Buddhism and Physics

8/13/2019 Buddhism and Physics

1/17

This article was downloaded by:[University of Chicago]

On: 24 July 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 784375792]

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954

Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary BuddhismAn Interdisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694869

Replanting the Bodhi tree: New paradigms for Buddhist

philosophy from quantum physicsTodd Lorentz a

a University of Alberta,

Online Publication Date: 01 November 2000

To cite this Article: Lorentz, Todd (2000) 'Replanting the Bodhi tree: New

paradigms for Buddhist philosophy from quantum physics', Contemporary

Buddhism, 1:2, 227 242

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14639940008573731

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639940008573731

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,

re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be

complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be

independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or

arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694869http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639940008573731http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639940008573731http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694869


2/17

DownloadedBy:[UniversityofC

hicago]At:18:4724July2008

Contemporary Buddhism,Vol1,No. 2 2000

ReplantingtheBodhi Tree:New ParadigmsforBuddhistPhilosophy from QuantumPhysicsTodd orentzUniversityofAlberta

The axiomsofmaterial realism- materialism, determinism, locality,and soforth-serveduswellin thepast whenourknowledgewasmore limited thanitistoday,but nowthey have becomeourtrap. We mayhaveto let go ofthe chickpeasofcertaintyinordertoembracethefreedom that lies outsidethe material arena.1Our world today seemsto beundergoingthelaborof tremendous change.Fewavenues of knowledge or fortresses of belief appear immune from criticalexaminationandreassessment.Now,more than ever, society appears determinedto scrutinize the roots of long held convictions in order to discover a morecoherent viewof theuniverse in a postmodern world.The disciplines ofbothscienceand art, which were previously segregatedbyconceptual and linguisticchasms, have begunto surrender their alienationto oneanotherand todaretoshare insights formerly buried behind impregnable academic walls. Howeverreluctant we may be in that endeavor, the results have thus far been startling.Buddhism is notfreeofthis inquiryandrecent decades have seentheriseofnewforms of questioning within its hallowed walls. Movements such as EngagedBuddhismandCritical Buddhismareclear examplesof the consequences arisingout of these more recent inquiries into the philosophical, moral and spiritualfoundations ofBuddhism. Buttheseare not the only movements affecting theBuddhist inquiry. More specifically, quantum physicshasforcedus toviewtheuniverse anew and we are being prised away from entrenched attitudesandperspectives.Infact,it mayholdthemost significant keysfor us atthis timetounlockingthecentral truths hidden within Sakyamuni's projectofenlightenment.When viewed through the powerful new lens of quantum physics, we maydiscover a completely original version, or perhaps the original version, of thedream.

Inhisessay,Tathagata GarbhaIs NotBuddhist, Matsumoto Shiro asserts that"Sakyamuni's doctrineofcausality,pratityasamutpada,canonlybe understoodwhen viewed asantitheticalto thetheoryof a singular groundor causeof themanifold world- thatis, to theideaofdhatu-vada. As a consequenceofthis


3/17



Contemporary Buddhismbelief,he makes a further claim that tathagata-garbhathought is not Buddhist."Matsumoto understandspratityasamutpada to mean the "twelvefold chain ofdependent arising that Sakyamuni pondered in its forward and reverse order, andto the truth of which he was awakened." Along with that, I will adopt his use ofthe termdhatu-vadaas "a theory o flocus wherein "the basic structure ofdhatu-vada is that of a singular, real locus (dhatu) that gives rise to a plurality ofphenom ena. We may also speak of it as a 'generative m onism ' or a 'foundationalreal ism '." Additionally, I concur with Matsumoto in asserting that Tathagata-garbhathought [i.e. Buddha-nature] is a formodhatu-vada. With these notionsin hand, we can boldly probe into the realm of quantum physics in order to gainnew insights into the foundations of Buddhism.

For the purposes of this essay, I intend to show that M atsumoto's claim - thatpratityasamutpada is antithetical to dhatu-vada - is incorrect given recentsignificant discoveries in the field of quantum physics. The foundations of myargument w ill rest mainly on the fact that modern physics provides us w ith a newontological framework from which to view those concepts as described in thecentral Buddhist doctrine. Given this new understanding of the Buddhist doctrine -through quantum physics - it will become clear that the notions ofpratityasamutpada anddhatu-vadaare not antithetical, as Matsumoto asserts, butcan be seen as complementary, and even necessary, concepts in forming anunderstanding of S akyamuni's philosophy.Furthermore, I will show that these concepts, like their correspondences inquantum physics, only appear contradictory and antithetical from a linearmaterial-world perspective. That is, as long as the individual is in a state ofawareness that identifies itself with the material form-world, these concepts willappear to them as antithetical notions. The form-world, from the viewpoint ofquantum physics, includes our emotions and thoughts and once an identificationwith those 'form s' is imposed upon or conditions our perceptual filter they create aprison house for the indwelling consciousness.

