Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Heard a brief NPR piece on quantum superposition this morning, and I'm curious to explore whether superposition and Buddhist theory jive.
The commonly used example, is unpleasant--a cat is in a box, out of sight, and with it is a vial of poison which has a 50% chance of exploding. According to superposition, the cat is both dead and alive.
Birth is the condition for death. Birth and death are bedfellows. No birth, no death and vice versa. Once born you are as good as dead!
These speculations linking superposition to madhyamaka.
I think so. From the Gelug perspective, for example, it seems to me these may line up (T=Tsongkhapa-via-Candrakirti; SP = superposition):
T: Conventionally there are entities with distinguishing characteristics (states). SP: A measured entity gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible states.
and
T: Ultimately those characteristics (states) are not independent essences. SP: An entity exists partly in all its theoretically possible states simultaneously.
This makes it very intriguing then, to look at superposition's "measured" qualifier. That expresses (to me) what is "missing" (or rather, implied) in Tsongkhapa's theory--which is that the difference between conventional and ultimate reality hinges at least partly on a self-identified "measurer."
The superposition theory, of course, presumes a measurer, but hints at the same thing--that the measurer him/herself somehow influences reality, simply by being there to observe. Without anyone being there to observe (measure), all realities exist at once (are not independent essences).
I don't really understand what you're saying and I'm not sure if it makes sense or not. If we're defining consciousness as two different things we're trying to have two different conversations
I've already explained several times that I'm not using consciousness in the western sense, which doesn't work as a definition anyway, and I'm not using it in one common Buddhist sense of something that can be produced and extinguished, which is also based on the western sense.
I'm using it (consciousness/vinnana) as the Buddha used it, meaning the supporting factor of name and form, the illusion of projecting out from self to a sense object. The ancient illusion of looking out at the world from the window of the soul.
My point is not that consciousness is colours and form drawn on darkness, my point is that what you see as consciousness isn't consciousness.
The difficulty he addressed in the simile of the reeds supporting each other, in the system of dependent origination, was how to deconstruct deconstruction, which is rather like a detective who is also the murderer, and is thus unable to solve the mystery.
Possibly the mutual dependence of form and consciousness is analogous to the way that sub-atomic particles depend on observation for their state to be defined.
It is literally impossible ( in my view ) to gain an understanding of Buddhadharma by approaching it through modern western concepts. They are entirely different modalities. This does not mean that western concepts in any given sphere are untrue or useless, it does mean though that Buddhadharma had primarily to be understood by its own lights. If you want to understand the mechanics of the universe, then Hawkings et al may offer a means. If you want liberation from samsara then that is the raison d'etre of Buddhadharma. Just to complicate matters a little " Buddhism " may or may not be Buddhadharma.
I think it is. But only on a case by case basis. Whenever there is evidence ( in the context of Buddhist discussion ) that the self sense is being reinforced rather than understood Whenever there is evidence of groupthink. Whenever there is a sense of an identity being constructed rather than deconstructed. Whenever there is defensiveness of self or belief, or undermining of the belief of another.. then there is " Buddhism " its those three little letters i s and m that makes the difference.
To quote Ajahn Chah " dont be an Arhat, dont be a Bodhisattva, dont be a Buddhist..dont be anything.." My own teacher Norbu Rinpoche says " Dont seek, rest. great nature will support you " He then adds that this takes great effort..
Possibly the mutual dependence of form and consciousness is analogous to the way that sub-atomic particles depend on observation for their state to be defined.
Analogous in the poetic sense, sure. But, and let me be very clear about this, in Buddhism, there is no puzzle of interlocking pieces which can be solved.
Analogies can be useful if held lightly.
"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."
I think it is. But only on a case by case basis. Whenever there is evidence ( in the context of Buddhist discussion ) that the self sense is being reinforced rather than understood Whenever there is evidence of groupthink. Whenever there is a sense of an identity being constructed rather than deconstructed. Whenever there is defensiveness of self or belief, or undermining of the belief of another.. then there is " Buddhism " its those three little letters i s and m that makes the difference.
But understanding the same phenomena, using a wider set of perspectives and terms, is expansive rather than contractive--it's the act of moving away from one group's fixation on a label, and showing that other labels may also be valid, thereby reducing attachment. It's the opposite of being overly defensive of one belief set.
For myself at least, I feel it has a chance of improving my understanding of the Buddhist perspective; my later schooling came in a Western environment, for example, so sometimes information "clicks" for me when I see it in Western scientific lingo instead of Eastern.
