Date Posted:11:36 Author: Waqidi - 2 Jun 2001 Subject: Re: Response to Waqidi In reply to:
Mike Drake - 2 Jun 2001
's message, "Re: Response to Waqidi" on 11:36
I tried to find the reference you gave in the San Francisco Bulletin and came up with two references in the site www.infidels.org. The articles on this site support your contention that Burbank did not believe in reincarnation. However, I have no way of knowing whether the two authors (one who claims to know Burbank) are accurately quoting from the article.
Since you espouse to the scientific method I ask you simply this:
Have you seen the original article from the paper or are you merely taking your information from once or twice removed sources? Please provide either a link to the actual article or provide a copy of the article to view. I have found many misquotes on the web from people who claim to know certain facts.
You also failed to respond to the fact that in later editions of Yogananda's book, the quote about Burbank and reincarnation has been taken out.
With regard to the issue of a companion star for the sun, I have already conceeded that modern science would not support such an object based on our present theories. However, since we do not know have an explantion of dark matter or how it may behave, your assumption is based on newtonian gravitational mechanics, which may or may not be true for dark matter. Classical mechanics theory may not apply to a dark matter dual. Further, modern string theory also allows for a multi-dimensional universe (is it 9 dimensions?) with rules we are yet to establish (if in fact the string theory is even correct).
I must correct you on one point. The idea of a companion star for the sun originally comes from Sri Yukestwar not Yogananda.
With regard to the number of times Yogananda spoke correctly or incorrectly concerning cutting edge science issues I am not going to spend my time going through all his writings to determine his "scientific reference batting average." Thus your assertion that as far you can tell he is batting ".000" is not based on any scientific analysis of his writings but merely is a rhetorical challenge. Since you made the assertion please provide more evidence than the one reference to the companion star.
I look forward to hearing from you again with your statistics and corroborative evidence of the article on Luther Burbank.
