January Q&A Transcript

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Hello, everyone. Hi there. Good to see you. We are giving you a few minutes to come in. People are still joining us from the waiting room. Welcome, everyone. It’s very nice to see you. Um, I think I see some names that are definitely familiar. Yes. Some faces that come back regularly now. So nice to see you again. 

This is the second Q&A session of our online course on Buddhism and Quantum Physics. And some of you, probably most of you are students in our course. Well others might also just come in because you’re interested in discourse or if you’re interested in the theme or the topic of today. 

This is meant to be a Q&A session and kind of information session about the course. But of course, there’s also a lot of information and new content that will come up. I hope it’s interesting for everyone. And let me start with introducing myself. 

My name is Sajda van der Leeuw. I’m a project manager here at Science & Wisdom LIVE, which is a project of Jamyang Buddhist Center London, and where Marco Colnaghi here is also a project manager. And we have Josh here spotlighted as well. We’ll start with the presentation about introducing enrollment. Thank you for joining us today. 

Today we’re recording but it’s not a video recording. We want to make sure that you will feel comfortable asking questions without, you know, being recorded and feeling it’s kind of an official thing. So we’re just recording because of the audio and we will share a transcript and an anonymized transcript later on after the meeting, so that we have a record of this meeting. And we can actually share the questions with everyone. Feel free just to keep your screen on and you know, there’s no recording in terms of video. 

This Q&A session is about Buddhism and Quantum Physics. It’s an e-course that we announced in September of last year, so swiftly through and it’s really meant to answer content-related questions from our students, of course, and of course also to help people who are interested in taking the course to get a bit of a better view of what this course is about. 

It will be quite an informal session, where S we have about an hour and a half together. The first part will be a presentation on the topic by Josh Barber here, after which we will go to the Q&A part of the session. And in there we can really talk about content-related questions that some of you have submitted. To us before this meeting. And if we have more time, we can also take other questions that spontaneously come up today. So you know, that will just be an informal Q&A later on. 

Please know that if you have any technical questions about the course this is not the place to ask them. If you have a technical problem going on with your ecourse please send us an email to hello@sciwizlive.com because that’s a much better way for us to help help you there. 

We’re a really happy room here, so it’s a possibility for you all to connect together. To also connect with some of our wonderful online learning researchers, and volunteers who are working with us on the team. And we’re just so fortunate to have such skilful and knowledgeable people on our team. Were willing to share their time and insights with our students and community so it’s a pleasure for us to introduce them. For further we’ll hand over to work over here. Thanks, Marco.

Marco SciWizLIVE  

Thank you, Sajda, and greetings to everyone. So Josh Barber is one of our academic research volunteers. Professionally, he works as a consultant lawyer specializing in film, television and copyright. And his outside interests extend well beyond this. He holds a degree in modern history from Oxford University and various post graduate qualifications in law, including one from King’s College London. 

He recently completed an MA in Buddhist studies at the University of South Wales and He then started and a Master of Science in philosophy, science and religion at the University of Edinburgh. He is affiliated with Summerlin and he’s a Maha Mudra student of his Excellency, His Excellency, Tai Situ Rinpoche. He also has an interest in other Buddhist traditions as well as spiritual and mystical traditions outside of Buddhism. Josh is also currently producing a documentary film on rebirth. And after his presentation, Josh will be joined by Manuel and Allan.

Manuel has recently graduated from his studies in physics, and will soon be starting a PhD in quantum foundation foundations. This is an area of physics which is informed by philosophy to try and understand the fundamental aspects of physical theories better, especially quantum theory to gain deeper insights into the structure of reality. 

Apart from physics, mathematics and philosophy, manual is also fascinated by cognitive science and contemplative traditions. And after his graduation, he traveled to India and Nepal to deepen his meditation practice. attending courses and retreats in various monasteries and meditation centers, mostly learning about Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism as well as yoga. 

And finally, Allan Furic is a PhD candidate in science and religion at the University of Edinburgh. And he’s working on a thesis focused on interconnectedness in quantum metaphysics and Buddhist philosophy. He originally trained as a historian obtaining a BA in European history, and a an an MPhil in medieval history, from the University of nuns, and he then earned an MSc in science and religion from Edinburgh after he began his doctoral program. 

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Aside, Allan is also deeply interested in contemporary practices of embodied spirituality originating in Asian religions such as modern yoga and meditation, which he practices regularly. And it’s one of the great pleasures for me of working for Science & Wisdom LIVE, besides engaging with exciting content is having the pleasure of working with really amazing people such as Josh Manuel and Allan, so I’m really happy to have to be here with you all. Tonight so now Josh: The floor is yours.

Josh Barber  

Hello, everyone. Thank you very much for the introduction. And welcome to this seminar session. It’s great to see so much interest from you all whether you’re doing the course or thinking about doing the course or have no intention of doing the course it’s everyone’s welcome today. 

As Marco said, my name is Josh I’m one of the volunteers at science and wisdom live. And I’m talking to you from my home in Ramsgate in Kent by the sea where the weather is quite cloudy today. It was nice earlier on but it’s clouding over. And I was going to introduce myself but I’ve already been introduced thoroughly so I won’t bore you with my credentials. 

The session that I’m going to give you before the q&a is probably going to take up about half of our time today. And rather than sort of slugging you with any more physics than you’ve already got on the course, the idea is to take bit more of a philosophical angle, and sort of step back and crystallize the general themes that tie Buddhism and quantum physics together. 

So with the hope that when you go back to the course or other reading or whatever, the threads will sort of hang together a little bit better. And then we’ll then we’ll then we’ll move on to q&a and you’ll get the benefit of Allan and Manuel’s inputs as well. Before we dive in as this is a kind of Dharma session of sorts, I thought it would be useful and appropriate if we started with a brief, very brief breathing space meditation. 

If you want to it’s not not compulsory, just to settle our minds and clear any distractions. And get into the right frame of mind for thinking about what’s quite a deep fatigue topic. 

I’m actually going to turn my video off and then afterwards we’re going to offer a share a slide presentation but for the purposes of the meditation, I didn’t go invite you all to get settled and comfortable. Wherever you’re sitting. Take a deep breath. And then just prepare yourself to spend a few minutes focusing inwards and away from any external distractions. Okay, so why do we settle I’m going to start by chiming about

Okay, so it’s good to start by making a definite change in your posture. So that embodies a sense of being awake. Perhaps straightening your back and relaxing your shoulders. Perhaps closing the eyes if that’s possible. And allowing yourself to relax and let any tension drain away from your face.

And from your torso your arms, your hands, your legs and your feet and starting by just seeing what’s going on in your in your mind and body right now. What’s the weather pattern like inside what thoughts are around? What feelings are here? Are there any sensations in the body? Not trying to change anything but opening to what’s already there.