I don't mean to say everything in Buddhism has an exact counterpart in current science, but I know that exploring other school's alternatives to or even outright rejections of Candrakirti's view helps me sharpen my understanding of his; science is just another lens yet, and one I find personally helpful as a Westerner.
I also totally accept that peeking through the science lens may be completely unuseful for some; I just think it's hard to dismiss its usefulness for others outright.
I remember Yangsi Rinpoche saying that sometimes one can best arrive at an understanding of a particular view by examining the contrasting views; I fully accept that there may come a point at which I say, "There's no way superposition lines up with madhyamaka in [x] respect.
The cat is there either way; it doesn't make sense to me to reject science's experience of the cat as useless, if I feel that it may be useful. It might not even be the "science" that is doing it for me, but just that the familiar labels science uses help me translate Buddhist theory better to my own brain.
I don't mean to say everything in Buddhism has an exact counterpart in current science, but I know that exploring other school's alternatives to or even outright rejections of Candrakirti's view helps me sharpen my understanding of his; science is just another lens yet, and one I find personally helpful as a Westerner.
One of the things that attracted me about Buddhism originally was it seemed quite scientific in it's approach, for example using the practice of mindfulness to understand how things really are.
Assumptions might be...if however the methods are those that lead to Liberation than they will lead away from groupthink. Groupthink does not happen on the cushion. It happens when we try to verbalise that which is beyond verbalisation with a mindset that needs certainty.
In a way, I think that due to science-heavy upbringing, Western students might uniquely disposed towards "testing" a teaching, including testing it by scientific methods.
If we can see that a particular Buddhist teaching has some reflection in testable, modern scientific method, it can increase our confidence in the Buddhist teachings, or at least I feel that is the case for me.
Whether we wanted it or not, most of us here, I imagine, have had it drilled into us growing up--if not at home, than by society--that science is the best way by which to test anything. That it transcends religion, culture, etc., and that its laws are universal, that it is less susceptible to contamination by politics, etc., since its theories are designed to be tested by anyone who cares to try.
This all adds up to quite a deep respect for, or trust in, science.
Where an Eastern student might have a deep respect for a teaching based on his/her reasoned trust in his teacher, in his teacher's teacher, and that teacher's teacher, stretching back through time in a deep and respected lineage of people perhaps even physically related to him/her, we Westerners (or some of us) probably benefit from scientific corroboration, since that's where much of our trust lies.
Really all that means is that we are trusting a certain lineage of scientists, and trusting the atmosphere in which we ourselves were raised. Both sets of trust are worthy, imho, since it is reasoned trust. It doesn't mean there was never a teacher or scientist who made a mistake, just that we trust that the system overall is designed to expose truths rather than falsehoods.
Over time as we in the West study from Buddhist teachers, we'll develop the personal confidence in those lineages, just as Tibetans and other new Buddhists had to long ago.
I don't think it's necessary to find parallels everywhere, or that everyone must use science as a sounding board, or that Buddhism isn't best understood by its own terms, as @Citta mentioned. At the same time, if scientific evidence crops up now and then which supports Buddhist theory, I think that can be really helpful in stabilizing reasoned confidence in what is for our society a fairly new discipline.
From what I can see so far, Buddhist theory and Western science are proving to be mutually reinforcing on many issues. As a linguist I find richness in studying one discipline's translation of the other, but I also treasure that each has a unique perspective that will never be a complete and perfect translation of the other.
form transforms into ethics feeling transforms into concentration perception transforms into wisdom volitions transform into liberation consciousness transforms into knowledge of liberation
In a way, I think that due to science-heavy upbringing, Western students might uniquely disposed towards "testing" a teaching, including testing it by scientific methods.
I remember watching Mr. Wizard!
The scientific method has made great strides. Almost every uses it these days. Yesterday, my porch light was out. I formed three preliminary hypotheses that one or more of three things happened causing my porch light to go out: 1) there is no power going to the bulb; 2) my light switch is defective; 3) the lightbulb is burned out. I elected to go with hypothesis number 3. When I conducted the test putting in the new lightbulb, the new bulb worked. I had light. The old bulb was burned out.
Of course not everyone wishes to utilize, fully, the scientific method, hopefully, to learn from it. Take the example of the GOP. Their preliminary hypothesis is that when the economy goes into a recession give everyone a tax break, especially the rich, and millions of new jobs will be created. But when the hypothesis was tested, it failed. For almost ten years there were no new net gains in jobs. This also applies to free trade. The hypothesis of the GOP and Dems was that sending jobs overseas creates more and better jobs at home, and lowers under employment. When this hypothesis was tested, it failed miserably.
