Buddhism And Quantum Mechanics Have Something In Common?

[camerata]

Buddhism and quantum mechanics have something in common?

Tenzin Gyato, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, explores the connection between science and spirituality and its ability to unite humanity in his work, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. One of the most fascinating arguments in the book pertains to the relationship between the Buddhist philosophy called the Theory of Emptiness and quantum mechanics. Ordinarily, one would assume there would be little, if any, connection between these topics. However, after a conversation between the Dalai Lama and physicist David Bohm, the analogy is both obvious and poignant.

In Buddhist tradition, the Theory of Emptiness states that all things or occurrences are dependent upon one another. Nothing in the universe is an independent entity. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, challenges some of the original theories of physics. The most controversial finding of the quantum physics era is that light is both a particle and a wave. Both Buddhism and quantum mechanics illustrate that the universe is not what he or she perceives it to be with their five senses, and that everything is connected in some way. In his book, the Dalai Lama mentions one of David Bohm's observations: "...if we examine the various ideologies that tend to divide humanity such as racism, extreme nationalism, and the Marxist class struggle, one of the key factors of their origin is the tendency to perceive things as inherently divided and disconnected. From this misconception springs the belief that each of these divisions is essentially independent and self-existent." Bohm's statement is profound. Not only does he understand the relevance between quantum physics and science as a whole, but he is able to broaden the analogy to the world at large. Perhaps if humans were not so quick to judge, isolate and segregate one another, there would be a much greater respect for the entire human race.

The comparison between Buddhist thought and quantum mechanics is especially convincing because it has the power to motivate those driven by faith and fact. The Theory of Emptiness appeals to those who are driven by spirituality, while science provides an experimental basis for proving reality is not always as it appears to be. Both schools of thought, however, recognize the utter importance of putting everything in perspective.

People, in general, tend to get caught up in their own lives to the point that they neglect to analyze the fact that reality itself transcends both time and space. The evils that exist in the world today are not independent entities. They are entirely dependent upon misconceptions that stem from the human instinct to separate itself. Perhaps this calls for an attempt to adjust one's mode of thinking. Whether science or spirituality is what motivates he or she to change, both ideologies call for an imminent re-examination of self.

Source.

[zzdocxx]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

There are two types of people in the world -- those who believe there are two types of people in the world, and those who don't.

[agent69]

Still Quantum Mechanics is not the answer to everything. Though it is best branch of theory when it come to describing particles. Still it does not explain why particles behave they way they do.

We can understand as much as we can observe and measure. Until we have more theory and ways to prove it, we would just take thing the way we can perceive.

Take gravity for example, Newton discovered the behaviour of gravity hundreds of years ago. Two bodies attract themselves with some mysterious force. It stood as it was for a couple of decades till Einstein came up with General Relativity. Instead of the attractive force, it's the space that is distorted by the mass of the bodies. And it took us another century to be able to experiment and collect the data using the Gravity Probe B.

Sciences still have a long way to go. Most of us (or all) will not be able to live that long to realise the dream of answering everything through sciences. Perhaps we will even be extinct well before that.

[B Fuddled]

I read What the Buddha Taught and Dancing Wu Li Masters together and they seemed like one book.

[Macky]

Buddhism and quantum mechanics have something in common?

Tenzin Gyato, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, explores the connection between science and spirituality and its ability to unite humanity in his work, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. One of the most fascinating arguments in the book pertains to the relationship between the Buddhist philosophy called the Theory of Emptiness and quantum mechanics. Ordinarily, one would assume there would be little, if any, connection between these topics. However, after a conversation between the Dalai Lama and physicist David Bohm, the analogy is both obvious and poignant.

