of the controversies on the topic. Thus equipped, I can properly evaluate the information. But it isn't for every question, & nor is a library.

You may prefer whichever resource you want. But I recently wanted a quick summary of various aluminum alloys & their properties for material selection for a project, & I found
Wikipedia quick & accurate. I had my info before you'd even arrive at the library parking lot. I'm not trying to talk you into using it. I just want to correct some unjust criticisms.

Quick, quick, quick... Faster must ALWAYS equal better... Did Sonic the Hedgehog really have THAT much effect on society?

That same information could have been found with a quick google search, I'd bet.

 

[Commoner]

Quick, quick, quick... Faster must ALWAYS equal better... Did Sonic the Hedgehog really have THAT much effect on society?

That same information could have been found with a quick google search, I'd bet.

I think you're developing an irrational aversion to Wiki. I'll have to check wikipedia if they've got a cure for that yet.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Though, honestly, I think that too little information has been given to conclusively state one way or the other whether this is fraud.

I disagree. If someone claims to do something which is known to be physically impossible, something which has been shown many times in the past to be a fraudulent claim ... then that is enough information to assume this one is a fraud, too.

I have heard there is an entire ward at a Jerusalem mental hospital for people who believe they are the Messiah. It's so common it has a name, "Jerusalem syndrome". These are people who are chronically or at least temporarily "touched" in the head. Would it really make sense to say, in each case, we don't have any evidence one way or the other that this person really is the Messiah?

 

[Magic Man]

Huh. For me, the nearest library is literally right down the street, and it's connected to several other libraries in a system, so I can place books from other libraries on hold. It may take about a week to arrive, but it's still awesome.

And yet, looking something up on Wiki still takes a lot less time than walking or driving 200 yards, and then searching for, finding and reading one or more books on a subject. Plus, you can even get links from Wiki to give you more in-depth research. So, you can effectively do the same amount of research as you could in the library, maybe more. And you definitely don't have to wait a week, or even a day.

I will admit: if the nearest library is that far away, then yes, Wiki is certainly the most convenient. But not for me.

4 miles is not very far. The point is it's more convenient for you, too. You might have something against using Wiki, and you might prefer the library, but Wiki is still more convenient for you, and it's still just as good a resource.

Quick, quick, quick... Faster must ALWAYS equal better... Did Sonic the Hedgehog really have THAT much effect on society?

You're right. There's definitely an advantage to waiting until I have a chance to go to the library to read about the Acadian Expulsion in the 1700's. It definitely would have made my life better to not have access to a quick source like Wiki.

That same information could have been found with a quick google search, I'd bet.

Well, many times that Google search leads you to Wiki. What is this phobia you have of Wiki? It's like it's a drug you don't want to try for fear of becoming addicted. It's OK. It's a very good resource.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. The fact is that it's very accurate. It's a little old fashioned to call into question the accuracy of Wiki at this point.

I heard a founder of wiki on a local NPR show. He was asked by the host Michael Krasny if you should trust wiki over other sources like say the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Wiki person said he would go with Britannica.
Many people dont trust Wiki as much as other sources.

Still I use it but I dont trust it as much as other sources.

 

[Magic Man]

I heard a founder of wiki on a local NPR show. He was asked by the host Michael Krasny if you should trust wiki over other sources like say the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Wiki person said he would go with Britannica.
Many people dont trust Wiki as much as other sources.

Still I use it but I dont trust it as much as other sources.

And yet there is research to say the opposite of what he said. All I'm saying is that Wiki's a good source. Are there better ones? Sure.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Further, his weight did drop slightly during the 10 days, casting some doubt on his claim to go indefinitely without food. Jani claims a goddess sustains him through

What if he was more active in the hospital then in his cave. If he just sat meditating 20 hours a day. this would also explain the weight drop would it not. I am not saying I believe this guy. But it the activity makes sense to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Being more skeptical of the contents of Wikipedia than the extraordinary claims of yogis is humorous.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Being more skeptical of the contents of Wikipedia than the extraordinary claims of yogis is humorous.

Femurous.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think you're developing an irrational aversion to Wiki. I'll have to check wikipedia if they've got a cure for that yet.

The only thing I use Wiki for at all is for entertainment subjects, like video games.

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree. If someone claims to do something which is known to be physically impossible, something which has been shown many times in the past to be a fraudulent claim ... then that is enough information to assume this one is a fraud, too.

I have heard there is an entire ward at a Jerusalem mental hospital for people who believe they are the Messiah. It's so common it has a name, "Jerusalem syndrome". These are people who are chronically or at least temporarily "touched" in the head. Would it really make sense to say, in each case, we don't have any evidence one way or the other that this person really is the Messiah?

I've updated my stance on this subject after being given some more information that I did not have before. Simple claims are not enough. Boy who cried wolf.

 

[Riverwolf]

And yet, looking something up on Wiki still takes a lot less time than walking or driving 200 yards, and then searching for, finding and reading one or more books on a subject. Plus, you can even get links from Wiki to give you more in-depth research. So, you can effectively do the same amount of research as you could in the library, maybe more. And you definitely don't have to wait a week, or even a day.

But at the same time, you don't get some exercise.

For me, faster isn't necessarily better.

4 miles is not very far. The point is it's more convenient for you, too. You might have something against using Wiki, and you might prefer the library, but Wiki is still more convenient for you, and it's still just as good a resource.

Not with its ability to be edited by anyone. There's false stuff in there.

You're right. There's definitely an advantage to waiting until I have a chance to go to the library to read about the Acadian Expulsion in the 1700's. It definitely would have made my life better to not have access to a quick source like Wiki.