It may or may not illuminate my practice but I don't feel that this is really the point. I would not be practicing at all had I not studied the relationship between Buddhism, philosophy and physics. If we're already convinced by the Noble Truths then physics becomes just a matter of curiosity, but if we doubt them then a study of major problems in physics and metaphysics can be highly convincing.
Superposition is a weird thing, and beyond me to integrate with the dhamma. But nonlocal effects can be explained more easily in Buddhism than in physics, and the Higgs field is a lot of fun to think about.
About the term 'consciousness' - does the Buddha generally use the same meaning for this word as philosophers of mind? It seems so to me. This would be 'intentional' consciousness, consciousness as duality of subject and object. If we stick to this definition then some confusion is avoided. Then we have to call what is prior to intentional consciousness by another name. Perhaps 'pre-conceptual' awareness', or Schopenhauer's 'better consciousness'.
The title of this topic, "Superposition and Buddhist theory" is an opened can of worms and, as I can see, leads straight back to the necessity of the non-physical mind as expressed in Buddhism through the Lankavatara Sutra. In other words, anyone arguing for physical realism as being fundamental doesn't, in the slightest degree, understand QM and what it implies for the future of mankind.
The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse. ~ The Nine Lives of Schroedinger's, Zvi Schreiber
In some sects of Buddhism 'physical' is just a mental label that originates from mind. I think the prajna paramita sutras have already done away with a physical universe.
Actually, superposition strikes me very much as an argument away from physical realism - it gets us (or me, anyway!) away from the idea of solid, fixed objects in one, single position/state at one, specific time.
"Physical realism" is, in other words, may be a misnomer, at least in the sense society commonly uses it ("a real thing is in an exact location/state"); I think superposition theory proposes that, ultimately, or on some different level, reality does not look much like our conventional picture of physical realism.
From earlier in the thread:
T: "Ultimately those characteristics (states) are not independent essences." SP: "An entity exists partly in all its theoretically possible states simultaneously."
To me anyway, it's just another finger pointing toward the same, or at least similar, concept.
Does Buddhism even point to anything non-physical? Isn't everything material, according to it?
The Buddha was very much against materialism as the fundamental basis of reality. A guy the Buddha thoroughly disliked was Ajita Kesakambali, the materialist.
Ajita Kesakambali taught what appears to be a form of materialism, that there is no future life for us let alone repeated rebirth. Mankind is formed of earth, water, fire, and air, which return to their elements after death. There is no merit in good deeds (good karma) or demerit in wicked ones" (Paul Williams, Anthony Tribe, Buddhist Thought (2000), p. 19
It's not just about pointing towards ultimate reality, though--deconstructing conventional reality, to show that things don't exist the way we think they do, has been for me an important part of Buddhist teachings, and a method often discussed at the beginning level.
It's not that deconstructing conventional physical objects is meant to put emphasis on their physical qualities, emphasizing their physical realism, quite the opposite; yet it seems important, especially at the beginning levels, to begin moving toward an understanding of ultimate reality by looking at a physical object and then examining the way our view of that object has been incorrect.
In looking at superposition, aren't we going through that same process--looking at what we thought were the solid, fixed qualities of something, and breaking those down to show that it's not as fixed as we thought?
I guess my underlying assumption is that science may continue to develop theories that come closer and closer to the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality. So for that reason, I see superposition as just a nice step in that direction. It's not that I'm trying to define ultimate reality by reducing it to superposition's theory on solid objects; I'm interested in superposition because it and other quantum theories seem very much to be tearing apart the idea of solid, fixed physical objects.
In some sects of Buddhism 'physical' is just a mental label that originates from mind. I think the prajna paramita sutras have already done away with a physical universe.
I don't think Mind-only is the same as the middle way.
Mind only includes the form skhanda, Pedantic.. Have you experienced anything outside of mind? How could you prove that anything exists out of mind? There is always mind whenever any phenomena appears. Mind and mental arise together.
Could you explain to me how you see the middle way? Mind only - yogacara also bases itself off nagarjuna and middle way.
This posting of free e-mail mailings seemed related to the question. The mailings are the student teacher questions in the Awakened Heart Sangha led by Lama Shenpen Hookham.