Finally, I will show that it is this linear perspective of the form-world, and asubsequent identification with those forms, which allows tathagata-garbhathought to be used incorrectly as a justification for social discrimination. Againstthis,I shall be able to promote social responsibility as the truer form of expressionfortathagata-garbha.Th e Principles of Quantum Physics and its Parallels to BuddhistDoctrineI am not a physicist. Nor am I versed in the finer intricacies of mathematics.Therefore, I am not in a position to elucidate the finer proofs of m odern physicsfor the reader. However, this should not deter us from relying on the currenttheories and conclusions provided by leading thinkers in the field of physics. Forexample, we need not understand the many mathematical nuances involved inmanipulating factors within the field of classical Newtonian physics in order to

228


4/17



Todd Lo ntz Replanting the Bo dhi Treeunderstand the basic concepts that they represent such as gravity, centrifugal force,acceleration, etc. Likew ise, we may admit ignorance of the mathem atical proofs inquantum physics while utilizing the principles as described by those whose field itistoarticulate the results of those mathem atical proofs. Euan S quires, Professor ofApplied Mathematics at the University of Durham, speaks to the need for anygroup d iscussing the concepts of m ind - be they psychologists, neuroscientists orphilosophers - to know something about quantum physics. In an examination ofleading texts written on the topic of mind, he finds "that most authors considerphysics to be irrelevant." M ost properly, he comments upon how "their lack ofinterest in physics is strange. How is it possible to argue about materialism,without some words about the nature of 'matter', or about physicalism, unlessthere is some agreement about what 'physics' actually is? As we shall see, thesethings are not trivial." In a similar vein, I maintain that Buddhist scholars,concerned w ith understanding the Buddh a's teachings on Mind, are not immune tothe conclusions of modern physics.

For th e purposes o f our inquiry, it is important to begin with the basic principaldiscoveries in quantum physics in order to understand why it is necessary to thediscussion of mind. I will not be able to provide a comprehensive view ofquantum physics, nor do I feel I need to for my purposes here. I will simply try tocom municate som e of the key concep ts relevant to the fulfillment of my task .The implications of quantum physics upset our picture of the universe in ways

that can initially be difficult to grasp. David Z. Albert, Professor of Philosophy atColumbia University, interprets the fundamental shift required in our thinking:"What needs to be changed is the fundamental ontology of the world. What youhave to do is give up the idea that the world consists of particles . . . and adopt theidea that it consists of something else." The picture that evolves about this'something else' will eventually lead us directly to the heart of the Buddhistdoctrine. One of the key discoveries within the experimental world of quantumphysics was disarmingly simple and direct. An experiment in 1982, by AlainAspect et al, demonstrated a principle known in quantum physics as non-locality,and it evidenced atranscendentnon-material aspect of reality - called thenon-local domain - through which information from one material object (i.e., apho ton) could pass on to and affect the behavior of another material objectbeyondthe restrictions of time and space. That is to say, this signal-less transmission ofinformation could occur between objects instantaneously (faster than the speed oflight) regardless of their individual positions or locations in the universe. For aneffortless understanding of the fundamental conclusions of non-locality, HenryStapp, Professor of Physics in the Law rence Berkeley Laboratory at the Universityof California, stated simply that the message of quantum n on-localityis that "thefundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time but generates events thatcan be located in space-time ." This notion forces us to make an incrediblescientific reformulation of our views on the nature of reality. Not only do w e needto adjust our ontological views of the world, we also need to modify theunderstanding of our relationship in the world. This is our first apparent

2 2 9


5/17



Contemporary Buddhismcontradiction: our first paradox in the experience of the world.Non-localityforcesus to deny our sensual experience of the world, as many B uddhist doctrines haveencouraged, in order to discover and understand the nature of true Reality. Thischallenge is reiterated by Menas Kafatos, Professor of Physics, and RobertNadeau , Professor o f English, both from G eorge Mason U niversity:Modern physics has, of course, consistently provided us with anunderstanding of the character of physical reality at odds with our everydaysense of this reality. But no previous discovery has posed m ore challenges toour sense of everyday reality than the discovery that non-locality is a fact o fnature. Non-locality is a shocking discovery because it appears to subvertthe bias that the world is composed most fundamentally of individualobjects and their non-relational [subject-object] properties.1My interpretation of the implications of non-locality is that, despite what appearsas self-evident to us in the physical world, the non-relational properties ofindividual objects are an illusion: what Sakyamuni might have correctly referredto asMaya.W here it comes to formulating notions about the nature of Reality, weare simply incorrect in holding onto our mundane experience of the world as afield of subject-object relations. This is the first major conclusion of quantumphysics and, as hard as this may be to grasp in the intellectual sense, it seems to beintuitively satisfying when viewed within the Buddhist doctrine of'No-Self.Thisdoctrine of Sakyamuni's seeks to move the individual beyond the experience of,or perceptual approach to, the world in terms of subject-object and forces one tolook beyond the m ental construction of self-identity:

