Inherited Memory And Reincarnation

[Xangsamhua]

Perhaps human life could be described broadly as a subject’s perceived experience, memory, reflection and imagination.

We associate perceived experience as happening in the present and having a span longer than the mere instant. Memory refers to the past, usually something that occurred more than a few minutes ago. We reflect on the recently occurred and the distant past and integrate the results into our present and, hopefully, our future, though the latter really exists only in our imagination.

If this is so, the most significant direction of consciousness in our lives is that which refers to our pasts. We live in our memories. The present, even if more than an instant, is fleeting. The future is in our imagination. Our present is formed of what occurs outside ourselves and how we respond to it in terms of our reflection on the past and our hopes and expectations for the future. But only the past is real. Contrary to the teaching of Eckhart Tolle, Thich Nhat Hanh and many others, I am suggesting that the ancient Greeks had it right, seeing the past in front of us, and the future as behind, where we can’t see it. We are what we have been up to this point. We are our memories.

Why emphasize the importance of memory in one’s life? I’ve been interested for a while in the possibility of inherited memory, perhaps as an indicator, but not a proof, that reincarnation, or rebirth, can occur in the form of memory, i.e. that stored experiences in a deceased life can be inherited by one born in this or a future life. The work of Ian Stevenson from the University of Virginia in the 60s and 70s suggests that this in fact occurs. Those who are interested can google Ian Stevenson or, even better, get a copy of his book 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (note he does not say they prove it).

I am currently reading a book about Savant Syndrome by Darold Treffert, a psychiatrist who has worked in this field for fifty years and has known many savants, including Kim Peek, the savant’s savant, who was the subject of the 1999 film Rainman. Treffert does not make a case for reincarnation, but he accepts as reasonable the proposition that memory can be inherited – that there is such a thing as Genetic Memory. He refers to the fact that the brain at birth is already programmed in so many ways. We acknowledge this in the animal kingdom, in the fact for example that birds are born with the ability to produce complex song patterns they have not been taught. Human babies also are born with, for example, a knowledge of trigonometry, of figure-ground relationships, without being taught it, with awareness of cause and effect relationships before experiencing them, and so on.

Some serious students of savants – whether the latter have disabilities, e.g. autistim, from birth or have suffered brain injury later, or are simply prodigies and geniuses – do suggest that they can only know more than they could have learned through some form of reincarnation or extra-sensory perception. Treffert himself does not go this far, but acknowledges those who do. In this field of psychiatry it is not outlandish to suggest reincarnation or ESP as a possible explanation. However, Treffert was taken to task by the editor of a scientific journal for even acknowledging these views in an article he had written. It seems that gate-keeping sometimes takes precedence over impartial reporting in the formal discourses of science.

The ability of savants to know much, much more than they could ever have learned – to know to a prodigious extent not just facts and skills, but the basic ground rules and organizing principles of, e.g. musical composition, sculpture and mathematical processes, certainly suggests to me that these skills and templates have been inherited, have somehow been passed down from before the savant or prodigy was born. Yet memory does not exist outside the subject who remembers. It’s not as if these remembered abilities were floating around in space and the savant just happened to catch some of them in the womb. Inheriting a memory is the same as inheriting someone’s remembered life and abilities. What is the difference between this and reincarnation, or rebirth?

Genetic memory is a hypothesis. I don’t see how we can test it. It also doesn’t connect with karma as an important determinant in how one’s future birth is influenced by one’s past life. However, it seems a reasonable explanation for the presence in an individual of skills and knowledge that can only be passed through the genes.

If the genes are the carriers of remembered ability, why couldn’t they also be the carriers of karmic effects, the results of one’s actions and intentions. Isn’t intention as much a part of consciousness as memory? Yogacara (“Consciousness-only) Buddhism argues that this Is so, and the “seeds” or genetic determinants, stored in the alayavijnana (“store-consciousness), though always adapting to input (epigenetics), is the vehicle for determining karmic effect in and beyond this life.

I would be interested to hear what people know and what they think about these things.

[rockyysdt]

Interesting subject matter X.