The twelve links of dependent origination
Summary: The twelve links of dependent origination, also known as the twelve nidanas (Sanskrit: pratitya samutpada; Tibetan, ten-drel, chu-nyi) are an important part of the Buddha's teaching. They are the means by which the deluded world of samsara is maintained. Here a student wonders how this fits with the later Madhyamaka teachings on the emptiness of reality, expounded by Nagarjuna.
Student:
I have been looking into the Madhyamaka teachings, and I have been struggling to understand the Buddha Shakyamuni’s teaching on the Twelve Nidanas in this context. Buddha states that there are these twelve stages of causation and Nagarjuna proves cause and effect not to be possible. Could you help me to understand this?
Lama Shenpen:
Actually the Buddha didn’t talk about twelve stages of causation. He talked about 12 conditions each of which when present allowed for the presence of the next. That is not quite the same as saying one thing is the cause of another.
Nagarjuna talked about how the idea of cause implies something has the power in it to produce something else but when you look closely at the things involved they are not of the nature of things that can produce an effect. Since a thing called a cause cannot produce an effect and an effect cannot exist without a cause this shows that things do not arise in dependence on causes, and they do not arise causelessly and so that things do not arise!
Or in other words, whatever it is that we are calling things, their true nature cannot be grasped in terms of causes and effects, existence and not existence, arising and not arising and so on.
Btw, I'm not suggesting superposition clearly describes the indescribable--nonconceptual thought, gnosis, ultimate reality, etc. However, madhyamaka statements such is the following don't describe those things either:
"Conventionally there are entities with distinguishing characteristics; ultimately those characteristics are not independent essences."
Both madhyamaka, here, and superposition are merely describing dependent origination, or at least that's how it seems to me.
However much we are urged to rid ourselves of conceptual thought and labels, on the one hand, Buddhist teachings nonetheless appear also to deem the deconstruction of conventional reality a worthy pursuit. I'm assuming that's because, for many students at least, such an approach is helpful.
Obviously, the final goal is to reach a point where one has shed all labels and concepts; but that doesn't mean labels and concepts aren't necessary on the path, otherwise there would be no teachings whatsoever--just {blam!} enlightenment, for the lucky ones who somehow get blammed.
The Gnostic and non-Gnostic Christians were always going round and round on this; the "teachings are unnecessary--all that matters is experience" schools, vs. the "only way to God is through the church teaching" schools.
I see in Buddhism an emphasis on both analysis and experience--deconstruction of the conventional, coupled with familiarizing oneself, little by little, with the ultimate.
I think deconstructing the conventional helps reduce clinging to it; if someone just told me straight off, "reality as you know it is bunk; don't think about it, just try to experience the indescribable," I don't think I'd have any way to approach the latter. But I'm a coarse-level beast; maybe it's a low/middling/high capacity thing.
Does Buddhism even point to anything non-physical? Isn't everything material, according to it?
Definitely not, unless I have badly misunderstood something. Nothing would be material. Nothing would have any 'essence' or substance at its core. All phenomena would be void.
But there is a subtlety. I think it could be said that everything that exists has a material aspect and a mental aspect. It would be just that these aspects are not truly real and are no more than aspects. Everything that 'exists' would be a conceptual imputation.
It seem true that investigating the connection between superposition and Buddhist doctrine is not likely to help our practice, as someone says earlier, but I don't think this is the point. It may very well help us to understand physics. It could be argued that the correct interpretation of QM is Buddhism. The ubiquitous use of contradictory complementarity in the language of Buddhism, and of mysticism in general, is highly suggestive.
Comments
T: Conventionally there are entities with distinguishing characteristics (states).
SP: A measured entity gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible states.
and
T: Ultimately those characteristics (states) are not independent essences.
SP: An entity exists partly in all its theoretically possible states simultaneously.
This makes it very intriguing then, to look at superposition's "measured" qualifier. That expresses (to me) what is "missing" (or rather, implied) in Tsongkhapa's theory--which is that the difference between conventional and ultimate reality hinges at least partly on a self-identified "measurer."
The superposition theory, of course, presumes a measurer, but hints at the same thing--that the measurer him/herself somehow influences reality, simply by being there to observe. Without anyone being there to observe (measure), all realities exist at once (are not independent essences).
Or I could be completely wrong.
I'm using it (consciousness/vinnana) as the Buddha used it, meaning the supporting factor of name and form, the illusion of projecting out from self to a sense object. The ancient illusion of looking out at the world from the window of the soul.