In Buddhist tradition, the Theory of Emptiness states that all things or occurrences are dependent upon one another. Nothing in the universe is an independent entity. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, challenges some of the original theories of physics. The most controversial finding of the quantum physics era is that light is both a particle and a wave. Both Buddhism and quantum mechanics illustrate that the universe is not what he or she perceives it to be with their five senses, and that everything is connected in some way. In his book, the Dalai Lama mentions one of David Bohm's observations: "...if we examine the various ideologies that tend to divide humanity such as racism, extreme nationalism, and the Marxist class struggle, one of the key factors of their origin is the tendency to perceive things as inherently divided and disconnected. From this misconception springs the belief that each of these divisions is essentially independent and self-existent." Bohm's statement is profound. Not only does he understand the relevance between quantum physics and science as a whole, but he is able to broaden the analogy to the world at large. Perhaps if humans were not so quick to judge, isolate and segregate one another, there would be a much greater respect for the entire human race.

The comparison between Buddhist thought and quantum mechanics is especially convincing because it has the power to motivate those driven by faith and fact. The Theory of Emptiness appeals to those who are driven by spirituality, while science provides an experimental basis for proving reality is not always as it appears to be. Both schools of thought, however, recognize the utter importance of putting everything in perspective.

People, in general, tend to get caught up in their own lives to the point that they neglect to analyze the fact that reality itself transcends both time and space. The evils that exist in the world today are not independent entities. They are entirely dependent upon misconceptions that stem from the human instinct to separate itself. Perhaps this calls for an attempt to adjust one's mode of thinking. Whether science or spirituality is what motivates he or she to change, both ideologies call for an imminent re-examination of self.

I have a quantum model based on the hypothesis that the Universe has a quantum structure based on an fcc Lattice. In such a Quantum Model of the Universe the Universe has three mathematical domains. There are no fixed boundaries between them.

- The Quantum Process Domain - Fundamental Level - creates the

- The Information Domain - Spiritual Level - creates the

- The Particle Domain of the Quantum world.

- The Particle Domain can connect into the spiritual domain by resonance.

- To be more accurate - our brains can link into the Spiritual Domain which seems to be a sort of knowledge database.

- We cannot see the data because it has no boundaries and our instruments are too primitive to decode the information.

- But our brains can - and I am 100% sure of that, because in a trance state I can go to a place which I call the Picture Theater of the Universe when I want to know something.

The answers seem to be always right, but it takes a while until my brain has created the resonance structure to decode a message. A vital thing seems to be not to interrupt the decoding process with my own ideas - so I just wait until the answer comes back as an idea. It is a completely effortless method to acquire knowledge and as it turns out - a very fast one as well. Future science will be based on spiritual methods - in my opinion there is no way around that - and Goedel a famous theorist and friend of Einstein - already predicted that.

- In such a Quantum System everything is ONE - and everything in the Universe takes part in every Quantum Transaction.

- It has to be like that when every object in the Quantum System has a Unique Quantum State.

This seems to be a deliberate design feature - it allows the system to implement 4 fundamental concepts.

- The system can go semi-random at fundamental level without producing any confusion

- The system can increase its own complexity without external interference..

- The system can use all its resources 100% at all times which is the fastest way to increase its compexity - a program in a computer is absolutely inefficient compared to this - we can have Mega Bytes of code but only one instruction is executed at a time.

- The system can increase its spiritual knowledge without a particle world.

This is not an assumption - it is the consequence of the mathematical behavior of the system.

- It seems that the Universe is actually a form of life - because it has a DNA structure at the fundamental level.

- One thing is for sure - at least for me - compassion is the Essence of the Universe - and that has a sound scientific reason - a system based on compassion is the fastest way to make progress in the process of creating complexity.

- Individualism hinders progress by limiting the options to personal motivations - its like running evolution backwards.

When I mention points like above on a 'Scientific Forum' I will be immediately barred forever as a 'Crackpot' although I can explain how Natural Constants come out of lattice as inherent lattice properties. I don't quite understand that - because the origin of Natural Constants is the Number 1 Question in Quantum Mechanics.

In my opinion we cannot separate science and spirituality - they are ONE - that science cannot explain spirituality does not make these two subjects mutually exclusive. I am not angry about those who do not understand that - a so called Rationalist just likes to stick to his logical domain and there is little probability that he is going to change his mind. So the only thing we can do is to plant a seed of doubt and hope that it will grow. When it does not grow we just have to be patient and plant it again and again.