There is no separate self to suffer.The one who understands this is free.This is the path of clarity.and further,

The seeker is no longer dependent on nam e and form.This makes him indeed a seeker.We see, therefore, that this first notion touched upon in quantum physics, that ofnon-locality,and its subsequent undermining o f subject-object relationships, findsa coherent representation within some of the central Buddhist doctrines.Following on this first idea of thenon-localdomain, the next obvious questionsarise as to 'w hat is the non-local domain' and 'ho w does it relate to our experienceof the wo rld?' At this juncture, quantum physics provides us w ith w hat may turnout to be some of the greatest moves yet to understanding the place of mind in theuniverse. Quantum physics recognizes a non-local domain where the physical'subject-object' world lies in potential. That is, this omniscient, omnipresent,

23


6/17



Todd Lorentz Replanting the B odhi Treeenergetic domain comes into an observable physical manifestation under theinfluence of some manifesting mechanism. The action whereby this energy in thequantum state is transformed into physical patterns is called the collapse of thewavefunction. In simpler term, the wave state of energies existing in the quantumnon-localfield is collapsed into a 'particle-state' which we register as apparent inthe physical world. The real work that the quantum theory does for us is that itcompletely opens a new line of debate regarding the causal powers ofconsciousness. To put this into a better perspective we m ight look at an interestingevent related by Dr. Nick Herbert:

In his [John von Neumann's] magisterial tome The MathematicalFoundations ofQuantumPhysics,regarded by many scientists as 'the bibleof quantum theory,' . . . [he addressed the problem that] something newmu st be added to 'collapse the wave function,' som ething that is capable ofturning fuzzy quantum possibilities into definite actualities [i.e., properties].But since von Neumann is forced to describe the entire physical world aspossibilities, the process that turns some of these maybes into actual factscannot be a physical process . . . Searching his mind for an appropriateactually existing nonphysical entity that could collapse the wave function,von Neumann reluctantly concluded that the only known entity fit for thistask w as consciousness.In von Neumann's interpretation, the world remainseverywhere in a state of pure possibility except where some conscious m inddecides to promote a portion of the world from its usual state ofindefiniteness into a condition of actual existence . . . By itself the physicalworld is not fully real, but takes shape only as a result of the acts ofnumerous centers of consciousness.

According to von Neumann, it appears as though it is consciousness alone whichis fit to collapse the wave function of the indeterminate quantum field states intoparticular property states. If this is so, then it becom es clear that we areascribing causal powers to consciousness. But it cannot be just any particularlocalized point of consciousness. This insight into the causal powers ofconsciousness requires that consciousness be a universal property,sub-atomicallypresent in the field of each mathematical point in space, and not simply 'localized'to human brains as we experience it. If we were to confine the concept ofconsciousness to particular loci within individual human brains then the collapseof the wave function required to objectify our entire known universe would,ridiculously so, be the sole task of human minds. Instead, consciousness must beuniversal and unified in its range even though our individual "utilization" ofthatunderlying field of consciousness seems localized and particular. This idea isfurther clarified in an interview with Dr. Larry Dossey, former Chief of Staff ofMedical City Dallas Hospital:

The non-local model [of mind] is . . . not confined in space and time to thebrain and body, although it may work through the brain and body . . .23


7/17



Contemporary BuddhismInfinite, and by inference immortal, eternal, omnipresentall of these areconsequences of anything that is non-local, not just mind. As a result, ifmind is non-local, there is one m ind, or Universal M ind, which is identicalto what the West has regarded as Soul. . . The evidence is overwhelmingthat mind behaves in a non-local way . . . It may be hard to imagine, butphysics experiments have clearly shown that non-locality is thecharacteristic of the world at the sub-atomic level.

Current theories are reaching to the limits of plausibility in an attempt to solidify aview of the quantum world which is phenomenally close to, and allows for, ourpresent experience. But it does not seem so far fetched to consider the possibilitythat there exists only One M ind or O ne Consciousness in the universe. It certainlyis not a new idea. It speaks directly to the notion of tathagata-garbha andBuddha-nature. It also aligns itself quite neatly with the writings on mysticismoffered by Evelyn Underhill. Underhill provides four rules or notes which m ay b eused to describe consistent characteristics or features of the mystic and themystical experience. These characteristics include a revelation into the nature ofReality as One. Her fourth point describes, somewhat, the depth of this revelationas indicated by all who have laid claim to the mystical experience:4. Living union with this One - which is the term of his adventure - is adefinite state or form of enhanced life. It is obtained neither from anintellectual realization of its delights, nor from the most acute emotionallongings. Though these must be present, they are not enough. It is arrivedat by an arduous psychological and spiritual process - the so-called MysticWay - entailing the complete remaking of character and the liberation of anew, or rather latent, form of consciousness; which imposes on the self thecondition which is sometimes inaccurately called 'ecstasy,' but is betternam ed the Unitive State.

Elsewhere, she describes this 'Unitive State' as a profound state of upheavalwithin the individual's identity: "whatever the psychological causes whichproduce it, all mystics agree that this state constitutes a supreme moral crisis, inwhich the soul is finally cleansed of all attachments to selfhood, and utterlysurrendered to the purposes of the Divine Life." We see then, from the opinionsof both the mystics and the quantum physicists, that underlying our presentsuperficial awareness of physical reality lies the distinct possibility of a field ofDivine Mind or, as Buddhist doctrine might suggest, the Buddha-nature orTathagata-garbha. The parallel from tathagata-garbha can be easily drawn towhat the modern physicist would claim as the underlying field of consciousness.Kafatos and Nadeau report on how certain this connection may be:

. . . if one respects the truths of science and believes that they do provide uswith an improved understanding of the conditions for our being andbecoming in the vast cosmos, then narrowly anthropomorphic conceptions232


8/17

DownloadedBy:[UniversityofChicago]At:18:4724July2008

Todd Lorentz Replanting the Bodhi Treeof the character of Being, or of reality-in-itself, do not seem comm ensuratewith the 'vision' of physical reality contained in modern physical theory.What in our view this vision allows us safely to 'infer,' without, veryimportantly, being able to 'prove', is that the universe is conscious. If onecan accept this argument, then the profound sense of alienation that hasseemingly been occasioned by the success of classical [Newtonian] physicsfrom the eighteen century to the present could be rather dramaticallyal leviated . . . .Since our argument is logically consistent and very much in accord withwhat the 'vision' of the cosmos in modern theory 'infers' about reality-in-itself,one need make in our view only a very small leap of faith to come tothe conclusion that the universe is conscious.

Where the Buddhist would assert a presence of the Buddha-nature in all thingsmanifest many physicists assert that the universe is saturated with consciousness;or m ore accurately, the universeisconsciousness.Amit Goswami, Professor of Physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences atthe University of Oregon, agrees with this claim and asserts that a monisticphilosophy of reality is required to incorporate the fundamental features ofquantum ph ysics. For Goswami, the beauty of this type of philosophical viewpointis that it "does not say that matter is unreal, but that the reality of matter issecondary to that of consciousness, which is itself the ground of all being -including m atter."

Goswami goes on to describe his theory of our perception of the materialwo rld. Consciousness has traditionally been understood within scientific circles tobe a specific and local feature, possessed individually, and in varying degrees, byall sentient beings. Whether expressed as rudimentary consciousness (as inanimals) or as a well-developed self-consciousness (as in humans), all sentientcreatures exhibit the ability to clearly and distinctly register experience. Basedon the evidence provided thus far, Goswami suggests that the human mindconsists of two components: the quantum component of brain-mind and theclassical componentof brain-m ind.

The quantum component of the brain-mind is "regenerative and its states aremultifaceted. It is the vehicle for conscious choice and for creativity." This ideaby Goswami is in line with evidence presented by Stapp who states that thedynamics of the firing of synapses in the brain actually functions globally, underthe laws of quantum probability, and that this provides for the unified and holisticcharacteristics of our thoughts. Thisquantum component allows us to tap intoaspects of the underlying quantum field of consciousness and permits us,progressively, to grasp aspects of the world, which would be unavailable to us in astrictly pluralistic material universe. These leaps in insight are often evidenced insuch experiences as intuition, dj vu, ESP, telekinesis, telepathy, near-death-experiences, etc. Thequantum component allows us to peer into that underlyingfield of consciousness which is the ground of all existence and permits us to see233


9/17


10/17



Todd Lorentz Replanting the Bodhi Treewe see the formation of a world view conditioned by a material sensual perceptionof the world. This 'c rea tion' or arising of a mental structure can be seen to directlyparallel the notion ofpratityasamutpada.From a point of original ignorance, theclassical component of the brain-mind pieces together information about theworld from its sensory inputs. This sets in motion a process whereinconsciousness, acting upon theclassicalmind forms a view of the world and itsplace within it. In that process the classical-selfis formed and the consciousness,now fully identified with its construct in the material world, suffers in itsimprisonment and misappropriation. We have, in essence, simply describedpratityasamutpada.

With this perspective in mind we can now develop a view, based on theevidence presented from quantum physics, that provides a coherent picture ofBuddhism which incorporates both of the notions of pratityasamutpada anddhatu-vada.If this can be achieved, then I will have succeeded in casting doub t onMatsumoto's claim that "Sakyamuni's doctrine of causality, pratityasamutpada,can only be understood when viewed as antithetical to the theory of a singularground or cause of the manifold world - that is, to the idea ofdhatu-vada.