That book would have had more information, certainly, and be more thorough about it, probably. (Besides, I prefer to read books than internet articles; even if a book is available for free online, I'll still try to get my hands on a physical copy.)

Well, many times that Google search leads you to Wiki. What is this phobia you have of Wiki? It's like it's a drug you don't want to try for fear of becoming addicted. It's OK. It's a very good resource.

I don't have a phobia of it; there are a few subjects I'll use it for: casual subjects for which I'm already very knowledgeable about, like video game history. And like I said, the offshoot wikis are very good.

I just prefer the old fashioned way, in the same way that I prefer CDs over MP3 players.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I have never seen a yogi who did not eat at all. I have no knowledge of anyone making such claims in my tradition. So I am very skeptical. I know a swami that can stand in Glacier ice water run off up to his chest. He can do this for 2 1/2 hours chanting scripture. ( people die after very short time in cold water ) So yes because of what I have seen Many amazing things. It all leaves me flabbergasted. At times I do not know what to believe. Still I see myself as skeptical, especially of yogis who are willing to be tested like this. I believe most are fakes who try to have tests done and want a lot of attention. This is not to say that at times these things might happen.

If your world view is that this stuff can't happen. Then you must believe that It's all lies. I have no problem with this. In fact my life would be simpler if I thought the same way.

A great Hindu saint Ramakrishna called running after this stuff miracle mongering. Said it has no place in the religious life. In a buddhist text the Lord Buddha said if you have even one supernatural power you are not one of my followers.

What is seen as the greatest spiritual power. To live a life full of love, freedom, and bliss with no neurosis in there lives to be found. I am happy to say I have been around 4 different people who has achieved this. So this is the greatest miracle. And real people can do it. All we have to do is live consciouses lives with open hearts then we to can be miracle workes.

 

[Riverwolf]

Being more skeptical of the contents of Wikipedia than the extraordinary claims of yogis is humorous.

Glad you find something that isn't true funny.

I was actually far more skeptical of this yogi's claim, but didn't have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. I have actual experience and information with Wiki, and having been given just a little more information that I didn't have before, I have decided to call hoax with this yogi.

 

[Riverwolf]

What if he was more active in the hospital then in his cave. If he just sat meditating 20 hours a day. this would also explain the weight drop would it not. I am not saying I believe this guy. But it the activity makes sense to me.

I think he would be smart enough to try and be exactly like he is in his cave as in a hospital, so the test results could be as accurate as possible.

 

[Magic Man]

But at the same time, you don't get some exercise.

Wait, what? I thought we were just talking about its usefulness as a source, not whether using it gave you other benefits like exercise.

For me, faster isn't necessarily better.

It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about a resource for information, I'd say speed is definitely an advantage, all other things being equal.

Not with its ability to be edited by anyone. There's false stuff in there.

Not much. See, this is the problem. Sure, anyone can edit it, but it get checked all the time, and corrected. That's why they did the study to see how accurate it was and found that it fared better than an encyclopedia.

That book would have had more information, certainly, and be more thorough about it, probably. (Besides, I prefer to read books than internet articles; even if a book is available for free online, I'll still try to get my hands on a physical copy.)

If you include all of the sources at the bottom of the article, I doubt the book would have more info. I also prefer books to reading on a computer, but for many things, using the internet is just better.

I don't have a phobia of it; there are a few subjects I'll use it for: casual subjects for which I'm already very knowledgeable about, like video game history. And like I said, the offshoot wikis are very good.

How is it that you consider Wookiepedia very good, but not Wikipedia?

I just prefer the old fashioned way, in the same way that I prefer CDs over MP3 players.

I also prefer CDs, but that's not the point. It's OK to prefer going to the library to using Wikipedia. But you seem to have something more against Wiki than just "I prefer the old-fashioned way". Wiki has many advantages to using the library, even if you prefer not to take advantage of it.

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't care if it's more credible than EB. I said that that's not saying much.

But it still offers a cited source. Off topic anyways, moving on...

Like I said, the new information about weight and how it works has forced me to call hoax, not his explanation. I already know that his explanation is bogus, but that doesn't mean something else isn't happening.

"Something else"?

I will certainly agree that a deicated individual can train themselves to go for long periods without food or water, but there is still a limit.

 

[Riverwolf]

Wait, what? I thought we were just talking about its usefulness as a source, not whether using it gave you other benefits like exercise.

I always take other things into account.

It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about a resource for information, I'd say speed is definitely an advantage, all other things being equal.

All other things aren't necessarily equal.

Not much. See, this is the problem. Sure, anyone can edit it, but it get checked all the time, and corrected. That's why they did the study to see how accurate it was and found that it fared better than an encyclopedia.

Not enough. I could do the check just as someone put in some false information, and that becomes what I use.

If you include all of the sources at the bottom of the article, I doubt the book would have more info. I also prefer books to reading on a computer, but for many things, using the internet is just better.

The internet is a fantastic research tool, but Wiki can at best just be used for sources. So, really, for real research, all I'd ever use are just the sources, not the actual article.

How is it that you consider Wookiepedia very good, but not Wikipedia?

Because I know how puristic fanboys are.

I also prefer CDs, but that's not the point. It's OK to prefer going to the library to using Wikipedia. But you seem to have something more against Wiki than just "I prefer the old-fashioned way". Wiki has many advantages to using the library, even if you prefer not to take advantage of it.

I've seen the library as having more advantages... or rather, just simply using the rest of the internet. All wiki has is the sources, and the user-friendly structure, which I'll admit has been very attractive. It's a good concept, but there's just too much junk.