CONFERENCE ON QUANTUM

PHYSICS AND MADHYAMIKA

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW
12 – 13 November 2015
Convention Centre,
Jawaharlal Nehru University

Organized by:

Jawaharlal Nehru University

Co-Sponsored by:

The Dalai Lama Trust

 “Broadly speaking, although there are some differences, I think
Buddhist philosophy and Quantum Mechanics can shake hands
on their view of the world. We can see in these great examples
the fruits of human thinking. Regardless of the admiration we
feel for these great thinkers, we should not lose sight of the
fact that they were human beings just as we are.”

-His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama

2
 Concept Note
What Constitutes the Ultimate Reality?
Quantum Physics and Buddhist Theory of Emptiness

Paradigm shift in physics from the Newtonian physics (a study of large,

macroscopic, common objects, encountered daily), to quantum mechanics ( a
study of microscopic objects, mostly invisible to the naked eye) and relativity
theory, marked a revolution in physics. While Newtonian physics believed in
the discreteness of wave and particle nature, where an object can never display
both the qualities, quantum physics through double slit experiments showed
that an electron behaves as wave, while at the same time, behaves as particle.

Schondinger’s cat experiment, in stark contrast to the everyday understanding

of the world as deterministic, postulates the existence of contrasting states of
existence, a paradox.

According to Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle, momentum of an

electron and the position of the same electron cannot precisely be determined
simultaneously, thereby displaying non-deterministic and non-objectivity of
reality.

An observer in the form of a measuring instrument forms a constitutive

element of the reality it observes, according to quantum physics. Independent
of the measuring instrument, the reality makes no sense out there, objectively.
Most quantum physicists would say that nothing really exists without the
apparatus defining it, i.e., existence is realized by the very act of observation.

What constitutes reality was a huge debate for the Buddhist philosophers
over the ages. Buddhist realists believed in a deterministic external objective
reality, while the Buddhist idealists argued against them by abjectly rejecting
any degree of objectivity and externality, ascribing all realities to the internal
subjective mind. It is the great philosopher Nagarjuna (1st Cent. CE,) whose
view, the Tibetans hold with highest esteem, who while rejecting all degrees
of objectivity, in quite parallel to quantum physics, explains the causation of
the everyday world seamlessly, by positing subjective existence similar to what
the quantum physicists ascribe the role of the observer, in the existence of
what is observed. This concept was clarified through bringing in the concept
of two truths - conventional truth, the events which our everyday experience
undeniably sees, hears, feels and so forth, and the ultimate truth or the reality
which is understood in the context of total rejection of any degree of intrinsic,
objective and independent existence of any phenomena. Nothing exists
independent of subjectivity, the way quantum physics postulates.

In the light of the great similarity in postulating the disparity between the
appearance and the reality of phenomena, shared between the two systems
of thought – quantum physics and Nagarjuna’s theory of emptiness, Raja
Ramanna, a great Indian physicist, drew parallels between Nagarjuna’s theory
of emptiness and quantum mechanics.
3
Programme

Thursday, 12 November 2015

08:30 – 09:30 Tea / Coffee / Registration

09:45 – 10:15 Opening Ceremony

Introduction by Prof. Prasenjit Sen, Rector
Welcome speech by Prof. S. K. Sopory, Vice Chancellor, JNU
Speech by His Holiness The Dalai Lama

10:30 – 11:30 Prof. Michel Bitbol

Quantum Physics : interdependence and the no-view stance

Discussion Chair: Prof. N. Mukunda

11:30 – 12:30 Ven. Geshe Ngawang Sangye

Concerning Cittramatrin’s View of Emptiness

Discussion Chair: Prof. Geshe Ngawang Samten

12:30 – 13:15 Lunch

13:15 – 14:15 Ven. Geshe Lobsang Tenpe Gyaltsen (Yangteng Tulku)

What is the Buddhist perspective of the World and its Beings

Discussion Chair: Ven. Geshe Lhakdor

14: 15 – 14:45 Tea

14:45 – 15:45 Prof. Mathew Chandrankunnel

The Ontology and Epistemology of Reality according to
Quantum Mechanics and Madhyamaka Buddhism