PratityasamutpadaandDhatu vadaas Coherent PrinciplesI am reluctant to wade deeply into the debate raised so eloquently by MatsumotoShiro within the boundaries of his approach. I have had little opportunity to readthe vast array of material he has written on the subject and could not criticallycomment on his work in that context. Nor, I am sure, is he studied in the finerimplications of quantum physics. If he had then he would not have been able toignore its implications in his past works. It seems clear to me that his angle ofapproach avoids certain current fundamental perspectives which could serve towholly undermine his arguments. He has organized his critique around animpressive knowledge and understanding of Buddhism and Buddhist texts. Onthese grounds I have not the background to sufficiently analyze his arguments.However, on the strength of certain new discoveries in quantum physics, alongwith their parallels to specific Buddhist concepts, I feel it is possible to enter intothe debate from a unique and, perhaps, somewhat fresh perspective.

Topical Buddhism was a term coined by Hakamaya Noriaki in his book,Critical Buddh ism.Jamie Hubbard relates Hakamaya's view on Topical Buddhismas an "aesthetic mysticism unconcerned with critical differentiation between truthand falsity and not in need of rational demonstration, a kind of thinking that hefeels actually dominates the Buddhist tradition." For example, TopicalBuddhists have attempted to uncover, discover or reveal the truths, already fullypresent in the cosmos, by m olding and re-forming their perception of the universeto conform to the descriptions given throughout a vast array of 'enlightened'Buddhist scripture. Relying on what is often an implied ontological image,combined with a thorough instruction in method and technique, the TopicalBuddhist is usually left to pursue and defend their position without a scientific

235


11/17



Contemporary Buddhismwitness to justify and corroborate the paradoxes they encounter. This canfrequently lead to a misinterpretation and misapplication of central Buddhisttenets where empirical evidence can supply limits to action. Jamie Hubbardprovides an exam ple of this problem b y indicating that "indigenous Japanese ideasand their Buddhist conflagrations have been singled out as contributing to socialinjustice, gender inequality, racism, institutional discrimination, imperialism,political repression, and environmental destruction."

Critical Buddhism, on the other hand, seeks to turn Buddhism on its head andviews every aspect of the doctrine, and its practice, with a critical eye. CriticalBuddhist scholars, such as H akamaya and M atsumoto, have asserted that the truecritical discrimination at the heart of Buddhist doctrine has been misplaced, evenlost. As Hubbard again points out, "where Sakyamuni realized the true nature ofexistence, vanquished suffering, and then taught that truth and the path to thisrealization for the benefit of all, Hakamaya and Matsumoto contend that much ofthe Buddhist tradition has subsequently been busy denying the very possibility oftalking truth." However, Critical Buddhism in its present form lacks significanttools and, typically, the logical analysis and critical evaluation it employs cancreate as narrow a valley of approach a s any other aspect of B uddhism th at it mayattempt to dissect. In the end, it may really offer us no less a paradox, or share ofcontradictions, than anything else. Within the narrow walls of logic and logicalanalysis, Critical Buddhists are often forced to discard any contradiction orparadox in favor of coherence and parsimony, and this may be a suicidal stepwhen dealing with the many non-linear concepts which can be found in bothquantum physics and Buddhism. These non-linear concepts include such notionsas consciousness, Being, transcendence and nirvana. Matsumoto, in his search forconsistency within Buddhist doctrine, has waded into the fields of paradox andnon-linearity. His only reasonable step, in his mind, seems to be to interpret theBuddhist textual evidence in such a way that he is forced to reject the notion ofdhatu-vada, and therefore tathagata-garbha, as non-Buddhist and antithetical topratityasamutpada.Matsumoto claims that his reason for doing this follows fromhis understanding of Sakyamuni's criticism of particular dhatu-vada teachings"whose affirmation of identity and non-discrimination ironically ends up affirmingand abso lutizing actual differences . . ." Specifically, Matsum oto refers to theBrahman-Atman philosophy of the Upanishads, known in India at that time, asone exam ple of this form of idea which appears to endorse inequality. How ever,he m ay be throw ing out the proverbial baby w ith the bath water. While it might betrue that Sakyamuni may have criticized doctrines that appeared to establish anunequal ontologicalstatus between individuals, that does not need to rule out thesimultaneous existence ofpratityasamutpada anddhatu-vadanotions. Sakyamunicertainly recognized a degree of inequality between separate individuals and theirability to understand or practice the Dharma. This is borne out in his initialrefusal, following his enlightenment, to teach the Dharma to the world. It wasonly upon the insistence that there were still some few individuals "who weregenuine seekers of the truth with but little dust on their eyes" that Sakyamuni