Now I want some advice. Do you think it is appropriate to put the explanation how this Quantum System works internally on this Buddhism Forum - I don't want to offend anybody!

My name is not really Macky - that's my nickname - this forum does not allow me to use my real name because it does not accept blanks in a user name.

Regards Uli Dinklage

[camerata]

This seems to be a deliberate design feature - it allows the system to implement 4 fundamental concepts.

Who was the designer?

- One thing is for sure - at least for me - compassion is the Essence of the Universe -

That seems to be a Buddhist sentiment too, but compassion relates only to sentient beings and I agree with Dawkins that it is more of an evolutionary accident (compassion towards everyone rather than just the blood relatives and tribe) than the norm.

Now I want some advice. Do you think it is appropriate to put the explanation how this Quantum System works internally on this Buddhism Forum - I don't want to offend anybody!

I don't think it will offend anyone as long as it has some relevance to Buddhism rather than just spirituality in general. But as it's your personal theory, I'm not sure anyone will be very interested. The forum is mainly aimed at getting a deeper understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

[Macky]

This seems to be a deliberate design feature - it allows the system to implement 4 fundamental concepts.

Who was the designer?

- One thing is for sure - at least for me - compassion is the Essence of the Universe -

That seems to be a Buddhist sentiment too, but compassion relates only to sentient beings and I agree with Dawkins that it is more of an evolutionary accident (compassion towards everyone rather than just the blood relatives and tribe) than the norm.

Now I want some advice. Do you think it is appropriate to put the explanation how this Quantum System works internally on this Buddhism Forum - I don't want to offend anybody!

I don't think it will offend anyone as long as it has some relevance to Buddhism rather than just spirituality in general. But as it's your personal theory, I'm not sure anyone will be very interested. The forum is mainly aimed at getting a deeper understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

Who was the designer - I would like to know that as well - the stunning mathematical beauty indicates a design - that's all I can say.

About compassion - in Maori we use a much broader term Aroha - I use The Great Consciousness may be that is nearer to your concepts.

Thank you for your answer - I think you are right - you are more a spiritual site.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Macky

[Samuian]

yes!

the both are dhamma kaya!

The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy,

but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment

andcan therefor be explained precisely!

Kamma - Cause and Effect..

Niels Bohr, after receiving the Order of the Elephant by the Danish government, he designed his own coat of arms which featured a taijitu (symbol of yin and yang) and the Latin motto: "contraria sunt complementa" - "opposites are complementary"!

Buddhist/Vedanta/Philosophy are just some of many ways with wich one can approach to find the truth,

science another, the way and the tools might be different,

but finally it will lead to the same results/conclusions...

In this sense "Buddhism" or "Quantum Mechanics" are just names for the same thing!

If non-dualistic views are applied and one may be able to see beyond the screen of untold diversity on the stage of the universal performance!

How can it be one if it isn't - it's only our perception and the magic of the empirical world of appearance!

"Grist for the Mill!"

[jayjay2001]

I read something pertinent today that's relevant to this discussion (from "Keeping the Breath in Mind and Lessons in Samadhi" by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo (Phra Suddhidhammaransi Gambhiramedhacariya) translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html):

"...if we go around searching for knowledge from sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations mixed together with concepts, it's as if we were studying with the Six Masters, and so we can't clearly see the truth — just as the Buddha, while he was studying with the Six Masters, wasn't able to gain Awakening. He then turned his attention to his own heart and mind, and went off to practice on his own, keeping track of his breath as his first step and going all the way to the ultimate goal. As long as you're still searching for knowledge from your six senses, you're studying with the Six Masters...."