Then moving to the next stage, bringing the attention to the breath. Narrowing the spotlight of attention onto the sensations of the breath in the abdomen coming into the changing physical sensations of the in breath for its full duration and the outbreath for its full duration and if the mind wanders, just acknowledging where it went and gradually escorting it back to the breath.

Now to the next stage, expanding the focus of your awareness around the breath to take in the whole body. 

As if the whole body were breathing,

aware of your posture your facial expression,

sensations on the surface of the skin and from right inside the body,

holding in awareness, all of the sensations in your body right now. Just as they are,

coming home to the body

coming home to this moment.

We’ve all arrived in the room a little bit calmer and clearer a little bit more open. And then with a sense of focus and purpose. We’ll move on to thinking about this object and feel free to open your eyes when you’re ready.

Okay. So Buddhism and quantum physics. So what on earth is all that about? So here are two two subjects really. They’re not necessarily subjects that you automatically put in the same breath. And neither subjects is exactly straightforward or obvious. in its own right. I’m going to assume that most of you have at least done a bit of the course I have a basic understanding of what each of Buddhism and quantum physics is. 

But what I want to do in this session is really just give a top level overview, as I say of what the interface between these two is, or in other words provide a kind of framework which will help hopefully help order your thoughts about the subject and for approaching the course and any subsequent reading or studying that you might do.

That slide what are we trying to say? Well, there is, when it comes to this subject of Buddhism quantum physics, what you could call a spectrum of approaches. At one end of the spectrum, I think people can say too much. 

You sometimes hear people saying things like quantum physics proves Buddhism true, or some such sort of quite outlandish statement like that. And you get people invoking quantum physics to try to give credence to whatever wacky pursuit they like, which is why there’s a picture of a wacky looking man on the screen. Because there’s a lot of mystery around interpreting the quantum realm. 

It’s easy for people to try to use the word quantum, to justify irrational beliefs are sorted magical thinking or just other misunderstandings. And this is often criticized as quantum woowoo. Quantum physics is also highly mathematical. So none of us without math degrees, myself included, should claim to understand more than we do about it from that perspective. 

However, at the other end of the spectrum, I think people can say too little. There’s a kind of defeatist attitude along the lines that well, there’s nothing we can say about quantum physics, so why bother? Or there’s so many interpretations of quantum physics at how do you choose one. And many scientists working in the field don’t even attempt to engage with the philosophical interpretation behind what they’re doing. 

They just get on with the job of working with the equations and predicting the outcome of experiments. And this is called the so called shut up and calculate approach. So I’d say that there’s there’s some truth in both of these positions which we should be mindful of. 

On the one hand, we do need to be wary of lapsing into kind of unsubstantiated quantum Woo. On the other there is something to be said for sticking with the maths where we’re on solid ground, and not over speculating. 

But what I want to advocate here, which I think is the position of science and wisdom live generally, is that the best place to settle is at neither of these extremes, but instead navigate a kind of middle way between them, which is of course, a characteristically Buddhist approach. 

In practice, what this means is that there are several interesting parallels and correspondences between the findings of quantum physics and modern physics more generally, and the insights of Buddhist philosophy, but these are quite generalized correspondences, not precise correlations. But in most respects, correspondences are also shared by other mystical traditions. So Buddhism shouldn’t claim exclusive ownership of them or in some respects, but its philosophy has articulated its ideas in this area, in perhaps greater depth and other traditions. 

The point of doing what we’re doing with the course is to simply highlight the parallels. And in so doing, introduce Buddhists and those interested in Buddhism to to physics in a way that they might not otherwise have done, and also to introduce those interested in physics and science to a palatable and relatable spirituality in the form of Buddhism. 

I’d also say that the comparison creates something greater than the sum of its parts, hopefully offering something more illuminating insights than than existed before the comparison was made. 

Okay, so next, I just want to make some general points about the Buddha and Buddhism and its relationship to science. So first, there’s a sense in which the Buddha was a scientist of sorts. He took an empirical approach to the world, relying on direct experience as his ultimate guide. 

He employed rigorous methods of investigation, particularly into the nature of mind. And so he could be called a kind of scientist of the mind. However, in another sense, his intentions were quite other than those of modern day scientists. His observations concerns subjective experience, rather than Objective observations about the external world. 

Moreover, his ultimate goal was not to investigate the workings of physical reality. His ultimate goal was therapeutic. And he said, I teach only one thing, suffering and its end. So from that perspective, you might not expect to find very many parallels between his teachings and those of modern physics. 

And why is there a picture of someone holding a handful of leaves on the slide? Well, that’s because the Buddha famously said, just as the leaves in the trees are more numerous than the leaves in my hands. So the things I know from direct knowledge are far more numerous than what I teach as my dharma. In other words, he claimed to know many things, but only chose to teach those things that were useful and relevant to the overall goal of transcending suffering. 

There were also a number of questions on which he remained silent, called the undetermined questions. Whether the universe is eternal in time, whether it’s infinite in space, the exact relationship between the mind and the body and the status of an enlightened being after death. The questions are whether the universe is eternal and infinite, are clearly kinds of questions that would interest a physicist. 

But for the Buddha trying to answer them wasn’t useful to the path of overcoming suffering, and indeed, could lock you into a kind of limited thinking. That actually makes it harder to pursue the Buddhist path out of suffering. 

However, even though the Buddha’s intention was not to investigate the nature of physical reality in the manner a physicist, nonetheless claimed to have direct experiential insight, through deep meditation into the nature of reality, which by definition includes physical reality. From that perspective, it’s unsurprising that certain correspondences and parallels into the insights of Buddhism or physical physics do become apparent. 

And finally, when talking about Buddhism, we should always bear in mind that it has developed a lot over time and Buddhism and how good people saw the Buddha differs in some important respects as between early early Buddhism, which survives today most intact as the as the Tera Vaada school. Later Mahayana philosophy such as my yarmulke and yogic current philosophy and then even later Eastern Buddhism with its innovations such as quiet and the awakening of faith. 

Okay, so, those are some general points about Buddhism. Now to make some, some points about quantum physics so in particular, as the course makes clear, it’s really important to understand that there isn’t one single interpretation of quantum physics. 

Quantum physicists and philosophers of science disagree about what the strange and mysterious world of quantum realm actually means. The only thing people agree on is that there are a set of mathematical equations, such as the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg equation that seemed to work. 

In fact, they are the most successful equations in physics and repeatedly predict the outcome of quantum measurements with extreme accuracy. So there’s no doubt that quantum physics is true. The question is, what does it mean? And as I said, One popular response among physicists is simply to ignore the question and to interpret as to how to interpret results and simply shut up and calculate, but that isn’t very satisfactory, or illuminating. 