236


12/17



Todd Lorentz Rep lanting the Bodhi Treedecided eventually to teach the Dharma. This surely demonstrates that herecognized there to be few who were equal in skill to accomplish the task, whichhe himself had accomplished. If this demonstrates an awareness on his part of therelative and practical inequalities between individuals then his criticism againstinequality would have had to have been leveled at the ontological level. If hiscriticism is aimed at ontological inequality, then he must,at least by implication,have been asserting a form of monistic ontology wherein individuals share acommon equal ground of existence. That is, Sakyamuni musthave recognized auniform or unified ontological model for the phenomenal world (i.e. generativemonism, dhatu-vada, tathagata-garbha, etc.). From this I would assert that it ismore likely that dhatu-vada notions, including tathagata-garbha thoughts, arepurely Buddhist. However, Matsumoto sees a contradiction between the notions ofpratityasamutpadaanddhatu-vada.This warrants our further attention.

At first glance we can recognize an apparent paradox between the notions ofpratityasamutpada and dhatu-vada. The former, pratityasamutpada, is clearly alinear process - a chain of causal events within the conscious or unconsciousexperience of an individual - while the latter,dhatu-vada, is the notion of a non-linear ground of being. Logically, and in the classical view, we ought to discardone or the other as incompatible notions. But quantum physics has forced us toview this in new terms. It has shown us that, at the level of our normal subject-object perception of the world, we live in a paradoxical state at all times. We find,for instance, that "electrons seem to have modes of being, or modes of moving,available to them which are quite unlike what we know how to think about

8 9them ." This mode of existence, if we could clumsily call it that, is termedsuperposition.David Albert attempts to describe for us the curious feature foundwhen, for example, we attempt to pass an electron with one quality through anapparatus designed to measure some second particular quality. For the purposes ofthis experiment he uses the representative description of a 'white' electron whichwill be measured for anothertypeof quality: 'hardn ess' or 'softness ':So what we're faced with is this: Electrons passing through this apparatus,in so far as we are able to fathom the matter, do not take routeh [hard] anddo not take routes [soft] and do not take both of those routes and do nottake neither of those routes; and the trouble is that those four possibilitiesare simply all of the logical possibilities that we have any notion whateverof how to entertain . . .What we say about an initially white electron which is now passing

through our apparatus with the wall out is that it's not onh[hard] and not ons [soft] and not on both and not on neither, but rather, that it's in asuperposition of being on h and being on s. And what this means (otherthan 'no ne of the above') we don 't know.Here we have a pure paradox: a paradox that occurs when we view it from alogical linear perspective. The electron's quality is both 'is not' and 'is not not' at

237


13/17



Contemporary Buddhismthe same time. It is neither one quality, nor the other, nor neither, nor both. If weadopt the standard of a physical subject-object oriented universe, then we areconsumed in contradiction when faced with the principles demonstrated inquantum physics. However, add to the equation notions such as non-linearity,non-localityandsuperposition,and the world becomes a playful dance between aninfinite im material unified universal consciousness and its temporary and transientmaterial appearance. While this universal consciousness is functioning through thematerial forms, such as within the hum an brain, its experience or perception o f thephysical world becomes localized. As Goswami suggested earlier in the essay, thisexperience of a localized existence through theclassical componentof the hum an,brain-mind sets up a conditioned response and identification with that materialform. In effect, the unified field of consciousness individualizes itself through andwithin its particular temporary forms. This idea and process of conditionedexistence runs directly parallel to the notion ofpratityasamu tpada.Furthermore, itdoes so while maintaining the underlying monistic non-local domain, ortathagata-garbha (dhatu-vada). The notions of pratityasamutpada and dhatu-vada can be seen to fit seamlessly over the notions of a classicaland quantumcomponentof the brain-mind.Pratityasamutpadacan be seen as relating directlyto the formation of a conditioned ego, or T-identity, within the subject-objectexperience of the classicalself.The twelvefold features o f the pratityasamutpadaare all representative of notions within a linear subject-object causal fram ework ofperception. Tathagata-garbhacan be seen as a direct reflection of the quantumself which exists as the underlying field of universal consciousness. Here, linearand non-linear worlds 'ap pe ar' diametrically opposed yet come together to form acoherent description of our world when viewed w ithin the boundaries of quantumphysics. For Matsumoto, this calls into question his assertion that the doctrine ofpratityasamutpada is antithetical to the theory of dhatu-vada. On the contrary, wesee that quantum physics demands the occurrence of these two notions,functioning in unison, in order to provide a coherent view of Reality.