While western science has offered much in the way of "relative" knowledge, it will always fall short in the understanding of ultimate truth-- as it looks to understand the world through the senses, the reasoning mind, and concepts. With that said, there are, in my understanding and experience, parallels between eastern mysticism (includes Buddhism) and subatomic physics (see Fritjof Capra's, The Tao of Physics). In my understanding, whereas western scientists may understand something about the universe conceptually-- for example, the "instantaneous" arising and passing away of matter and the dance of energy, along the path of meditation the yogi will experience this directly-- perceptually. Two main differences are:

(1) methodology-- for the western scientist: exploring the world and its nature through the senses and the reasoning mind (which only results in obtaining a map (a conceptualization) of reality, if you will); for the yogi: direct insight (direct perception and intuitive understanding) into reality;

(2) existential outcome.

[wayfarer108]

Review - Buddhism and Science

A Guide for the Perplexed

by Donald S. Lopez

University Of Chicago Press, 2008

Review by Jason Thompson

Oct 20th 2009 (Volume 13, Issue 43)

Amongst the names of major world religions, why does "Buddhism" sound more acceptable in the same phrase as "Science" than "Christianity" or "Hinduism"? Harvard neuroscientists collaborate with Tibetan monks, not Franciscan Friars; MIT invites a lecture from the Dalai Lama, but not Pope Benedict XVI; Marsha Linehan and Daniel Siegel describe the clinical efficacy of Buddhist-derived mindfulness training, but not Holy Communion. Do Buddhism's truth claims really approximate more closely to the data-driven testable propositions of modern neuroscience, cosmology, or evolutionary biology than those of other religious belief systems --- with the insights derived from its ancient contemplative practices even representing (as some claim) direct intimations of concepts only now revealed experimentally by the western mind sciences – or do other factors explain its vogue? Does Buddhism's Most Favored Religion status in the court of Science derive from the two traditions' genuine compatibility, or rather from scientists' yearning to fill a "God-shape" hole in empiricism's frosty weltanschauung with a spiritual tradition whose warm optimism and non-theistic metaphysics strikes them as a temple broad enough in which to run cosier-feeling, lotus blossom-scented laboratories without censure or loss of tenure?

Readers perplexed by the question of Buddhism's genuine compatibility with scientific evidence can already avail themselves of a small library of volumes on this topic, including profoundly erudite discussions on the former's intersection with cosmology (Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan's The Quantum and the Lotus); neuroscience (James Austin's Zen and the Brain and Selfless Insight, and Siegel's The Mindful Brain); and psychoanalysis (Jeffrey Safran's Psychoanalysis and Buddhism: An Unfolding Dialogue and Mark Epstein's Thoughts Without a Thinker.) Lopez, however, wisely reserves the issue of Buddhism's scientific and clinical validity for other authors to discuss elsewhere in the discipline-specific terms warranted by each field's technical complexity, focusing on the fresher, meta-scientific question of what broader historical, cultural and rhetorical forces might have led a rationalistic western endeavor to increasingly embrace "the teachings of an itinerant mendicant in Iron Age India." If the "Buddhism" of Harvard and Daniel Siegel is not isomorphic with the philosophy and practice of Siddhatha Gotama and recognized early Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Dogen, or Tsongkhapa, what parts of Buddhism get lost in Science's selective version?

Even Buddhism's earliest texts contain repeated insistences on the necessity for individuals to verify the truth of doctrines through observation and inquiry, rather than unquestioning faith in a teacher's validity. This emphasis on the experiential construction of knowledge has led some modern Buddhist or Buddhist-sympathetic thinkers to infer that the early texts therefore effectively authorize a selective approach to Buddhist teachings and the abandonment of ideas that strike us moderns as too supernatural. For such an affront to rational modernity, Lopez turns to the Abdhidarmakosa ("Treasury of Knowledge"), a text by the fourth century Indian scholar Vasubhandu, which claims that at the center of the earth is a vast mountain, called Meru or Sumeru. Buddhists continued to debate Meru's possible location into the twentieth century, even after extensive human exploration and mapping of the Earth's entire surface had rendered this peak's existence rather unlikely. Buddhist scholars then claimed that their tradition's classical cosmology was metaphorical, and to downplay the significance of cosmology within the wider scheme of Buddhist thought. "The purpose of the Buddha coming to this world was not to measure the circumference of the world and the distance between the earth and the moon, but rather to teach the Dharma, to liberate sentient beings, to relieve sentient beings of their sufferings," Lopez cites the Dalai Lama commenting. However, as Lopez shrewdly comments, "once the process of deciding between the essential and the inessential is under way, it is often difficult to know when to stop."

