DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Roger Penrose confirms what Buddha saw while in meditation.

**HedgeYourBets** · 06-17-2012, 12:49 AM

No sir, you never answer where did the energy came from. I asked clarification questions and you scramed remember my fren? You just gotta do better this time. come on, show us what you are made of brother.

Since you crave for an answer, I will give you my Theravada Buddhist understanding of the answer. It goes like this:

Consciousness exists dependent on physical matter as a requisite condition.
Physical matter exists dependent on consciousness as a requisite condition.
When one exists, the other also exists. There is no Creator. There is only co-dependent existence.

I quote the Sheaves of Reeds sutta as the basis for my understanding.

"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?"

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

You may also like to read this article by Ian J. Thompson:

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: A Causal Correspondence Theory

`New' Metaphysics
These ideas have the possible disadvantage (or feature) that the operation of ordinary inert physical processes requires further analysis. Basically, since the propensities for physical processes derive from mental processes, all physical dispositions must derive (or have been derived from) some prior psychical level. This may sound like pan-psychism, but I am not saying that all physical processes include their own consciousnesses. There is a simpler solution, if you can accept the new metaphysics that there is some kind of Source, composed of suitable `psychic' propensities, from which everyday material propensities perpetually derive. Since the operation of this Source is always according to past physical events, we saw above that this operation amounts to the constant production of new propensities as if a `physical law' were prevailing. That is the way most scientists prefer to see the world. It is only that sometimes things are not so simple.

There may be some reaction to the apparent `dualism' in these ideas, as I have postulated minds existing separately from brains. However, this separation is only in our theory: in practice they need each other, and function together as a unified whole - as the person.

06-17-2012, 12:49 AM	#24
HedgeYourBets Join Date Aug 2008 Posts 4,655 Senior Member	No sir, you never answer where did the energy came from. I asked clarification questions and you scramed remember my fren? You just gotta do better this time. come on, show us what you are made of brother. Since you crave for an answer, I will give you my Theravada Buddhist understanding of the answer. It goes like this: Consciousness exists dependent on physical matter as a requisite condition. Physical matter exists dependent on consciousness as a requisite condition. When one exists, the other also exists. There is no Creator. There is only co-dependent existence. I quote the Sheaves of Reeds sutta as the basis for my understanding. "Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?" "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. You may also like to read this article by Ian J. Thompson: Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: A Causal Correspondence Theory `New' Metaphysics These ideas have the possible disadvantage (or feature) that the operation of ordinary inert physical processes requires further analysis. Basically, since the propensities for physical processes derive from mental processes, all physical dispositions must derive (or have been derived from) some prior psychical level. This may sound like pan-psychism, but I am not saying that all physical processes include their own consciousnesses. There is a simpler solution, if you can accept the new metaphysics that there is some kind of Source, composed of suitable `psychic' propensities, from which everyday material propensities perpetually derive. Since the operation of this Source is always according to past physical events, we saw above that this operation amounts to the constant production of new propensities as if a `physical law' were prevailing. That is the way most scientists prefer to see the world. It is only that sometimes things are not so simple. There may be some reaction to the apparent `dualism' in these ideas, as I have postulated minds existing separately from brains. However, this separation is only in our theory: in practice they need each other, and function together as a unified whole - as the person.
	Quote