Some other key interpretations aren’t covered in the course but just wanted to briefly go over the the main ones again. So there’s the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the measurement of the observer is playing a critical role in changing quantum states or collapsing the wavefunction and in its most extreme form, von Neumann Vigna. Interpretation, consciousness itself is seen as leading to such experimental results. Then there’s the many worlds interpretation which is very, very different and claims that the wave function doesn’t collapse at all. 

And that in fact, all quantum possibilities play out in a vast multiplicity of endlessly branching out real universes. The hidden variable interpretation, most famously that of David Bohm, who’s pictured at the bottom of the slide, and too broadly and this is also called pilot wave theory sees hidden variables as carrying missing information about quantum states, which then manifest in the ways that we observe. 

The spontaneous collapse interpretation sees unstable quanta within a system as spontaneously collapsing at a particular rate to more general stable states characteristic of classical macroscopic system. The relational interpretation is discussed at length by Carlo Rovelli in the course video materials and this sees any interaction as a measurement. And any system is playing the role of observer, whereby a particular measurement only refers to the values of the quantum system relative to the observing system.

And so called cubism only interprets the wave function as a summary of our subjective knowledge of what happens it describes only the information that we have is an observation doesn’t change anything in the external world, but only the information that we have changes. 

So these are some of the key ones. They’re all backed up one way or another with their own mathematical frameworks. But there are a number of others. There’s the transactional interpretation, Penrose interpretation and modal interpretation and ensemble interpretation, a sum over histories, interpretation, and possibly even more besides. 

The key point is just as when we’re thinking about Buddhism, we need to be aware that it takes different forms and be clear about which form we’re talking about. Similarly, we need to be aware that when we’re talking about quantum physics, there are numerous interpretations of what it could mean, and therefore only hold on to any views on the subject lightly and provisionally, which is anyway a good Buddhist approach to life. It could be and probably are all wrong. 

Okay. With all those caveats, and all that background aside, I’d like to run through a kind of checklist of what the general parallels and correspondences between Buddhism and quantum physics actually are. So I’ve divided this into three broad categories and three slides, the first of which is under the title emptiness. And in this slide, I’ve laid out several sort of subcategories of what this can in turn be taken to mean in ways that relate to the insights of quantum physics. 

So what is emptiness in Buddhism? Well, it’s an English translation of the Sanskrit word Sunyata and refers to the ultimate nature of reality. It does not mean nothingness. That would be nearly nihilism, which Buddhism simply doesn’t recognise. But it does refer to the way that nothing in reality has any inherent autonomous existence, or permanence. Instead, everything depends on other things for its existence, which in turn depend on other things for their existence and so on without limitation. 

So reality is seen in terms of a middle way between solid paternalism on the one hand and nothingness on the other. It manifests as an interconnected web of mutually interacting and reinforcing dynamic processes. Emptiness therefore implies insubstantiality Buddhism has always maintained the insubstantial and impermanent nature of phenomenon, and quantum physics seems to agree, it sees quantum entities as insubstantial evanescent phenomenon, that lack any kind of inherent solidity. 

They can’t be pinned down, according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and can only be described in terms of ghostly waves of probability manifesting at a particular place and time in a particular way. So, the emptiness also implies that the nature of reality at the fundamental level consists not of solidly existing immutable billiard ball like particles, but as events or processes, relations, dynamic systems in continual flow. 

The English mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, it’s the gentleman pictured in black and white on the slide, developed this idea is in the early 20th century, what’s known as process philosophy. And he did so partly in response to the findings of quantum physics. But his basic insight was first articulated by the Buddha two and a half 1000 years before.

Crucially, emptiness also implies interconnectedness, which is a fundamentally important tenet of Buddhist philosophy. If nothing possesses inherent existence, and everything is dependently originated then everything is deeply and intricately interrelated and interconnected with profound consequences for our ethical behaviour, as well as how we view the outside world. 

So again, the understanding of reality illuminated by physics, especially quantum physics shows that the universe is indeed deeply and mysteriously interconnected. We see this in various ways, but nowhere is that more apparent than with the phenomenon of nonlocality and Bell’s theorem and the phenomena of quantum entanglement, which Einstein called spooky action at a distance. 

Ideas of interconnectedness or nonlocality are also very important in David bones hidden variables interpretation. Later Buddhist ideas such as those of why yen in eastern Buddhism in the Avatamsaka sutra, take the idea of interconnectedness even further into the notion of interpenetration described our famous metaphor of Indra’s net, in which all things that seem to contain all other things like a cosmic hologram. And there’s a similar holographic principle in string theory, which is one of the more recent theories that elaborate on the original ideas of quantum physics. 

There was also a popular view in quantum physics called the bootstrap theory, in which all phenomenon in the universe was similarly seemed to be uniquely determined by mutual self consistency. Although more recently, the bootstrap model has fallen out of favor largely due to a comparative lack of experimental support for its for its predictions. 

Okay, so when talking about emptiness, we can also think in terms of the literal emptiness of the universe, much of which looks like a void. So a hydrogen atom for example, is about I need to get this right it’s about 99.999999999996% empty space. And at the very large astronomical scale, there are similarly vast empty spaces between stars and galaxies. So modern science reveals that physical reality is indeed largely empty. 

But just as the Buddhist void isn’t nothingness, but rather pregnant with possibility. So even empty space in quantum physics is seen as pregnant with energy in the form of fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field. So what seems empty isn’t truly nothingness at all.

And finally, for this slide, emptiness implies a vision of reality in which all manifest things exist relative to each other. There’s no absolute reality this Buddhist vision of a relative and relational reality is a precursor to both Einstein’s theory of relativity, which describes reality on the largest scale and also to Carlo Rovelli is relational interpretation of quantum mechanics at the smallest scales. And that’s why there’s a nice picture of Carlo valid on that slide.

Okay, so the second of these three broad buckets of parallels and correspondences on this slide are under the label of consciousness. So now I don’t spend too much time on consciousness in this section, partly because consciousness is very much the subject of the next module in science and wisdom live. So if you’re interested, sign up for that module, if you haven’t already, but it’s still important to address the concepts here. 

We’ve already seen how the Buddha can be seen as the kind of scientist at the mind, who studied consciousness directly using rigorous discipline methods. The opening line of the Dharma Pardo, perhaps the closest text to a kind of generally accepted Buddhist bible reads the mind is the basis for everything. 