I've been interested for a while in the possibility of inherited memory, perhaps as an indicator, but not a proof, that reincarnation, or rebirth, can occur in the form of memory,

Inheriting a memory is the same as inheriting someone's remembered life and abilities. What is the difference between this and reincarnation, or rebirth?

If inherited memory is genetically transmissible these studies confirm such possibility only in off spring.

If one doesn't procreate then the cycle of such a re birth would cease.

If one subscribes to birth, death and re birth of a lineage of beings then the Buddha taught that such a cycle can only end once one is free from greed, aversion & delusion, and not simply by refraining from procreating.

Even if an entity genetically inherits someones remembered life and abilities, they are not the same person.

An example would be to produce twenty such entities, each having the same remembered life and abilities.

The consciousness of each of these entities would be totally independent of each other and of the original life which spawned them.

Any future experiences, feelings, and thoughts would be totally independent.

Edited December 12, 2011 by rockyysdt

[partington]

It would be easy to test for inherited memories that are transmitted through genes, just as it is to test whether diseases and traits have genetic components. There are very well established ways to test for this as genetic inheritance follows pretty well understood and established rules.

For this reason it is already known that memories are not inherited genetically because these rules aren't followed. Memories don't run in families to put it bluntly. The autistic savants you mention rarely have parents with the same abilities, or produce children with these abilities, so genes are an unlikely explanation.

I also don't think that the examples you interpret as providing evidence for inherited memories (eg autism being linked to extraordinary abilities in music, mathematics etc) actually do.

You say these abilities demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge greater than can be accounted for by learning, but. I do not think you have any strong evidence that that is the case.

Some people have better memories than others. Some people have simply extraordinary memories and remember whole books photographically after a single reading. It's rare but it's well documented. So rare individuals can learn very fast. As this is already known to be possible , it is a more likely explanation for the abilities you describe than 'inherited memories ', which 1. have never been shown to exist and 2. do not need to be present for abilities to be explained.

As for the underlying organising structures-these are clearly NOT memories. They are inherited in the same way that colour vision is inherited. How could we have the ability to recognise literally millions of colours without needing to learn them? Its hard wired into our brains, it is not a memory. You are confusing abilities, which pre exist due to the physiological mechanisms coded for by our DNA, and memories, which are changes in those physiological structures caused by experiences. They are not the same thing

[Xangsamhua]

Thanks Rocky and Partington for your helpful responses.

I'm keen to see what people think, so shouldn't butt in at this stage, but I probably should cite the book I've been reading. It's Islands of Genius by Darold Treffert.

The terms "genetic memory" and "epigenetics" are used and discussed by the author. I'm fairly clueless about genetics, but was intrigued by this.

Just one other thing. The cases Ian Stevenson studied were persuasive (to me) that some children had actually been born with memories of places and people that they simply could not have learned about, and the people whose lives they seemed to "remember" were not related to them, so I guess they would not be cases of "genetic memory". These "memories" also faded as the children grew into adolescents, though as adults they remembered having had the memories, even if they were no longer conscious of them.

[dutchguest]

The concept of memory I cannot see other then as a function of the mind. And mind I cannot see other then as a product of or conditioning, of society, education etc., just as the "ego" is a social product, not something inherited or biological at birth. A concept of inherited memory I cannot give a place in my mind, in my experience. It may be an a question of definition, but "inherited memory" for me stays an abstract concept, may be useful in some academic theories, but for me not in any way useful for daily use. I acknowledge that there are many things inherited but I suggest giving that an other name then memory as i.m.o. this does not contribute to a clear understanding.

So the mind I see as our social, temporal, local process of accommodating to be able to function in the world. As I see it Buddhism tries to go beyond the mind and sees the only reality in an awareness of living in the here and now while the mind lives in the past or future and not in reality. Between past and future is the here and now which is beyond the categories of the mind and also beyond the categories of time and space. Drop the mind and you come in the eternity and infinity of the here and now.

[Xangsamhua]

The concept of memory I cannot see other then as a function of the mind. And mind I cannot see other then as a product of or conditioning, of society, education etc., just as the "ego" is a social product, not something inherited or biological at birth. A concept of inherited memory I cannot give a place in my mind, in my experience. It may be an a question of definition, but "inherited memory" for me stays an abstract concept, may be useful in some academic theories, but for me not in any way useful for daily use. I acknowledge that there are many things inherited but I suggest giving that an other name then memory as i.m.o. this does not contribute to a clear understanding.

So the mind I see as our social, temporal, local process of accommodating to be able to function in the world. As I see it Buddhism tries to go beyond the mind and sees the only reality in an awareness of living in the here and now while the mind lives in the past or future and not in reality. Between past and future is the here and now which is beyond the categories of the mind and also beyond the categories of time and space. Drop the mind and you come in the eternity and infinity of the here and now.

Thanks Dutchguest. Much food for thought in your response.

I can accept that the "mind" is not something inherent in the sense that we each "own" one. It might be something cosmic that we "plug in to" and itself is adaptable to and influenced by social, environmental and other factors. If so, it would be possible for alleged reincarnated children to "plug in to" the past memories of other lives, and often not those of biological ancestors.

Likewise, prodigious savants may be "plugged in to" memories of acquired knowledge or skills, not necessarily of biological ancestors. This may seem far-fetched, but it is a hypothesis for explaining why some children are born with inexplicable knowledge and abilities. Unfortunately, I suspect it's a hypothesis that can't be falsified, so it's not scientific. It's just an inference from the data.

I wonder, though, what it is that is "aware of living in the here and now"? If the mind dwells in the past (memory, reflection) and future (imagination, projection) and the here and now is "beyond the mind" (there's nothing for it to engage with) what, other than a mystery, is that which enters "the eternity and infinity of the here and now"? I can only think that nothing enters the here and now, whether a fleeting moment in its own right or a fleeting moment in infinity and eternity. A fleeting moment is never here and now; it is eternally in process. And infinity renders the present, past and future relatively null and void because there is no beginning and no end. Imagine the relative duration of a fleeting moment in relation to eternity; it becomes endlessly shorter.

But I don't want to split hairs. In relation to the duration of our own life a fleeting moment has significance and can be lived to the full. As combat veterans say, the likelihood of imminent death concentrates the mind wonderfully. Being suddenly face to face with something really dramatic in your life would have you living that moment to the full. Perhaps that is experience that goes beyond "mind" as we usually think of it. Perhaps being "fully aware" means that life as you experience it from moment is fully present to you in all its dimensions. That would be "mind-blowing" or perhaps "satori", the kind of complete and sudden enlightenment that the Buddha's disciples experienced as reported in the suttas.

[dutchguest]

Perhaps being "fully aware" means that life as you experience it from moment is fully present to you in all its dimensions. That would be "mind-blowing" or perhaps "satori", the kind of complete and sudden enlightenment that the Buddha's disciples experienced as reported in the suttas.

I did not read the books you mentioned so it is hard for me to judge, but in the case of remembering past lives I think it is more likely that there was something like a satori-experience then a kind of inherited memory. As far as I have understood everybody can become enlightened and have experiences of remembering past lives, it does not depend on special persons who have particular qualities or inherited memories. (But there are many things I don't understand so everything is possible as far as I am concerned).

[IMA_FARANG]

That's an interesting subject and probably does deserve an fair and unbiased scientific study.

But the honest fact is that most scientists in the field won't touch such a subject with a ten foot pole.

That is due to the bad taste left by the racial profiling of the Nazi party and the Soviet genenetisist Lyshenko (spelling?).

Those theories maintaind that certain "nationalities" were born "polluted" by their genetic heritage...the presumed nationalites being "Jewish" by the Nazis and "Asiatic" (non-white Russians) in Lyshenko's case.

For those reasons no self-respecting genenetisist today wants to even consider the matter...much less discuss it openly in a scientific forum.

I, for one, don't believe there is any substance to the claims.

I concede, however, that it's an interesting topic for discussion....but it's unlikely to be discussed openly for the reasons I mentioned.

[Xangsamhua]

That's an interesting subject and probably does deserve an fair and unbiased scientific study.

But the honest fact is that most scientists in the field won't touch such a subject with a ten foot pole.

That is due to the bad taste left by the racial profiling of the Nazi party and the Soviet genenetisist Lyshenko (spelling?).

Those theories maintaind that certain "nationalities" were born "polluted" by their genetic heritage...the presumed nationalites being "Jewish" by the Nazis and "Asiatic" (non-white Russians) in Lyshenko's case.

For those reasons no self-respecting genenetisist today wants to even consider the matter...much less discuss it openly in a scientific forum.

I, for one, don't believe there is any substance to the claims.

I concede, however, that it's an interesting topic for discussion....but it's unlikely to be discussed openly for the reasons I mentioned.

Hi IMA

I always like your take on things and was intrigued to see you raise the red flag of Nazi racist pseudo-science and Lyshenko's Lamarckism.

It's true that Epigenetics has been linked with Lamarck (and hence Lyshenko) and scientists really don't respond well to any sniff of Lamarckian revival. However, the theory that influences other than DNA may impact on inheritance doesn't seem to fully go away. The Australian molecular immunologist, Ted Steele, has combined Lamarck and Darwin in his theory, something for which he was seriously criticized by the scientific community. The epigenetic research of Eric Richards, a biologist at Washington University, St Louis, also evoked these figures. (I think Nazi theories are well and truly out of the frame, however.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060807154715.htm

I'm not a scientist and tend to cough up blood when required to understand any complex science, so I don't have a dog in any fight among biologists, geneticists and similar science wonks, but I think fears of resurrecting Lamarckian and Lyshenkoist perspectives should not be a barrier to critical or revisionist study. As is said in academic circles (but how much practiced who knows?), it's essential that a scholar, or any student, be prepared to "interrogate the obvious" and "make the familiar strange". That's the only way we can get paradigm shift. Sometimes, to do that, and if there is new evidence, we may even have to revisit old debates that we think may have been settled already. You suggested that in your first sentence. I think there are scientists who will explore these matters courageously.

[lungmi]

Memory is a fake memory made by your actual state of mind . (Adjahn Sumedho)

Confirmed by a neurophysiologists (Leibniz award 1.500.00.00 Euro)

For suprahuman informations of past or future you have to ask Shakespeare.

[Xangsamhua]

Memory is a fake memory made by your actual state of mind . (Adjahn Sumedho)

Confirmed by a neurophysiologists (Leibniz award 1.500.00.00 Euro)

All memory is fake, Lungmi?

Who is the neurophysiologist you refer to, and what is the research?

[dutchguest]

A quote from a book I'm reading at the moment, http://www.archive.o...fTheWhiteClouds blz.125, suggests that heredity and memory are the same in the ultimate sense:

“

All this may appear incredible to the critical Westerner, and I admit that I myself would have found it difficult to believe had I not come across similar cases, which not only proved that the idea of rebirth was more than a mere theory or an unfounded belief, but equally demonstrated the possibility of remembering important aspects or achievements of former lives. The scientist who only believes in physical heredity never asks himself what the fact of heredity actually means. It is the principle of preservation and continuity of acquired characteristics which finally results in the faculty of conscious remembrance and conscious direction under the guidance of organised knowledge, i,e. through co-ordinated experience. Heredity, in other words, is only another name for memory, the stabilising principle and the counter-force of dissolution and imper-manence. Whether we call memory a spiritual or a material property or a biological principle is beside the point, because 'material', 'biological', and 'spiritual' signify only different levels on which the same force operates or manifests itself. All that matters is that it is both a form-preserving as well as a form-creating force, the connecting linlt between the past and the future, which finally manifests itself in the experience of the timeless present and of conscious existence. The simultaneousness of preservation and creation is achieved in the process of continuous transformation, in which the essential elements or form-principles remain present like an ideal nucleus out of which new forms crystallise according to inherent laws and under the influence of external stimuli.