Perhaps such pruning stops at a "core" Buddhism shorn of ancient metaphysical foliage. But is this demythologized still recognizably Buddhist? One standard proposed shape for this core is Buddhism's emphasis on compassion. Jesus may also have stressed compassion, but whereas Christianity eventually gave us the Spanish Inquisition and pro-life activists screaming abuse at abortion doctors, Buddhists have really walked the walk of their compassionate talk, a sloppy historian of religion might believe. Yet Buddhists are not ethically infallible, as Lopez illustrates by quoting a 1937 letter from the head of Chinese Buddhism to Adolf Hitler suggesting that the Nazi leader adopt Buddhism as Germany's official state religion, thence to convert all of Europe to Buddhism, on the grounds of the Germanic people's origin in "ancient Aryan stock," the ethnic group from which Siddhatha Gotama also hailed. Lopez cites further evidence of the imperfect ethical behavior of practicing Buddhists in his discussion of the tradition's emergence from hierarchically stratified pre-industrial Asian societies, as a result of which the tradition has long struggled to extricate itself from the impact of caste or ethnic prejudice.

Buddhism & Science raises important critical questions about the historical selectivity and demythologizing required to render "Buddhism" consistent with scientific rationality, and the ways in which Buddhist practice has more to do with faith than an inventory of many recent popular accounts of Buddhist philosophy (eg. Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism without Beliefs) might indicate. The book thus succeeds within its own designated parameters to illuminate the extent to which Buddhism and Science are (or rather, are not) strictly compatible. Buddhism is not a science, even if Buddhists are interested in some of the same questions that exercise scientific minds. Buddhism has a mythology, rituals and beliefs that were developed as part of a holistic approach to life emphasizing the necessity of psychological self-mastery, ethical behavior, spiritual community, relationships with wise teachers, and an understanding of the non-essentialist metaphysics explained by the Buddhist idea of "dependent arising"; science is contrastingly allergic to mythology and belief, comprising a huge set of specific sub-disciplines committed to exploring verifiable statements about the physical universe, with little methodological scope thus far to consider how those sub-disciplines interconnect as a whole or what their findings might entail for the day-to-day conundrum of how the average person is supposed to live a happy and meaningful life in a big and complicated cosmos. Buddhism is not just an ancient form of cognitive behavioral therapy; the reduction of 2,500 years of contemplative practice to "the power of positive thinking" is historically inaccurate.

But if Buddhism loses something in its integration with Science, what does Science stand to gain in the process? Although Lopez clearly delineates this question as beyond the scope of the book's cogently argued historical and rhetorical thesis, I suspect this may be a more salient question for many readers drawn to a book with both "Buddhism" and "Science" in its title. Even for practicing Buddhists (to cite myself, at least), the question of whether any particular idea is genuinely "Buddhist" is less important than the question of whether the idea is true. For me, the appeal of ancient texts about techniques of ethical and psychological self-development is the possibility that the techniques might work today. Tradition in this sense has value as a structure through which practice can be taught and understood, but the purpose of practice is to become more insightful and compassionate, not to preserve a tradition. (Although with no tradition to follow whatsoever, perhaps practice would be impossible: as the Heart Sutra puts it, "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.")

What happens in the brain during advanced states of meditation, and how can clinicians and therapists apply meditative skills to help their patients and clients? What is consciousness, and what is its relationship to the nature of reality? These are questions too large to tackle in one short book, but it seems plausible that scientists might feel drawn to Buddhism because it proposes answers to existential problems that until recently scientists regarded as outside the realms of science, but which are now under investigation in empirical terms. If the net volume of humanity's suffering reduces even marginally as an outcome of this Buddhist-inspired investigation, I will personally be thrilled to accept the world's modest gain in exchange for the inevitable metamorphosis of Buddhist traditions. "Impermanence" is at the heart of Buddhist philosophy, after all. What eventually emerges from Science's rapprochement with Buddhism will doubtless differ radically from either of those two traditions as we currently know them. Though whether we will be more likely to act compassionately if or when science confirms the Buddha's ancient wisdom remains perplexing.