My point is not that consciousness is colours and form drawn on darkness, my point is that what you see as consciousness isn't consciousness.
Ah, ok, I get what you're saying.
If you want to understand the mechanics of the universe, then Hawkings et al may offer a means.
If you want liberation from samsara then that is the raison d'etre of Buddhadharma.
Just to complicate matters a little " Buddhism " may or may not be Buddhadharma.
Whenever there is evidence ( in the context of Buddhist discussion ) that the self sense is being reinforced rather than understood
Whenever there is evidence of groupthink.
Whenever there is a sense of an identity being constructed rather than deconstructed. Whenever there is defensiveness of self or belief, or undermining of the belief of another..
then there is " Buddhism " its those three little letters i s and m that makes the difference.
My own teacher Norbu Rinpoche says " Dont seek, rest. great nature will support you " He then adds that this takes great effort..
Analogies can be useful if held lightly. http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
For myself at least, I feel it has a chance of improving my understanding of the Buddhist perspective; my later schooling came in a Western environment, for example, so sometimes information "clicks" for me when I see it in Western scientific lingo instead of Eastern.
I don't mean to say everything in Buddhism has an exact counterpart in current science, but I know that exploring other school's alternatives to or even outright rejections of Candrakirti's view helps me sharpen my understanding of his; science is just another lens yet, and one I find personally helpful as a Westerner.
I also totally accept that peeking through the science lens may be completely unuseful for some; I just think it's hard to dismiss its usefulness for others outright.
I remember Yangsi Rinpoche saying that sometimes one can best arrive at an understanding of a particular view by examining the contrasting views; I fully accept that there may come a point at which I say, "There's no way superposition lines up with madhyamaka in [x] respect.
The cat is there either way; it doesn't make sense to me to reject science's experience of the cat as useless, if I feel that it may be useful. It might not even be the "science" that is doing it for me, but just that the familiar labels science uses help me translate Buddhist theory better to my own brain.
Groupthink does not happen on the cushion. It happens when we try to verbalise that which is beyond verbalisation with a mindset that needs certainty.
If we can see that a particular Buddhist teaching has some reflection in testable, modern scientific method, it can increase our confidence in the Buddhist teachings, or at least I feel that is the case for me.
Whether we wanted it or not, most of us here, I imagine, have had it drilled into us growing up--if not at home, than by society--that science is the best way by which to test anything. That it transcends religion, culture, etc., and that its laws are universal, that it is less susceptible to contamination by politics, etc., since its theories are designed to be tested by anyone who cares to try.
This all adds up to quite a deep respect for, or trust in, science.
Where an Eastern student might have a deep respect for a teaching based on his/her reasoned trust in his teacher, in his teacher's teacher, and that teacher's teacher, stretching back through time in a deep and respected lineage of people perhaps even physically related to him/her, we Westerners (or some of us) probably benefit from scientific corroboration, since that's where much of our trust lies.
Really all that means is that we are trusting a certain lineage of scientists, and trusting the atmosphere in which we ourselves were raised. Both sets of trust are worthy, imho, since it is reasoned trust. It doesn't mean there was never a teacher or scientist who made a mistake, just that we trust that the system overall is designed to expose truths rather than falsehoods.
Over time as we in the West study from Buddhist teachers, we'll develop the personal confidence in those lineages, just as Tibetans and other new Buddhists had to long ago.
I don't think it's necessary to find parallels everywhere, or that everyone must use science as a sounding board, or that Buddhism isn't best understood by its own terms, as @Citta mentioned. At the same time, if scientific evidence crops up now and then which supports Buddhist theory, I think that can be really helpful in stabilizing reasoned confidence in what is for our society a fairly new discipline.
From what I can see so far, Buddhist theory and Western science are proving to be mutually reinforcing on many issues. As a linguist I find richness in studying one discipline's translation of the other, but I also treasure that each has a unique perspective that will never be a complete and perfect translation of the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos
http://phys.org/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html
links from my time and dimensional travel blog
http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/links
long term plan is to visit the purelands . . . .
feeling transforms into concentration
perception transforms into wisdom
volitions transform into liberation
consciousness transforms into knowledge of liberation
The scientific method has made great strides. Almost every uses it these days. Yesterday, my porch light was out. I formed three preliminary hypotheses that one or more of three things happened causing my porch light to go out: 1) there is no power going to the bulb; 2) my light switch is defective; 3) the lightbulb is burned out. I elected to go with hypothesis number 3. When I conducted the test putting in the new lightbulb, the new bulb worked. I had light. The old bulb was burned out.