The next major hurdle to be faced in this essay deals with Matsumoto's claimthat "far from being a teaching of equality, the doctrine of tathagata-garbhaseems. . . to be an argument for social discrimination." Based on the evidenceprovided here, I will show how easily this error can creep into social thinking and,therefore, expression.As I have shown, it is clear that the doctrine of tathagata-garbhais a teachingof equality in the ontological sense. That is, within the auspices of quantumphysics, that underlying consciousness (i.e. Buddha-nature), which is at the root

and existence of all being, is One. All beings can be said to possess thisunderlying Buddha-nature or consciousness, but express it in varying degreesrelative to the efficiency of the form within which they have localized, as well asthe ability developed to overcome their identification with the material formworld. However, while individuals set their minds to the task of considering suchnotions astathagata-garbha,they will be doing so, for the most part,throughtheirownclassical componentof the brain-mind. T his means that it will be difficult for

238


14/17



Todd Lorentz Rep lanting the Bodhi Treehum an m inds to even conceptualize the notion of tathagata-garbhain their brainsinto any true fashion other than within a linear pluralistic subject-object worldview. The fact that they are even pondering on such an idea, as an individual(i.e.from the standpoint that they are an individual locuspondering on it), speaks tothe perceptual prejudice inherent in any potential outcomes.T athagata-garbha,then, remains a concept in theirclassical mind butfails to becom e a reality withinthe individual's own experience of reality or awareness. As long as it remains aconcept or an idea it can be used in any fashion relative to a rationalization orjustification of behavior. Only when the concept of tathagata-garbha (i.e. trueOneness Consciousness) becomes an actual reality within the experience of theindividual w ill they be able to see the world from a quantum perspective and actfrom a true knowledge of Reality. From this we can see that no individual, unlessthey ha ve achieved a level of enlightenment into the experience o f Oneness, canuse the doctrine of tathagata-garbha as a justification for any action. Thisincludes justifications for all forms of sexism, racism and/or social discrimination.Until an individual is fully immersed in the actual experience of tathagata-garbha, they must perforce proceedpractically in their actions based upon theirlinear subject-object experience of the world. This, in consequence, provides thejustification for asserting that the individual has a responsibility to act in the formworld in such a way as to end suffering. In addition to that, one can be reassuredon the theoretical basis that the source of all Being is One, and that to aid inreducing the suffering of another is similarly reducing the suffering of all. This,then, denies the claim by Matsumoto that the doctrine of tathagata-garbhais anargument for social discrimination. As I have shown, it is only in ignorance thatindividuals have incorrectly used the doctrine of tathagata-garbha as ajustification for social discrimination.

ConclusionThe body of evidence provided by quantum physics has offered us a newapproach to viewing the problems raised by proponents of Critical Buddhism.M ore specifically, I have shown how the view put forth by Matsumoto Shiro - tha tthe doctrine ofpratityasamutpada is antithetical to the theory oftathagata-garbha-is incorrect. It is clear that there are direct parallels betweenpratityasamutpadaand the classical componentof brain-mind, as well as between tathagata-garbhaand the quantum component of brain-mind, and these can be seen to form acoherent and parsimonious v iew of the world and our experience in it. Contrary toMatsumoto's claim, these notions actually depend upon one another in order tofulfill the image or conception of a world understood in terms of quantum ph ysics .Furthermore, I have shown that the notion of tathagata-garbha offers amonistic ontological view of the world that only appears paradoxical orcontradictory to the idea ofpratityasamutpada when viewed from our typicallinear material world perspective. Within the boundaries of reality offered in"quantum physics, such as non-locality, the apparent paradoxes are shown to be

239


15/17



Contem porary Buddhismillusions created within the framework of the classical component of the brain-mind. This illusion is reflected in the Buddhist termMaya.

Finally, I have shown that it is not the doctrine of tathagata-garbhaitself,which is responsible for social discrimination. Instead, social discrimination isjustified through the incorrect perception oftathagata-garbhathought within theclassical comp onentof the brain-mind. The interpretation of this concept, througha linear subject-object perception of ourselves and others, leads to themisapplication of this doctrine. What we can claim, instead, is that within aclassical material experience of the world the individual must act responsibly inaccordance to the conditions of their own identification with that material world.Only by transcending their identification with the material world would they beable to m ake choices from atathagata-garbhaperspective.

The project that I have set out to accomplish can be seen as complete.However, it is clear that it raises additional questions. For instance, how do weincorporate the concept of Karma within the limits of quantum physics?Additionally, where do we find room for Reincarnation or Transmigration? Whilequantum physics has begun to look at these concepts and is beginning to shedlight on them, it is beyond the scope of this essay to elaborate further on thosefindings. My purpose here, nevertheless, is concluded, and quantum physics has-provided us w ith a new and exciting approach to forming insights into B uddhism.Where Critical Buddhists have attempted to 'prune the Bodhi tree', we may seethis essay as an attempt to reestablish the original doctrines of Buddhism in linewith new discoveries in modern physics. In essence, we have m ade an attempt toreplant the Bodhi tree.