Everything is created by my mind and is ruled by my mind. So that mind or consciousness has an autonomous fundamental reality. What will it say a fundamental reality has always been central to Buddhist philosophy. The later yogachara or mind only school elaborated on this much more than any other saying we can’t know the world directly other than through mind. Therefore, mind is the most important aspect of reality. 

Just to be clear, though, even the Yogachara school didn’t necessarily deny any reality beyond mind, as you often hear so it’s important to note that Buddhism shouldn’t be conflated with idealism necessarily, which is the idea that mind is the only reality or worse solipsism, which is the idea that my mind my individual mind is the only reality although in later Eastern Buddhism, particularly with the Huayan school, the idea developed that all phenomena were the expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind, which is also likened to the Buddha nature as a kind of cosmic principle. 

Anyway, nuances aside, the key point is that in Buddhism consciousness is seen as a fundamental part of reality. In modern philosophy, there are various possible responses to the hard problem of consciousness ie the question of the relationship between the physical brain and the experience of subjective consciousness. The predominant philosophical view among scientists is one of scientific materialism. So the view that only matter exists, and that consciousness is a mere illusion, or at best a kind of shadowy, shadowy but inconsequential epiphenomenon of brain activity, whatever that even means. 

Obviously, that view doesn’t sit very well with Buddhism. Even though the Buddha was silent as to the exact relationship between the body and mind. It’s clear that he saw mind as fundamental in some way and not as an illusion. There are various other possible positions in the philosophy of mind apart from scientific materialism, which will be looked at in the next module. 

Turning to quantum physics, specifically, as we’ve seen, there’s a considerable range of interpretations but one very popular one is the Copenhagen interpretation, which is really a family of different interpretations all predicated on the idea that the act of measurement impacts the outcome of the quantum experiments.

 So there are different flavours of this interpretation, but many of them equate the act of measurement with the presence of an observer, ie a conscious observer such as a human being. And so in that way, consciousness has given a central role in the workings of, of quantum mechanics. And taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. The Von Neumann Wigner interpretation, as I’ve said, goes as far as saying that consciousness itself leads to particular experimental results at the quantum level. 

Now, the implication of this kind of thinking was summed up neatly by the American theoretical physicist John Wheeler, when he said we live in a participator universe. However, whilst the Copenhagen interpretation in its sort of milder form, enjoys a robust and healthy reputation among quantum physicists and philosophers still, given the prevailing attitude of scientific materialism, it’s not surprising that the full blown Von Neumann Wigner interpretation is somewhat contentious. Not withstanding that both von Neumann and Wigner were two of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of their time. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that possible connection between consciousness and quantum level activity has been an important thread since the earliest days of quantum physics. 

This points to the possibility of consciousness being a fundamental component of reality, rather than an illusion or epiphenomenon. And one that can’t be separated from the rest of reality, which would fit very well with a Buddhist conception. I should also mention that although the hidden variables interpretation doesn’t rely on observers or consciousness, specifically in the manner of Copenhagen ideas, its primary architect David Bohm. Later elaborated his interpretation into a broader holistic vision of an intricate and explicate order in which consciousness and matter was seen to be unified in an interconnected whole. And in doing so, he was very much influenced by Eastern ideas. 

Finally, although the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn’t rely on consciousness, either, Carlo Rovelli does see the interpretation as assisting with the hard problem of consciousness. Since everything in relation in the relational interpretation is a first person perspective. Carlo Rovelli says the distinction between mental and physical phenomenon fades considerably. 

So this attitude also resonates strongly with an early body’s response to the problem where it’s understood that since both mater or object and consciousness or subject are interconnected interacting, ephemeral and empty phenomenon, the so called Hard distinction between them is greatly lessened.

Okay, the last of these three broad categories of parallels and consciousness I put these here in this slide under the under the title of ultimate reality, slightly grandly. But what I want to capture here are the ways in which Buddhist and other mystical descriptions of ultimate reality start to mirror some of the things we find going on in the quantum realm. 

So first in Buddhism, it’s always been maintained that ultimate reality remains beyond description, conception, or characterisation. No words can adequately describe the final nature of reality. And indeed, the nature of that reality is seen to be beyond the experience of the ordinary mind, although not beyond fully enlightened Buddhists could experience it directly.

Again, in Buddhism, there are differences in how Ultimate Reality is conceived with the emphasis in early Buddhism on Nirvana in later Mahayana Buddhism, on Sunyata or emptiness and in some forms of Eastern Buddhism on one mind or the absolute. But in all those cases, the idea that ultimate reality is ineffable or beyond words, is part of the package. 

So there’s a general parallel there with the nature of reality as approached through the lens of quantum physics. What a quantum object really is, defies all description, whether it’s a particle or a wave, whether it’s located in this place that whether it possesses a definite position or momentum, or we can hope to rely on a mathematical probabilities that predict something of their behavior, that we can’t penetrate the true nature of what these objects are in themselves. 

Secondly, the next such parallel I want to draw attention to is that of paradox. So the idea of paradox is very important in Buddhist and other Mr. Called descriptions. of ultimate reality. The closer one gets to approaching ultimate reality, the more it’s paradoxical nature presents itself reveals itself. And that’s strongly emphasised in the Zen tradition in Buddhism, and particularly the Cohens or Rinzai Zen. 

Were paradoxical statements like what is the sound of one hand clapping? I made and the intention with these is to is to one of the intentions is to snap the practitioner out of their limited everyday thinking, and thereby obtain a glimpse of a more enlightened reality, a direct experience of the nature of ultimate reality and paradoxes seen as an important door and to pass through in order to achieve this. So this presents another parallel with quantum physics, where the nature of reality at the quantum level throws up all sorts of apparently paradoxical results. 

Quantum objects can appear to be in two places at once. They simultaneously display the characteristics of particles and waves. When the momentum of a particle is measured accurately, its position seems to dissolve when when its position is measured accurately, its momentum calm and so on. Thirdly, another feature of ultimate reality understood in Mahayana in its Mahayana Buddhist form, is the idea of non duality. 

So Ultimate Reality is seen as a unity whereby the oneness of things is ultimate overriding importance. In the Buddhist understanding, however, that doesn’t mean that everything is literally one thing and that all else is illusion, which is closer to the sort of Hindu sense of Brahman perhaps, but instead the uniqueness of phenomena is upheld, but in a way that in folded into an interconnected holistic unity, and all things that seem to share the same ultimate essence, or rather essence less Ness, of emptiness. 

And the idea of non duality also presents itself in quantum physics. So we’ve already mentioned David Burns conception of a holistic implicate and explicate cosmic order. Also, the idea of nonlocality and entanglement points to a deeply interconnected and holistic vision of reality. And as we’ve already seen in various ways, everything at the quantum level as well as larger macroscopic levels, shares the same empty nature. 

