Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, CH 2

Last updated on: April 10, 2008 at 1:06 pm by Justin Whitaker

Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, CH 2 2008-04-10T13:06:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance — it is the illusion of knowledge.” – Daniel J. Boorstin

Chapter one of Vic Mansfield’s book, “Tibetan Buddhism & Modern Physics” helped clear the ground for the rest of the book. It did this by pointing out some of the prejudices in Western (primarily scientific) thought against Eastern ideas and anything sounding remotely religious. By showing us why so many people simply ‘write off’ these important ideas without even looking at them, we can see the difficulty ahead of us in uniting Eastern and Western thought.

~ (note, CH 2 is available online at the author’s website) ~

Chapter two, called “Quantum Mechanics and Compassion” focuses on the apparent paradox of our being both unique and just like everyone else and the implications we must accept if we see that we are all truly interconnected.

He begins with a fairly confusing explanation of “Uniqueness and Indistinguisability in Physics” using the examples of what it’s like for two marbles bouncing around in a box versus two electrons bouncing around in a box. I’ll spare you the details, but basically the marbles operate on the level of standard physics – Newtonian, the stuff you and I are used to. But the electrons operate weirdly – they don’t do the things that marbles do. Those of you who know bits about quantum mechanics know all about the uncertainty principle, the fact that all we can know is probabilities concerning their location, and so on.

The key here is that both the marbles in the box and the two electrons are unique. But, while the marbles are distinguishable (we can see them in there and would know if someone tried to change them around), the electrons are indistinguishable (as I would put it, all we ‘see’ in that box is fuzz).

What has that got to do with anything? Well, the point is that we’re pretty much the same: on one level we are unique and distinguishable, you from me and me from you, but at a lower/deeper level we are in fact indistinguishable (but still unique), you are part of me and I am part of you. It sounds new-agey, but it is a fact of quantum mechanics.

Next, Mansfield discusses Indistinguishability in Tibetan Buddhism. Here he gives the parallel account that Buddhism has given for hundreds of years: we are unique, and at the conventional, every-day level we are distinguishable. But at a deeper level we are indistinguishable through our commonality.

“Tibetan Buddhism never tires of telling us that everyone desires happiness and freedom from suffering.” (p.32)

This teaching is tied to the Buddhist understanding of compassion:

“Universal compassion, the heart of Tibetan Buddhism, is the sincere desire for the welfare of all sentient beings along with the will to act on this desire.” (p.33)

So Buddhism has the same principle as Quantum Mechanics, but also takes it a step forward in its implications.

But bringing understanding to action is not so easy. So Tibetan Buddhism has created an exercise to help. This exercise or meditation is called exchanging of self for others. In it the meditator imagines three types of person:

An ‘inferior’ person – one who is ‘below’ us in some way. So, I, being a ph.d. student can think of people in high school or college. I could also think of people with less money, poorer health, poorer living conditions, etc, etc. It’s a good way to see just how well off you really are. In any case – imagine this person so well that you can speak for him or her. Literally put yourself in his/her shoes. Then say everything about YOU (now from the outside) that this person would say. “Wow, that Justin sure has it good – a caring family, a great education, good health, and a loving fiancee, and he still can’t seem to just be happy – or even nice so much of the time.”

As Mansfield reminds us, “it is important to notice that… the negative states such as jealousy, haughtiness, or criticism are directed at ourselves.” (p.37)
Next we occupy an ‘equal’ person. This brings out the competitive spirit that person would have toward us.
Finally we inhabit a ‘superior’ person and again say all the negative things about us that such a person could possibly say of us.

All of this may seem very strange, essentially beating ourselves up from the perspectives of these three other people. But the goal is simple, to “reduce our intense identification with our own point of view and actually make the exchange of self with other.” (ibid.) We expand our mindset, we break free of the self-cherishing defensiveness and reactivity that Buddhism places as the root-cause of our suffering.

THE OBLIGATIONS OF COMPASSION

The final section of the chapter brings into focus what all of this means practically. The example he uses is borrowed from Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. In it he imagines walking to class to teach in a favorite suit. He sees a child struggling in a puddle, apparently drowning. He instinctively dives in to save the child – racking up a $20 dry-cleaning bill and winding up late for class in the process. But we all instinctively say,

“of course I’d do exactly the same! What’s $20 or being late for a class vs. a drowning child’s life?”

But then we shift the situation a bit to a commercial on TV telling us that for just $20 we can save a child’s life in Darfur. He ignores that plea and we empathize, most of us also ignore such pleas too. But what’s the difference between the starving child in Africa and the drowning child in front of us? Aren’t both lives equally worthy? Is it immoral then to eat out at a fancy restaurant when we could eat in and put the extra money toward saving a few lives – with no more effort than a mouse-click or two?

He then gives the stats on national contributions to foreign aid, pointing out that the US is last amongst developed nations at just over 0.2% of GNI, well below the UN target of 0.7%. Singer finds this reprehensible, as does Mansfeild, and so should we, right? Singer’s point is simple. If we as a nation give just a tiny bit more, it will relieve huge amounts of suffering. So to with us as individuals. So if we can give – without it really impacting our own lives negatively – then we should. (p.41)

It is a simple, yet amazingly difficult principle to put into practice.

Our selfishness is deeply ingrained in us, we already habitually ignore great suffering because seeing it would cause us minor inconvenience. We do the same with our family, our friends, on outward in crude degrees of tribalism, nationalism, speciesism, etc. It has been our habit, from time immemorial, to draw lines in the sand: good and evil, for us and against us, and so many more. These habits are so deep that I’m not sure understanding physics – and the interconnectedness indicated by quantum mechanics – is going to help, but it can’t hurt.

In the end though, we must recognize – and accept – our own limitations. None of us can toss out our conditioning overnight, none of us can become Gandhi or Mother Teresa.

So with humility and awareness, we continue on the path.

– thanks Tom for reminding me that this chapter is available online 🙂 You can read some of my earlier thoughts on it here, as well.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 7, 2008

On retreat (2, Tibet videos)

Next Post

April 14, 2008 Optimism on Tibet

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz