Reincarnation??

Post Reply New Topic

There would be too much to remember, way too much. The Dharmic cosmology posits time as both beginngless and endless. If the karmic essence of a person has been reincarnating since beginningless time, one of the higher consciousnesses, the storehouse mind, would be the repository for these infinitely regressive experiences. The consciousness we use daily is the one that supposedly obliterates between death and rebirth.

Good point. But that would sppose that human memory is limited, like a computer. I'm not so sure it's finite. It may just be a recall, or organization issue.

I've read that buddhist monks have greater ability to use more of their brains from daily exercising like meditation and prayer -whereas Einstein was said to only use about ten percent of his brain like most people of today. Oddly enough monks don't sit in temples doing advanced calculus and physics; so in terms of brain strength, which would you prefer?

You are perpetuating a myth. While Dr. Einstein may or may not have actually made this statement, the statement that people use only ten percent of their brains is false.

Brain imaging research techniques such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain is in use at any given time. Although certain minor functions use only a small portion of the brain at once, any significantly complex set of activities (i.e., reading, typing, watching TV, eating, having sex, et cetera) or thought patterns (i.e., planning, problem solving, concentration, remembering, et cetera) indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people do not use all of their muscle groups at any one time, they also do not use all of their brain at once.

The myth presumes that brain functions are extremely localised; that the utilized parts of the brain are indeed very, very small; and that the remainder lies dormant, just waiting to be used. Actually, the parts of the brain that are in use are scattered all over the brain, making the entire brain necessary. This is demonstrated by the fact that when any part of the brain is traumatised or removed, the person so treated suffers from loss of memory, perception, and motor function.

Besides, Dr. Albert Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist, not a physician, and certainly not a brain surgeon! Plus PET and FMRI scans were invented long after he had died. Thus, he had not the expertise, nor the means, to determine the extent to which humans use their brains.

Percentage myths aside, I'm very curious about the abilities and insight of buddhist monks.

Hmmmmmmmmm.......

Perhaps that was a vague statement in the least, but I did not insinuate that Einstein was a doctor of brain surgery, nor did I structure the statement to lead you in the direction that Einstein said anything about his brain capacity.

Perhaps what I should of said is that Einstein's brain post-mortem displayed scientific evidence that states he only used ten percent of his brain. Sorry for the generalization.

As for PET's and MRI's, those definately show a functioning brain while connoting use, but to dead organs, I'm sure those machines hardly elicit any factual data (except for maybe an MRI, but I'm not sure about the parameters of that.) Besides, I was only offering anecdotal reading material from several years ago. Who knows how much of what you read today is actually factual?

Evidence, Please? I ask this because if only ten percent of a person's brain is functional, then that person is in a coma, a persistant vegetative state, or at least severely ret*d - none of which applied to the good doctor Einstein while he was alive.


A dead person uses zero percent of their brain, while a live person uses all of their brain (unless their brain is damaged). These two pieces of data are indeed factual.


I do, because I actually check the alleged "facts" as they are stated, rather than just blindly believe whatever is printed. Also, it is readily obvious when someone is merely parroting what they've read without understanding what it means or implies.

Oh, Fnord. Not that I would normally dodge a nice, terse conversatio with someone of your wit, but I think you understood all that I said in the previous post and to futher indulge you in such would be a waste and futile use of both our times. I personally also believe semantics are overused on WP; I will not indulge in such, and that is all this discussion will lead to in my estimation.

....

But I will add that scientists divided that Einstein's estimate was from the differences of soft-matter and hard-matter within his brain, post-mortem of course. Perhaps that answer clarifies something for you.

Agree; what does it acheive, really?
I don't post to be cross-examined. And I don't read posts to cross-examine. But apparently some people enjoy it.

The matter was clarified long before this thread was started. The "ten-percent" statement is wrong, was wrong, and always will be wrong, and any excuses to the contrary are irrelevant.

You are omitting something of utter importance here anyway, smartie.

thats why simple discussions can't be had on here. Once they get started with that stuff, they just take over the thread, and it spirals out of control.

Exactly. He might think like a scientist, but I think like a lawyer.

Are we still talking about reincarnation?

Sure, if you would like to add something, Michel.

no, we're talking about talking about reincarnation. Completely different