Of course not everyone wishes to utilize, fully, the scientific method, hopefully, to learn from it. Take the example of the GOP. Their preliminary hypothesis is that when the economy goes into a recession give everyone a tax break, especially the rich, and millions of new jobs will be created. But when the hypothesis was tested, it failed. For almost ten years there were no new net gains in jobs. This also applies to free trade. The hypothesis of the GOP and Dems was that sending jobs overseas creates more and better jobs at home, and lowers under employment. When this hypothesis was tested, it failed miserably.
Superposition is a weird thing, and beyond me to integrate with the dhamma. But nonlocal effects can be explained more easily in Buddhism than in physics, and the Higgs field is a lot of fun to think about.
About the term 'consciousness' - does the Buddha generally use the same meaning for this word as philosophers of mind? It seems so to me. This would be 'intentional' consciousness, consciousness as duality of subject and object. If we stick to this definition then some confusion is avoided. Then we have to call what is prior to intentional consciousness by another name. Perhaps 'pre-conceptual' awareness', or Schopenhauer's 'better consciousness'.
"Physical realism" is, in other words, may be a misnomer, at least in the sense society commonly uses it ("a real thing is in an exact location/state"); I think superposition theory proposes that, ultimately, or on some different level, reality does not look much like our conventional picture of physical realism.
From earlier in the thread:
T: "Ultimately those characteristics (states) are not independent essences."
SP: "An entity exists partly in all its theoretically possible states simultaneously."
To me anyway, it's just another finger pointing toward the same, or at least similar, concept.
It's not that deconstructing conventional physical objects is meant to put emphasis on their physical qualities, emphasizing their physical realism, quite the opposite; yet it seems important, especially at the beginning levels, to begin moving toward an understanding of ultimate reality by looking at a physical object and then examining the way our view of that object has been incorrect.
In looking at superposition, aren't we going through that same process--looking at what we thought were the solid, fixed qualities of something, and breaking those down to show that it's not as fixed as we thought?
I guess my underlying assumption is that science may continue to develop theories that come closer and closer to the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality. So for that reason, I see superposition as just a nice step in that direction. It's not that I'm trying to define ultimate reality by reducing it to superposition's theory on solid objects; I'm interested in superposition because it and other quantum theories seem very much to be tearing apart the idea of solid, fixed physical objects.
Could you explain to me how you see the middle way? Mind only - yogacara also bases itself off nagarjuna and middle way.
This posting of free e-mail mailings seemed related to the question. The mailings are the student teacher questions in the Awakened Heart Sangha led by Lama Shenpen Hookham.
The twelve links of dependent origination
"Conventionally there are entities with distinguishing characteristics; ultimately those characteristics are not independent essences."
Both madhyamaka, here, and superposition are merely describing dependent origination, or at least that's how it seems to me.
However much we are urged to rid ourselves of conceptual thought and labels, on the one hand, Buddhist teachings nonetheless appear also to deem the deconstruction of conventional reality a worthy pursuit. I'm assuming that's because, for many students at least, such an approach is helpful.
Obviously, the final goal is to reach a point where one has shed all labels and concepts; but that doesn't mean labels and concepts aren't necessary on the path, otherwise there would be no teachings whatsoever--just {blam!} enlightenment, for the lucky ones who somehow get blammed.
The Gnostic and non-Gnostic Christians were always going round and round on this; the "teachings are unnecessary--all that matters is experience" schools, vs. the "only way to God is through the church teaching" schools.
I see in Buddhism an emphasis on both analysis and experience--deconstruction of the conventional, coupled with familiarizing oneself, little by little, with the ultimate.
I think deconstructing the conventional helps reduce clinging to it; if someone just told me straight off, "reality as you know it is bunk; don't think about it, just try to experience the indescribable," I don't think I'd have any way to approach the latter. But I'm a coarse-level beast; maybe it's a low/middling/high capacity thing.
But there is a subtlety. I think it could be said that everything that exists has a material aspect and a mental aspect. It would be just that these aspects are not truly real and are no more than aspects. Everything that 'exists' would be a conceptual imputation.
It seem true that investigating the connection between superposition and Buddhist doctrine is not likely to help our practice, as someone says earlier, but I don't think this is the point. It may very well help us to understand physics. It could be argued that the correct interpretation of QM is Buddhism. The ubiquitous use of contradictory complementarity in the language of Buddhism, and of mysticism in general, is highly suggestive.