Finally, I’ve mentioned that again, in Mahayana Buddhism, we find the notion well in all forms of Buddhism actually in light in a different way. We find the notion of the two tree. So this is the idea that whilst reality in its ultimate nature is indeed empty, that doesn’t negate or invalidate the everyday reality of appearances. In other words, it’s useful to understand reality as consisting of two aspects of fundamental aspects which we call ultimate reality, and a conventional everyday aspect which we call relative reality. So these are, of course, inseparable, and two sides of the same coin, but describe the same reality from two different complementary perspectives. 

So here too, I point to a kind of parallel with quantum physics, where we’re presented with an underlying quantum reality in the microscopic world, where things behave in the various bizarre ways we’ve looked at, and then the classical reality and the everyday world. So both realities are true in their different ways, and both are also inseparable. And two sides of the same coin described the same reality from two different complementary perspectives. 

You could say that quantum reality incorporates classical reality as a kind of provisional approximation to its more fundamental truth. Similarly, you could say that Einstein’s theory of gravity incorporates Newton’s theory of gravity, in a kind of as a kind of provisional approximation to its more fundamental truth. And in Mahayana Buddhism, you could say that ultimate reality incorporates relative reality as a kind of provisional approximation of it’s more fundamental as a kind of parallel. 

And finally, for this section, I just wanted to mention other areas of physics and beyond on to quantum physics, which also seem to echo ancient Buddhist understandings. But first, we’ve already mentioned Einstein’s theory of relativity, and how closely it correspondent corresponds to the Buddhist understanding of emptiness. 

Secondly, we could also mention that the size, scale and age of the universe on astronomical scales, as revealed by modern science is something that Western theology struggled with, but which came naturally to the east where the age and physical scale of the Universe was always conceived in terms of billions and billions of years and a world systems. 

Thirdly, even the structure of galaxies seemed to have been preempted in ancient Buddhist and Hindu descriptions of many dislike world systems containing many millions of worlds. And finally, I’ll briefly mentioned that Foucault’s Pendulum and what’s called Max principle seem to point to the deeply interconnected nature of reality at the largest macroscopic scales, just as nonlocality in quantum physics suggests this at the microscopic scale. And are these things that we can elaborate on if anyone’s interested in the q&a At this time, or another time?

Okay, so finally, in this whistlestop tour, before concluding, I just want to sound a further note of caution around the idea that Buddhism has some kind of exclusive insight into the matters we’ve been discussing, which isn’t really the case. What Buddhism has well whilst Buddhism has perhaps made a unique contribution in its ideas around emptiness. 

In fact, most of the parallels we’ve discussed and others can be found in other mystical traditions including Hinduism, Taoism and various forms of Western mysticism. So the idea of a holistic interconnected reality is common to pretty much all of these traditions. As is the notion that mind or consciousness is somehow fundamental and not and not peripheral to reality. And then ineffability and paradoxicality and non duality, there are all also recurrent themes in these other mystical traditions. 

In his famous book, The Tao of physics, first published in 1975, which of Capra undertook an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism. So in it, he talks a lot about Buddhism. But he also highlights of the complex, dynamic, organic interplay of energy and fundamental entities at the quantum level, and their continuous creation and destruction is like the dance of Shiva, represented by the Hindu symbol of the Nataraja. So fittingly the picture in the top right of the slide shows the statue of the Nataraja, which is situated in the concourse at CERN, which is the world’s largest particle accelerator in Geneva, and at the forefront, and the nerve center and cutting edge of research into particle physics and the quantum realm. 

Capra also talks about Taoism, represented by the Yin Yang symbol on the slide, which also strongly influenced Zen Buddhism, with its emphasis on the reconciliation of opposites. So this has various parallels with the reconciliation of opposites in quantum physics where particles transcend being both destructible and indestructible, both granular and all pervasive, both existing and not existing, both continuous and discontinuous, both structured and ever changing. And where forced matter about different aspects of the same phenomenon.

So in Einstein’s relativity as well, space and time, seemingly disparate, opposing facets of reality, and matter and energy, also seemingly disparate and opposite facets of reality, transcend this opposition and find a new unity. Capra also mentioned the Neo Confucians in Chinese philosophy, who developed the notion of chi, which he considers bears a striking resemblance to the concept of the quantum field in modern physics. 

Like the quantum field, is conceived as a tenuous and non perceptible form of matter, in which it’s present throughout space, and can condense into solid material objects. And the the pictures at the bottom of the slide are of Meister Eckhart, who is one of the greatest advocates of non duality in the Christian mystical tradition and also Rumi, the famous Sufi. 

Okay, so concluding, all of that is a lot to take in I appreciate and it was I’m afraid of whistlestop run through but in conclusion, I think you can say that there is that there is a compatibility and a number of clear parallels between the insights of Buddhism into the nature of reality, and the nature of reality as revealed by modern physics, particularly quantum physics. 

However, it’s also important to note that those parallels are largely quite generalized in nature, and in most cases, aren’t exclusive to the Buddhist tradition. We’ve also talked about the dangers of oversimplification and quantum Whoo. Just because quantum physics is mysterious, and difficult to comprehend doesn’t make it a panacea, sort of for any new age belief going. 

We do need to be more sophisticated than that about how we tease out parallels and correspondences with Buddhists thinking the best approach and the most characteristically Buddhist approach is to adopt this middle way between reading too much into the parallels and then not reading enough. 

We also need to remember that very many scientists today would seek to to reject the kind of connections we’ve drawn, and instead advocate a scientific materialist view of the world. When it comes to interpreting quantum physics. Many of them would either adopt a shut up and calculate approach or the question basically, or perhaps throw their weight behind the many worlds interpretation, neither of which chimes very well with Buddhism.

However, it’s important to recognise how many of the founding fathers of quantum physics itself, were impressed by the parallels and insights of the East so Verner Heisenberg was often called the little Buddha, by his colleagues. Schrodinger maintained a deep interest in Eastern mysticism, and philosophy, and he seemed to adopt a non dualist Vedantic view and considered consciousness fundamental to the concept of the cosmos. 

Niels Bohr was also very interested in eastern philosophy. And even Einstein has often been quoted as saying that if there’s any religion that could cope with modern scientific need, it would be Buddhism. 

David Bohm was profoundly influenced by his friendship with the Indian philosopher, writer mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti, and he incorporated Eastern mystical beliefs into his quantum interpretations. And our own Carlo Rovelli has attributed a lot of influence to the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna in helping him develop a relational interpretation of quantum physics. 

So one can’t help thinking that this isn’t a coincidence. And that these great minds did have an insight into genuine parallels, which motivated the interest albeit that those parallels shouldn’t be taken too far or too dogmatic. And that’s really the end and my final word is to say that all of this has been about helping to nurture a deeper appreciation of Buddhist wisdom. 