[camerata]

"The purpose of the Buddha coming to this world was not to measure the circumference of the world and the distance between the earth and the moon, but rather to teach the Dharma, to liberate sentient beings, to relieve sentient beings of their sufferings," Lopez cites the Dalai Lama commenting.

Exactly.

However, as Lopez shrewdly comments, "once the process of deciding between the essential and the inessential is under way, it is often difficult to know when to stop."

Not really. The Buddha's main message comes through loud and clear in the Pali Canon.

Perhaps such pruning stops at a "core" Buddhism shorn of ancient metaphysical foliage. But is this demythologized still recognizably Buddhist? One standard proposed shape for this core is Buddhism's emphasis on compassion.

Compassion? Then the uniqueness of Buddhism is lost. From a Theravadin perspective it's simple: whatever takes you to (or perhaps these days "toward") nibbana is the essential core of Buddhism.

Who says Buddhism has to be consistent with scientific rationality anyway? It's mental cultivation, and science doesn't know much about the mind or subjective experience yet. Psychotherapy isn't a science either, but it often provides good results.

Buddhism has a mythology, rituals and beliefs that were developed as part of a holistic approach to life emphasizing the necessity of psychological self-mastery, ethical behavior, spiritual community, relationships with wise teachers, and an understanding of the non-essentialist metaphysics explained by the Buddhist idea of "dependent arising"

Right!

[tomahawk]

Quantum mechanics is consistent with Christianity as well as Buddhism, but in certain different respects. it correlates to Catholicism more than Protestantism in that Catholicism espouses a more immediate transcendence to afterlife, whereas Protestantism claims the soul does not enter heaven until judgment day. However it is true quantum physicists do concentrate more on the correlation between quantum mechanics and Buddhism than Christianity.

[B Fuddled]

You can never step into the same river twice.

We are our thoughts. Thoughts are packets of energy. As with molecules, we cannot normally observe ourselves in the present, just in the dead past, or in the imaginary quantum possibilities of the future. Mindful karma and meditation can change this existence for those who are uncomfortable with it.

Edited October 23, 2009 by B Fuddled

[dutchguest]

Osho says the following about the subject:

Enlightenment is sudden, and it cannot be otherwise. It is a jump! It is a discontinuity from your past! Try to understand: if something is gradual, the past goes on remaining in it. If something is gradual, then there is a continuity. There is no gap.

……

For the mind to conceive of this is difficult. How can you conceive of it? How can you conceive of a gap? Something must continue. How can something disappear completely and something new appear? It was absurd for logical minds, it was absurd for scientific minds, just two decades before. But now, for science, it is not absurd. Now they say that deep down in the atom electrons appear and disappear, and they take jumps. From one point the electron takes a jump to another; in between the two it is not. It appears at point A, then disappears and reappears at point B, and within the gap it is no more. It is not there. It becomes absolutely non-existent.

If this is so, it means that non-existence is also a sort of existence. It is difficult to conceive of, but it is so: non-existence is also a sort of existence. It is as if something moves from the visible to the invisible, as if something moves from form to formlessness.

When Gautam Siddharth, the old man who died in Gautam Buddha, was seeking, he was a visible form. When the enlightenment happened, that form completely dissolved into the formless. For a moment there was a gap; there was no one. Then from that formlessness a new form arose. This was Gautam Buddha. Because the body continues in the same way, we think that there is a continuity, but the inner reality changes completely. Because the body continues in the same way, that is why we say "Gautam Buddha" -- that "Gautam Siddharth has now become Gautam the awakened; he has become a buddha."

You can read more about it in the E-book "Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Vol.1", chapter 40, page 6 and further which can be found on the following website:

http://www.oshoworld.com/home.asp