ReferencesAlbert, David Z. 1992. Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.Aspect, Alain, J. Dalibard and G. Roger. 1982. "Experimental Test of Bell InequalitiesUsing Time-Varying A nalyzers." Physical Review Letters49.Bancroft, Ann e. (ed. & trans.). 1997.The Dhammapada.Rockport: Element Books.Bercholz, Samual and Sherab Chdzin Kohn. 1993.Entering the Stream: An Introductionto the Buddha and His Teachings. Boston: Shamballa Pub lications.Goswami, Amit. 1993.The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material

World.New York: Penguin Putnam.Herbert, Nick. 1993.ElementalMind:Human Consciousness and the New Physics. NewYork: Penguin Book s.Hubbard, Jamie, and Paul L. Swanson. (eds.). 1997.Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The StormOver C ritical Buddhism . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Kafatos, Menas and Robert Nadeau. 1990. The C onscious Universe: Part and Whole inModern P hysicalTheory. New York: Springer-Verlag New York.Squires, Euan. 1990. Conscious Mind in the Physical World Philadelphia: Institute ofPhysics Pub lishing.Stapp, Henry P. 1977. "Are Superluminal Connections Necessary." Nuovo Cimento 40B:191-9.Und erhill, Evelyn. 1914. The Mystic Way: A Psychological Study in Christian Origins.

240


16/17



ToddLorentz Replantingth Bodhi TreeNew York:J. M.Dent Sons.1955. Mysticism:A Study in theNatureandDevelopmentof Man's SpiritualConsciousness.NewYork:TheNoond ay Press.Whitfill, Betsy.1991."RecoveringtheSoul:An Interview withDr.Larry Dossey" ShareInternational Vol. 10, No. 7,13-14.

Notes1 Am it Goswami.1993, p. 47.2 Hubbard Swanson,p.165-173.3 ibid p. 172.4 ibid p. 172.5 Ibid p. 165.6 ibid p. 169.7 ibid p. 171.8 ibid p. 172.9 Squires, Euan,1990, p. 3.10 ibid p. 311 Albe rt, DavidZ. 1992, p. 59.12 Aspect, Alainet al. 1982, p. 1804.13 Stapp, HenryP. 1977, p.191-9.14 Kafatos Nadeau.1990, p. 1.15 TheDhamm apada. (trans Bancroft), verse279, p. 81.16 Ibid, verse367, p. 98.17 Herbert, 1993, p.155-6.18 Theissue hereis notwhetherthecollapse occurs fromaquantum stateto a 'physicalproperty' state. That has already been empirically proven. The difficulty presentlyconcerning quantum physicists is one of determining exactly when the collapseactually occurs.For instance, doesthe collapse occuras the 'experiment' beginsordoes it occur whenthe final measured propertyof theexperiment is registered as a'mental state' in the observer? Answers to these questions, if they can even beanswered, would bringusmuch closerto defining exactlyhowconsciousness playsacausal role.19 Whitfill,1991, p. 13.20 U nderhill,1955, p. 81.21 U nderhill,1914, p. 55.22 K afatos Nadeau,p. 10.23 Goswami,p. 10-11.24I chosetheword 'experience' to indicate consciousness in a global sense. Therearemany definitions and gradations, however, that would confine this feature strictlytohumans. Consciousness, in the way employed here, doesnot require the abilitytounderstandor analyze experiences, only that experience occursandelicitsacoherentresponse; psychologically, emotionallyorphysically.25 Goswami,p. 162.26 Stapp,p.132-3.27 Th is classical component consists mainlyof the biological (physical) brain whichstores sensory data, thoughtsandmem ories.28 Goswami,p. 162.29 Ibid p. 191.30 Ibid p. 194.31 Hubbard Swanson,p. 172.32 ibid p. vii.

241


17/17



Contemporary uddhism33 ibid,p.viii.34 ibid,p . vii.35 ibid p.172.36 ibid,p.172.38 Bercholz&Kohn,p . 18.39 Albert,p. 11.39 I sayclumsily because "modeofexistence" suggestsaphysical 'form' or 'presence'of some sort. However, in its quantum state, it doesnotexist in anysense thatwemight recognize it as in the material world. From the perspective of thephysicalworlditdoesn't really 'ex ist'yet;onlyinpotential.40 Albert,p. 11.41 Hubbard&Swanson,p. 167.42 Itwouldbeuseful tointroducetheparallels hereto theBuddhist conceptofsunyata,ortheemptinessofforms andconcepts. However, space doesnotallowme toenterinto thisin asignificant way.Nevertheless,thereader's interestmay besparked hereto ponder on the possibilities. A close reading of this text should offer enoughgroundstorecognizetheplaceofsunyatawithinthenotionsofquantum physics.Forexample,w e can see theemptiness withintheidentification ofconsciousness withthe'thought-form' of ' I ' in theclassical componentofthe brain-mind.

242

Buddhism and Physics

Documents

Transcript of Buddhism and Physics