A guru attempts to use magic to kill a skeptic. It works out about as successfully as just about every other attempt to use magic ever has.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7067989.ece
When a famous tantric guru boasted on television that he could kill another man using only his mystical powers, most viewers either gasped in awe or merely nodded unquestioningly. Sanal Edamaruku’s response was different. “Go on then — kill me,” he said.
Mr Edamaruku had been invited to the same talk show as head of the Indian Rationalists’ Association — the country’s self-appointed sceptic-in-chief. At first the holy man, Pandit Surender Sharma, was reluctant, but eventually he agreed to perform a series of rituals designed to kill Mr Edamaruku live on television. Millions tuned in as the channel cancelled scheduled programming to continue broadcasting the showdown, which can still be viewed on YouTube.
First, the master chanted mantras, then he sprinkled water on his intended victim. He brandished a knife, ruffled the sceptic’s hair and pressed his temples. But after several hours of similar antics, Mr Edamaruku was still very much alive — smiling for the cameras and taunting the furious holy man.
Three cheers for the Indian Rationalist Association and the “Guru Busters.” Check out the plethora of vids on YouTube on the topic of “guru busters” for more science-vs-magic smackdowns. It’s the sort of thing that the West needs every bit as desperately as India… while Indias superstitions are more blatant and obvious, the west has its own pack of superstitious rubbish holding us back. Appeals to unreason take the forms of socialism, anti-nuclear activism, anti-rights activists, appeasing the percieved wishes of delusional middle eastern deities, etc.
NOTE: “sceptic” seems to be the way the Englandlanderish “press” spells “skeptic.” Remember, this is the same pack of baboons with typewriters who insist on spelling “NASA” as “Nasa.”
3 Responses to “Skeptic vs. Guru on live TV”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I can’t argue with the spelling of skeptic. I have a dim memory of being taught, in the unenlightened 50s, that both were correct. To me, the use of “sceptic” always makes me think of “septic.”
The Brits call sonar “Asdic” even today, and that was an acronym in 1918 when it was announced. (Maybe we should start writing about the Raf, but I think they’d not catch on.)
> the use of “sceptic” always makes me think of “septic.”
Same here, and I wonder if there might be some unconscious intent there. “Skeptic” is used most often as a pejorative. If you are a skeptic about religion, about socialist solutions to anthropogenic global warming, about politicians and their motives… you moight as well be a dirty rotten pervert. I’ve seen no indications that things are any different in Europe than the US on this score.
>who insist on spelling “NASA” as “Nasa.”
Two points about this, first, that with a lot of the (US written) software that these ‘journalists’ use, the spell checker doesn’t pick up ‘Nasa’ as incorrect,
although the one on this blog does, interestingly enough.
Second, I think it’s to do with the pronunciation. NASA is pronounced as a word, ‘nassah’, whereas the RAF is pronounced as it’s constituent letters,
‘the ahh-ay-eff’, and strictly speaking, of course, it should be ‘the NASA’, rather than just ‘NASA’.