“

It could be true that evolution is moving in this direction of growing consciousness, awareness, memory and that the role of unconscious heredity is slowly diminishing. First in the form of human beings as they exist now with a growing awareness of the functioning of nature and with some enlightened persons who already “go ahead of the evolution” and have already a further evolved conscious memory. In the end the dualism between body and mind, matter and spirit, live and death would be overcome.

[lungmi]

Good question.

Memory is a fake memory made by your actual state of mind . (Adjahn Sumedho)

Confirmed by a neurophysiologists (Leibniz award 1.500.00.00 Euro)

All memory is fake, Lungmi?

Who is the neurophysiologist you refer to, and what is the research?

The memory in western understanding is a fake memory.

But there are other factors.

The morphic field, and the discussion about,

My experience (being science addicted) in Thailand.:

I have some abilities I don't know why. My Kalyanamitra's say, it's from your former life.

I cannot accept it. There is no Me not Mine. The authentical Teaching of the Budda.

What I can accept is a transfer of informations (morphic field).

But I don't care. Former life, next life is outside my world, do follow the Basic Teaching of the Buddha is hard work enough.

[Xangsamhua]

But there are other factors.

The morphic field, and the discussion about,

Very interesting, Lungmi. Thank you. I'd never heard the term "morphic field" before. It looks worth investigating, though I'm not sure my poor brain can handle it.

"Sheldrake's view on memory-traces is that they are non-local, and not located in the brain." (See Wikipedia below) This may provide a link to a broader theory for my hypothesis that one may be able to inherit memory from a deceased person without there being any genetic or karmic connection. It's just a tentative hypothesis though.

Wikipedia says, in the article on Rupert Sheldrake:

"Morphic field" is a term introduced by Sheldrake. He proposes that there is a field within and around a "morphic unit" which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity.^[17] According to Sheldrake, the "morphic field" underlies the formation and behaviour of "holons" and "morphic units", and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts or thoughts. The hypothesis is that a particular form belonging to a certain group, which has already established its (collective) "morphic field", will tune into that "morphic field". The particular form will read the collective information through the process of "morphic resonance", using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through "morphic resonance", a feedback to the "morphic field" of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience, resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the "morphic fields" as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.

That a mode of transmission of shared informational patterns and archetypes might exist did gain some tacit acceptance when it was proposed as the theory of the collective unconscious by renowned psychiatrist Carl Jung. According to Sheldrake, the theory of "morphic fields" might provide an explanation for Jung's concept as well. Also, he agrees that the concept of akashic records, term from Vedas representing the "library" of all the experiences and memories of human minds (souls) through their physical lifetime, can be related to "morphic fields",^[18] since one's past (an akashic record) is a mental form, consisting of thoughts as simpler mental forms (all processed by the same brain), and a group of similar or related mental forms also have their associated (collective) "morphic field". (Sheldrake's view on memory-traces is that they are non-local, and not located in the brain.)^[19]

Edited February 11, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

My confrontation with the "morphic field" came up when I saw the behavior of ants in my cutie.

A high developed strategy to find the food (sugar), a military strategy in the war with red ants.

Three small ants fought one big red ant and won. Four small ants against two big red ants gave

up the fight and run away.

All in the genetic code in these small animals?

For rebirth and so on I had a discussion with Thai professor (PHD in Germany, Buddhadasa lineage).

The "morphic field" as universal matrix for "information" could explain the memory of "last life" without

undermining the Teaching of th Buddha = No Me and Mine.

[camerata]

I think it was your kuti that had ants, Lungmi, not your cutie...

[lungmi]

I think it was your kuti that had ants, Lungmi, not your cutie...

wonderful answer.

we can go to a higher level - this or next life?

Edited February 27, 2012 by lungmi

[sabaijai]

I think it was your kuti that had ants, Lungmi, not your cutie...

That threw me, too

[lungmi]

I think it was your kuti that had ants, Lungmi, not your cutie...

That threw me, too

I have to start a special investigation: Ants, this is your cuti or the cuti of Lungmi.?

Prognostic answer: : Not our,not your, we will survive.