But the corollary of Buddhist Wisdom is always Buddhist to compassion. So the final upshot of realizing that we live in a deeply interconnected meaningful and holistic reality is to let that realisation permeate us and open us at a personal level. And as a result, to be more kind to ourselves and to others. So after all, that the ultimate conclusion is simply be kind. 

And I’d like to dedicate any positivity from this presentation to the welfare of all sentient beings. And that’s it really, I hope that was a useful overview. I hope it gives a framework for putting together some of these threads in the course and general themes that you’ve been working through in the course or perhaps thinking about outside the course, if it wasn’t too much to bombard you with in a short space of time. 

Otherwise, we hope the course has been engaging, that we really here inspired you to learn more about the subjects and even for those of you with a Buddhist practice, to practice more. But that’s the end of the presentation. So I’ll hand back to Sajda and Marco. He’s going to put on the floor to any questions, sponsors for me.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Yes, thank you so much, Josh. Oh, that’s, it was a wonderful overview. It was also very comprehensive and at the same time very detailed, so I’m really impressed by your presentation and I hope it was useful for everyone. 

What we will do now is that we will move on to the q&a part of the session so that we just add manual and they’re next to Josh yeah, here we go. Um, and so we received a couple of questions beforehand with which we would like to start. 

The first question is from the minutes so he’s not here at the moment. So I will read it out for him. And he asks, I hope you will explore the relationship between the law of karma and the physics of every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And I thought maybe Manuel, you would like to respond to that.

Manuel  

Okay. Hi. So my name is Manuel, and very happy to be here with you today. Yeah, thank you so much, also for the very nice presentation. also learned a lot from it. And yeah, to dive into the question, so my thoughts between the parallels of the way we look at physical laws and the laws of karma, or the karmic law is that I feel like there’s parallel with the facts. 

And we can find parallels in the fact that both of these concepts seem to be a natural way, how nature operates and how reality operates. So in the sense that we can look at so physical laws, they just emerge from, you know, from nature and from the world, and from particles and forces and just the arrangements of of systems. And then when you have the east and physical laws hold and these are regularities that you can measure, and that you can work with and you can predict them. 

And you can kind of get this concept of, of the physical laws. And in the other way, this is this reminds me a lot of the notion or the flavor that how the, how Buddhism talks about the karmic law as well. So, in other ways, this is, this is like, some kind of regularities or some kind of laws that work with regards to actions done by sentient beings, regarding you know, ethical behavior and in general all kinds of all kinds of actions that beings in samsara are able to do, wholesome and the unwholesome, so, this is what I would say is strikes me as a quite a parallel and then on the other hand, I would like to mention another aspect. 

So, where I personally would find a difference is that in Buddhism it is often talked about that, even though the laws of karma are incredibly complex, an enlightened being would in principle be able to determine the outcome or the consequences of actions or for other beings so, they will be able to see the, let’s say, the karmic past and also the karmic future of living of sentient beings. So, the whole karmic trajectory in a way, but in quantum physics, this is something that currently physics doesn’t seem to be able to do. 

This is actually one of the striking features in quantum mechanics that we’re not able to fully predict with 100% certainty what the outcome of an experiment could be. And this is not doesn’t seem to be a lack of our knowledge. This is also still a dispute, but the current level this doesn’t seem to be the case.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Thank you so much Manuel. Would you like to add something to that Allan and Josh?

Josh Barber  

I can tell you one little point in the manual just made about the non predictable nature. I’d also mentioned that there’s another innovation in 20th century around chaos theory and complexity systems. So it’s not just at the micro microscopic quantum level, that it’s difficult to to impose a kind of deterministic view on the world. It’s also at the macroscopic world. 

So this is the kind of idea that, you know, a butterfly, turning its wing in Australia, at one point might affect a hurricane and the other side of the world a couple of weeks later, has no way of really being able to predict that it’s just it’s a natural consequence of it there is there is a process of for causation of sorts. 

But you could never have a hurricane and then say that the reason for this hurricane is because of that butterfly in Australia two weeks ago, new carpet retrospectively apply it, though, and I think in a way that’s actually quite helpful way to look at karma because I think karma is really about prospectively encouraging us to behave well in the future. It’s not about trying to work out exactly where specific rights and wrongs may have come from in the past, but anything that that takes us in the wrong direction if we try and do that. 

So actually, in a way, there’s a sense in which the innovations of modern physics can help us with our interpretations of, of, of bodies, Buddhist philosophy and karmic philosophy. It’s not just the other way around.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

That’s very good to add. Yeah. Thanks, Josh. Allan, any thoughts?

Allan Furic  

On relation itself? Regarding the question, not so much compared to what Manuel said, to clarify something regarding what Josh said actually, on complex systems, because they think there is something of a different nature there. is definitely a probabilistic aspect. But I think as you said, manual, the consensus in quantum physics nowadays is to see the probabilities in the quantum world as intrinsic. So it’s not a matter of our knowledge. 

It’s not an epistemic question we’re dealing with it’s something that seems inherent to nature at the quantum level, which is completely different with macroscopic systems. Because then again, if you follow classical physics, quantum mechanics if you have all the parameters, and that’s valid also for biology, if you have all the parameters you’re capable of predicting any system’s behavior in the future. So there is I think, a slight difference in the in the way we use probabilities in the macro, microscopic and macroscopic realms.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Great, thanks so much. I think that’s definitely going to be a very good answer for Bob. He’s not here so I can get him to chime in. But I’m sure it’s quite comprehensive. So not so that’s one question, which is from Ruth and she’s here but you asked us also to read it out. So it’s a bit of a longer question. 

She says on the one hand, in our classes, we have had pit bull who is a phenomenologist, who urges that our own individual experience is primary, because it has aspects that are not real and beyond what we can label. On the other hand, we’ve had really argues to trying to answer the question of what is the ultimate underlying truth of anything makes the mistake of asking the wrong question. 

And who following Nagarjuna argues that the ultimate truth is that there is nothing that is not dependent on anything else. And that that is the ultimate truth. Both being enthusiastic proponents of their taking Buddhism, do we need to choose between these two? If so, why? And if not going up, and how can we use this thinking through this debate to enhance our own practice? So that’s quite a long question. But maybe, Allan, you would like to take that one? 

Allan Furic  

Sure. Certainly. It is a very long question indeed. I don’t think that Michel Bitbol and Carlo Rovelli are that incompatible? That question seem to be pointing up. Effectively a thing that Ravalli also puts an emphasis on on the perception you know, and that comes with a relational point of view. Because your point of view your experience that you’re applying to the system is as important as the one that is you know, facing you. 

