On 28 Aug 2006 06:20:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:


I think you are using the word "energy" somewhat metaphorically. In
physics, the word "energy" has a very precise meaning. In physics it
is true that there is a law of conservation of energy (or, to be more
precise, a mass-energy conservation law provided we equate mass and
energy via St. Albert's equation e=mc^2). But surely you are not
claiming that mind is energy in the exact physical meaning of the word.
If you claim that then I would remind you that energy, almost by
definition, is the capacity to do WORK (in the precise physical meaning
of the word "work"). If you claim that mind is physical energy, then I
challenge you to affect the physical behavior of even a single dust
mote using your mind alone.

St. Albert? Isn't that a Catholic thing?

Indeed I am claiming mind is energy, but it isn't physical. The mind
can thing and meditate, sleep and we only use a tenth of its capacity.
See how mind works by doing just one minute of single pointed
meditation and tell me you have the ability to be completely empty
with nothing leaking in and I will bow at your feet at once.

I am using the term energy because pure mind is energy. Everything is
connected to everything else. In string theory, the science community
is having a hard time distinguishing theory and philosophy when
addressing the subject of quantum mechanics.

I am by no means an expert on eitherthe science of nature, or Buddhism
as I'm a practitioner for just a bit over two years.

Mind has absolutely no matter as a component. Not one particle. The
mind is a complex thing to discuss. An analogy is tea in a cup.
Break the cup and it is no longer a cup. It's broken shards of
matter. The tea, is still tea. Mop it into a towel, still tea.
Contents and container. All sentient beings have mind. Humans can
develop. Animals cannot develop in a lifetime as a human can. I'm
swaying off topic, sorry. Maybe I'm not qualified to debate this, but
I like the challenge.

Surely you don't claim that. You must be using "energy" merely as an
analogy or metaphor for your conception of mind. But if we have only a
mere analogy, you cannot blithly claim that mind cannot be created or
destroyed and invoke the physical principle of energy conservation to
do so. You are making mere word play here so as to give your concept
of mind a veneer of scientificity.

No, the science community is drawing these conclusions through the
Mind Science Conference and other large bodies of professionals who
invite The Dalai Lama annually. They do this because the brain
function of an adept meditator is different than the average person.
Meditators use much more of their brain function. This is being
studied very closely with proper testing in blind studies in labs at
four major universities.

If you see my point here, then you must admit that you are making a
completely arbitrary assumption that mind cannot be destroyed --- an
assuption that relies only on faith and not on reason. Hence your
further inferences about reincarnation are null and void as far as
reason is concerned.

Do you love anyone in your life? If the answer is yes, prove it. You
can't. You just love. I don't know if we are on the same life track
so this may become an irritating discussion for most. All I'm asking
is for people to consider what I'm saying, not agree. I also don't
think being called an idiot, moron, jerk, whatever, is relevant. I am
none of the above, and to close I will say there is a relative amount
of faith involved in Buddhism, but not in the same way we rely on a
man in the sky. I respect those who believe in god, but I don't
agree.