Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
UM-Bot

Buddhists claim Loch Ness Monster is a 'naga'

39 posts in this topic

The UK's first Buddhist Lama believes that the creature is a spiritual rather than physical entity.

Most attempts to capture evidence of Scotland's famous lake monster over the years have been based on the idea that there is an actual physical creature living in the murky depths, but now in the run up to the opening of a new Buddhist centre in the Highlands there is talk of a much different interpretation of the monster legend.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...nster-is-a-naga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, instead of admitting the beast is merely a figment of peoples imagination, they are going to try and justify their belief in its "existence" by claiming it is a "spiritual" creature.

How is this "interpretation" of an imaginary beastie any different from anything else?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You refer to him as being a "Lama." This indicates to me a Tibetan monastery, and they like this sort of thing, although most Buddhists find it kinda heterodox. Oh well, if it exists in people's minds then it has a sort of existence after all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Nessie is a ghost of a dinosaur :whistle:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nessie is a greenland shark. Sometimes one comes up from the ocean, see's there is no food and leaves. Greenland sharks can go up into fresh water for a short period of time. It's in the right area, these things are huge. Most credible sightings show a huge mass looking more like a fish. These things rarely come up to the surface too. So, it makes sense. Also before you say all these people would know it's a shark by seeing it cause of the fin. The greenland shark does not have the typical shark fin. This is the most plausible theory if there is sometimes something physically there. Case closed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nessie is a tourist attraction and nothing more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nessie is a greenland shark. Sometimes one comes up from the ocean, see's there is no food and leaves. Greenland sharks can go up into fresh water for a short period of time. It's in the right area, these things are huge. Most credible sightings show a huge mass looking more like a fish. These things rarely come up to the surface too. So, it makes sense. Also before you say all these people would know it's a shark by seeing it cause of the fin. The greenland shark does not have the typical shark fin. This is the most plausible theory if there is sometimes something physically there. Case closed.

But if you follow the path from the ocean to Loch Ness, there's either a series of artificial locks in the way or there's a series of shallow weirs and rapids that there's no way a large fish like a shark could navigate. Edited by JesseCuster
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in a water spirit sense, a naga could work. There's lot's of water spirit lore out there that really does not match Nessie's lore. But naga isn't too bad of a fit.

I'm not saying I think Nessie is real. Just that the lore isn't a bad match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is "naga" a Tibetan word for whiskey fueled hallucinations?

Edited by Calibeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, if you believe, you'll see Nessie. If you don't you won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen things ! Especially back in the 70's. Although the 80's are still a blur ? Oh we were talkin about "Buddhists" Never mind. :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea isn't exactly new. About 40 years ago, the "Reverend" Donald Omand, in his spectacularly loopy little book Memoirs Of An Exorcist (highly recommended if you enjoy the sort of book where the author sees how far he can go and still persuade his publishers to label it "non-fiction"), claims, amongst many other things, to have personally exorcized the demonic spirit known as Nessie forever. So every Nessie sighting prior to the mid-1970s was a real sighting of a fiend from Hell, and every Nessie sighting since then is a complete lie. Now you know. Also, from memory so I'm not sure of the facts here, didn't that incredibly reliable source of true facts Aleister Crowley (author of The Book Of Lies) claim Nessie was some sort of spirit creature he could influence with his magick (sic) at least a century ago?

It's also worth pointing out that every pre-1930s Nessie tale refers to her as a kelpie, a homicidal shape-shifting fairy, and the oldest account of all, from the 8th century AD, involved St. Columba facing down a man-eating monster that fled when faced with the power of God. So all pre-modern Nessie sightings imply that she is sentient, evil, supernatural, and wants to drown you or bite your head off. Since these days she's remarkably well-behaved, and hasn't eaten a single tourist in living memory, despite the greatly increased number of tempting morsels within her reach compared with previous centuries, it would appear that St. Columba put the kybosh on most of her mojo, and the Rev. Omand squished what remained. Given her extreme susceptibility to the rites of the Christian God, the only logical conclusion is that Nessie comes from Hell.

The only real innovation this Buddhist notion gives us is that Nessie isn't necessarily evil. I'm sure it will come as a great relief to her. Maybe, if some kind of Buddhist forgiveness ceremony takes place on the shores of Loch Ness, we'll get our traditional shamelessly bloodthirsty kelpie back again? It would do wonders for the tourist trade! The few we lost would be counterbalanced by the thousands standing well back making youtube videos. It's a thought, isn't it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nessie or not, I think it's an ideal location for a Buddhist centre.

You refer to him as being a "Lama." This indicates to me a Tibetan monastery, and they like this sort of thing, although most Buddhists find it kinda heterodox.

He is a she -

Formerly a nun, Lama Zangmo was the first woman in Britain to be chosen as a Lama in Britain in 2001.

http://www.scotsman....hists-1-3388747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know anything about Buddhism, but do Llamas have to change their names to become one? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume she wasn't always called 'Gelongma Zangmo'.

Edited by TheSpoonyOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Nessie is just a ghost or spirit form, it's still something. Let the search continue!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nessie is a greenland shark. Sometimes one comes up from the ocean, see's there is no food and leaves. Greenland sharks can go up into fresh water for a short period of time. It's in the right area, these things are huge. Most credible sightings show a huge mass looking more like a fish. These things rarely come up to the surface too. So, it makes sense. Also before you say all these people would know it's a shark by seeing it cause of the fin. The greenland shark does not have the typical shark fin. This is the most plausible theory if there is sometimes something physically there. Case closed.

I thought this was interesting....

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

Greenland sharks are thought to be the longest-lived vertebrates on the planet, with a potential life span of over 200 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Nessie is more of a "nada" than a "naga."

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nessie is a greenland shark. Sometimes one comes up from the ocean, see's there is no food and leaves. Greenland sharks can go up into fresh water for a short period of time. It's in the right area, these things are huge. Most credible sightings show a huge mass looking more like a fish. These things rarely come up to the surface too. So, it makes sense. Also before you say all these people would know it's a shark by seeing it cause of the fin. The greenland shark does not have the typical shark fin. This is the most plausible theory if there is sometimes something physically there. Case closed.

In addition to what JesseCuster mentioned, the River Ness does get quite shallow, down to a foot in some areas. The Greenland shark is also a slow cruiser, topping out at about 2 mph, swimming upstream in a shallow, fast moving river might present a challenge. I believe they cannot osmo-regulate, which means they could not survive long in fresh water. They are able to tolerate brackish water, but not freshwater.

Edited by Insanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nessie is just a big fish.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record so people will know: "lama" with one "l" is a Tibetan priest (sort-of) while "llama" with two "l's" is a South American camelopard.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald...striking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: The UK's first Buddhist lama believes derp explains derp.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this explanation personally. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I refuse to just out and out state that it's too ridiculous to be true. Keeping in mind that these days we know it's a good bet we live in a multiverse how can we say that some creatures don't occupy more than one universe simultaneously or at different times?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record so people will know: "lama" with one "l" is a Tibetan priest (sort-of) while "llama" with two "l's" is a South American camelopard.

I go by the number of legs: a two legged lama, that's a priest, a four legged llama, that's a beast, lol.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we have a faith-based explanation describing a physical phenomenon. Where are the usual gang of faith-busting skeptics hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.