If you take the example of showing her scat, the point of view that you have that sees the cat in a superposition of states is as important as the point of view of the cat itself. If it has any, that he is either dead or alive or asleep or awake if you prefer that image. 

I don’t really see them that incompatible, especially taking the view of the middle away from yarmulke in Buddhism, because then again, what we’re trying to do and I think that’s what Rovelli does really well, is to try to relinquish any strong metaphysical commitment that we may have that may we may impose upon our scientific theories, and that sometimes, often actually limits our scientific inquiry. Some. Something I’d like to mention though, with that said, is that as JAWS emphasize we have countless interpretations of quantum phenomena. 

And the problem is that most of them are incompatible. With each other, either because of mathematical elements that have been added on to the already existing formalism, or because of metaphysical issues. If you take Ravalli for example, in the many worlds you have, those are incompatible or hidden variables. David Bohm, that Josh mentioned as well, would not be compatible with spontaneous collapse, for example.

I think it’s important also to recognize that because we don’t have any consensus on how to interpret the quantum and then again, that’s where you can bring in my yarmulke in the middle way to help us you know, keep all of those options on the table so that we can enhance our comprehension and move forward and hopefully one day we might be able to say, okay, yeah, this one is the real one. But for now, recall. 

I’m not so sure about the practical aspect of it because I don’t really know how to apply that practically. So if Josh manual or even new software have having that an idea that Yeah, feel free to jump in.

Josh Barber  

I’m not sure about how it’s related the practice directly, either. Well, one thing that strikes me about the question is that it seems to echo this debate in Buddhist philosophy between the Madhyamaka view and the Yogachara view. This sort of played out in around sort of 500 ad, and within within Tibetan Buddhism, at least certainly the magic of you kind of won the argument. And slightly in Yogachara became a bit more subservient but but it nonetheless really influenced Tibetan Buddhist philosophy going forward. 

There are sort of synthesised forms of those two philosophies, so I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that you have to choose the Mad yarmulke view as represented by kinda rebellion, or the yogic car view, which sort of seems to be kind of connected to Tibet, but I’m not sure if that that that really works. You don’t necessarily have to choose between that kind of it’s kind of a synthesis. And I suppose, what the Madhyamaka view is really saying is that is an emphasis emphasising emptiness is kinds of practice. 

Is that what one of the things we need to do is to let go and to cultivate a kind of non attachment, but perhaps the the yantra card view is more associated with the reality of mind and perhaps therefore those aspects of practice which were about engaging with the world and cultivating compassion. 

So you’ve got these two sides to practice always. And that the the way, the best way to practice if anyone many people like to be able to properly achieve it is another question. But the best the best thing is to bring those two together and make them work together. So I think this sort of this idea of synthesis of the ideas and synthesis in practice as well as is quite useful.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Yeah, thank you, Josh. And Manuel, do you want to add something to that?

Manuel  

Um, yeah, I would actually fully agree with what has been said and I don’t have anything to add except for the fact that I also think that this just to prove it again, that this choice. I don’t think it is such a one or zero choice. I think there is more combat compatibility between these two views. And then there is differences in the way that they’re connected to the physics for example, but also in the way how personal practice can be approached.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Thank you so much. I think that’s that’s good answer. In the meanwhile, we’re getting other answers inviting other other questions in by the way. So if you want to ask simultaneous question, you have something that you’re struggling with in the course or just about the course maybe you can also raise your digital heads, which is on the direction button. 

Or you can just write to us in the chat. Please reply to everyone. But first, let me read out cert question that we also got before this session. And it’s actually from … She’s here in the room. So maybe you want to ask it yourself, or I can read it out for you as well.

Anonymous  

Could you read it out and I can elaborate if needed?

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Yes, that sounds great. Thanks. Yeah, I will read it out. So the question is, according to Dr. Rovelli, the current celerity aspect of quantum physics needs to find a witness the nature of reality, in part related to universal constants, ie those things are uncertain their probability distributions are certain. 

And the question is, is this finiteness or requisites for us being able to grasp or apprehend the reality in the first place? Is reality that is infinite possibility? Or does it matter though, as we would not be able to measure it? In that sense, is the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality still within the finite one in quantum physics and sense of quantum physics? 

So I think maybe Josh, would you like to give that one ago and, please elaborate if you feel something is being left out? I’m sorry. Yeah. You know, just come in if you if you feel like you want to add something to that question still.

Manuel  

Okay, yeah. So I think it’s a very interesting question, and I’m not sure if I completely understand it. So please, let me know or interrupt me at any point. If you want to add something to my understanding of it, but so from my… Yes?

Anonymous  

I just had one… I think the fundamental issue here is, although there are exponential number of possibilities, if the world is finite, it is knowable. And it also speaks to our consciousness if we are aware, the fact that we are conscious and aware, maybe means it’s because it’s a finite world, and does that mean that ultimately it’s unknowable? From our standpoint?

Manuel  

Yeah, so, um, so I would, I would agree with this. And an example that I had in mind was actually from from a physical point of our physical investigation that say that this this granularity or finiteness are also you could call it maybe discreteness of the world that you find that if you if you look at something closer and closer, then you can find that it splits into parts. It’s you can kind of conceive it as made up of different parts and you can, you know, you can collect these parts and you can name them and so on, so on and so forth. 

So, I think this is actually a necessary feature in order to actually understand how objects arise because if we didn’t find, or how, what objects are made off, or maybe even the mind or all kinds of phenomena. So if we didn’t find, if we just looked into something more and more if we zoomed in more and more, and we wouldn’t find anything that makes it up or any kind of any kind of collection of its parts. Then how could you? How could then we couldn’t really find its dependent nature you couldn’t find the parts that make up that object. So as a as an example I thought of yesterday I, when I look at the computer screen, or look at some patch of white color in front of me, for example, and I would zoom in and zoom in then at some point I would find the pixels of the screen. 

And I would I would say that the patch of color is actually made up of, of the pixels and the pixels have red, green and blue colors and you know, they they make up the color that we see. But zooming if I would if I would zoom in infinitely long, and no, it just nothing would happen. It would just keep being whiteness and whiteness and whiteness, I would I would never be able to look through the whiteness, it would just keep being this inherent thing in and of itself. 

So the fact that we do see the granularity and the discreteness in that way how I would understand that is necessary in order to see the dependency of objects on their parts. That helps.

Anonymous  

I thought the the whole point of grandiosity is that that you know, I mean getting into UK there is no there is a finite miss in terms of how granular you can be there is a Max Planck number, right, the Planck number. So the whole point is that it’s not infinitely small, there is a point at which it’s a finite and is that essentially, to understand that correctly, and the fact that it is it is finally that in fact, that’s how we are able to grasp and understand and be aware of the world. But

Manuel  

yeah, yeah. I think that’s that’s the fact that we, that’s how we are able to understand things as being made up of other things. And but that doesn’t mean that that’s the end because even if we see things as made up of other things then so if we see something as a just a collection of its parts, and we labeled a collection of of the parts something, but then each of the parts can also be analyzed in the same way, right? So each of those discrete parts can be seen as another collection of parts and so on. So, you have these different layers of…

Anonymous  

Understood that there is a finite piece to this and that was a new to me. So the whole notion of is, is not there, I guess.

Manuel  

That chain of layers can be infinitely long, possibly. So there doesn’t need to be an end to how…

Anonymous  

I don’t understand it correctly. But I thought that the whole notion of brand new realities that there is a point at which it is finite, you cannot go infinitely small. So maybe I didn’t understand that correctly. Could other speakers maybe add to that?

Josh Barber  

Yeah, it’s a really tricky question. And when you get to like you talking about the plank level basically come it’s so that is so far beyond anything that we could ever measure or determine that this question, I think, sort of thesis to become a scientific question. It’s very, very speculative in terms of what actually means and what that granularity actually is. 

The difference between the size of an atom or an atomic nucleus, and the plank level, below that, that you’re talking about, is about the same order of magnitude as the atomic nucleus. If you stretch back out, so like the universe as a whole, like it’s, it’s a vast, vast order of magnitude, and I don’t think we can really penetrate that scientifically. 

So I think I’d have to say that initially, and also, the other thing that keeps coming to my mind, but as you’re talking if it’s about a sort of debate, really in in Buddhism, early Buddhism between between the early Buddhists the early the early Abbot Dharma view of reality, and then what Nagarjuna added to that, and a few 100 years later, philosophically, so this idea of non self that everything could be doesn’t have a self and can be described in terms of relations to other things. 

Was there very much from the beginning, but it was always originally understood that you went down to a kind of bottom level, there was a bottom level, and everything was made up of what was called damages. These damages are either physical, or mental damages. And this whole corpus of literature called the ABA Dharma kind of describes in great detail how those small sort of almost like atoms of existence or mental atoms of existence and physical outcomes existence all dharmas go up to making the physical world. 

But then Nagarjuna came along and said that it’s not that, you know, you go down to a certain level and it stops and then you’re left with these kinds of like fundamental particles if you like. And there are about 60 or 70 of them, they come in the exact number in the in the early abdominal literature it’s the even those diamonds are empty so that’s like that was almost like his that’s almost like the innovation that neither Jr bought to Buddhist philosophy, the idea that even Thomas are empty. 

So it’s really is that debate Exactly. You know, comes to the question that you’re asking and how that debate might get resolved, scientifically, I would say is, it’s very much an open question. Whether there’s a kind of rock bottom granularity or whether everything is truly empty and interconnected in the narco genus sense. I don’t know but both both views are expressed in different aspects of Buddhist philosophy on different sides of Buddhism within Buddhist history.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Thank you, Josh. Yeah, thanks, Manuel. I hope I hope that’s okay for you to leave it with that. I think it’s a good you know, it’s a good conclusion. For now.

Anonymous  

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Great. Thank you so much. We have two questions that came in from different persons, and they’re both about the hippo and I think kind of directed to you, Josh. So maybe we can kind of combine those two. So it is sad. Well, first of all, thank you for a really interesting and thought provoking, thought provoking presentation, Josh. 

The work of David Bohm was frequently cited and it was highly appropriate that your final point was related to practice of compassion and kindness, in terms of practical day to day life, or relationships. How do you feel BOMs ideas around open dialogue? And then also someone asks, Would you speak to the Buddhist notion of codependence arising as it corresponds to current models in physics and I’m seeking off the work of David Bohm. So maybe that’s a good place to start just to try that one. Yeah,

Josh Barber  

I don’t know that I can answer the point about David Bohm. I’m not sure I know in open dialogue. I’m not sure I know. Exactly what it refers to or the sort of connection with sort of themes we’ve been talking about do you do you know that soldier because it’s not a it’s not a concept that I’m I’m familiar with.

Sajda van der Leeuw  

Okay, so maybe Manuel, you know, and Allan, so maybe you would like to go into this a little bit. So I think it’s really about David Bohm, the idea of infinite potential, and how this relates to you know, basically what we’re talking about in terms of interdependence. But I’m also looking at the persons who have asked this question.. If you want to unmute yourself and just you know, add a little bit to that, then maybe we can we can answer it more fully.

Anonymous  

Okay, yeah. Sorry for throwing the cat amongst Fijians. Sorry, sorry, because, as I’ve mentioned in the subsequent message, I’m actually not part of the course or anything like that. But I have a little bit familiar familiarity with the work of David Boehm and then I think it relates as well, what you said to Josh with his work with Krishna Murthy. 

And there was the idea in terms of in very simple terms in terms of open dialogue, he sort of champion that cause in terms of really, you know, in terms of human interaction, the people should basically listen. And kind of you know, and have, you know, people could say what they want wanted in as long as it wasn’t, wasn’t harmful.

It’s a little bit I don’t know whether you’re familiar with the work of Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionism and that that idea that you know, we construct, you know, interpersonal relationships construct some sort of reality that’s, you know, a conventional truth if you like, through symbols and that can be speech, you know, in terms of somebody actually expresses an opinion somebody else expresses an opinion a lot of people express an opinion and then that out that sort of, there’s some sort of agreement on what’s going on reality. 

And it’s interesting, the lady before that said, Well, there’s a granular sort of certainty around the plank equations or the plank numbers. And again, that I think that relates to sort of emptiness and conventional truth, as you said, two sides of the same coin being well that’s an app that’s an agreement for a particular culture. And followers of Max Planck, isn’t it I guess, so. You know, I can’t remember the date there was a book published called open dialogue or on dialogue sorry, with with David Bohm. 

So it was really, I mean, it was interesting because you know, you’re a lot of the talk and I gather a lot of courses around the relationship of science and wisdom and we get this very granular, sort of chopping things into bits. Which, you know, again, I think, Manuel expressed, you know, if you’ve got sort of bits of a body or bits of a cat that are non cat that you can’t assemble them, they just don’t make a whole cat sort of thing, or, or an individual. 

But yeah, it’s just that, you know, but okay, if that’s not part of the course, really, in terms of the communication, but it’s just an interesting thing, in terms of relationships, and it’s sort of resonated for me anyway, in terms of that you said, Well, you know, in terms of compassion and kindness, you know, and process and how you do that, basically. Okay, thanks.