Discussion Chair: Prof. Rajaram Nityananda

15:45 - 16:15 Book Release

4
 Programme

Friday, 13 November 2015

09:00 – 09:15 Tea / Coffee

09:30 – 11:00 Prof. Sundar Sarukkai

Wave-Particle Duality and Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamaka
karika

Ven. Geshe Jangchub Sangay

Dependent origination: The absence of intrinsic existence
and tenability of conventional phenomena according to
Prasangika Madhyamika system

Discussion Chair: Prof. Arthur G. Zajonc

11:00– 12:00 Mahan Maharaj

The Algebra-Geometry Duality

Discussion Chair: Prof. Somak Raychaudhury

12:00 – 12:45 Lunch

12:45 – 13:45 Ven. Geshe Chisa Drungchen Tulku

The Two Truths: Prasangika Madhyamaka Perspective

Discussion Chair: Prof. Geshe Ngawang Samten

13:45 – 14:15 Tea

14:15 – 15:15 Prof. Arthur G. Zajonc

Experimental Foundations of Quantum Physics

Discussion Chair: Prof. Anirban Chakraborti

Concluding Ceremony
Summary of observations
Quantum Physics by Dr. Brijesh Kumar, School of Physical
Sciences, JNU
Buddhist Philosophy by Geshe Lhakdor
Concluding Remarks by His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Vote of Thanks by Prof. Renuka Singh, SSS, JNU

5
 “The paradoxical nature of reality revealed in both the Buddhist
philosophy of emptiness and modern physics represents
a profound challenge to the limits of human knowledge.
The essence of the problem is epistemological: How do we
conceptualize and understand reality coherently? Not only
have Buddhist philosophers of emptiness developed an entire
understanding of the world based on the rejection of the deeply
ingrained temptation to treat reality as if it were composed of
intrinsically real objective entities but they have also striven to
live these insights in their day to day lives. “

-His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama

6
 Presentation Summary
Quantum physics : Interdependence and the no-view stance

Speaker : Michel Bitbol, Ph.D.,

Professor and Directeur de recherche at CNRS, France

When one compares Madhyamika philosophy and Quantum Physics,

one should not attempt to establish a parallel between two views of the
world, and even less between two metaphysical conceptions of reality.
Instead, this comparison concerns two of the most radical critiques of
metaphysical views and essentialism that have been proposed in the
history of human thought. A brief exposition of quantum physics along
the most advanced lines of information-theoretic and probabilistic
interpretations will thus show that there is no definite “picture of the
world” associated to the predictive formalism of the quantum theory.
True, one characteristic feature of quantum physics is remarkably
reminiscent of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination : it is
the relation of “entanglement” or “non-separability” between two
arbitrarily distant systems. And many authors took this analogy as
a proof that both physics and Buddhism agree on a highly
interconnected view of reality. But not even non-separability should
be absolutized, not even non-separability should be mistaken
for a view of the world as it is independently of us. Indeed, the
relation of quantum non-separability is itself relative to the
experimental procedure by which we acquire knowledge about it.
This negative statement concerning the status of non-separability fits
quite well with the Madhyamika criticism of any absolutization of
dependent origination and emptiness. To conclude, this deflationary,
non-metaphysical, approach will be shown to dispose easily of some of
the so-called “paradoxes” of quantum physics. A philosophical stance
inspired by prasangika Madhyamika then turns out to be an excellent
basis for dissolving the cultural prejudice that makes us think that there
is something obscure or paradoxical in quantum physics.

7
Presentation Summary
Concerning Cittramatrin’s View of Emptiness

Speaker : Ven. Geshe Ngawang Sangye, Ph.D,

Religious Instructor at the Sera Monastic University

From the threefold division of basis, path and result according to the
Cittamatra (Mind Only) School of Buddhism, I will briefly explain the
basis in three parts: 1) reasonings refuting external existence as a branch
of Cittamatrin’s final view of reality; 2) the reasonings establishing their
final view; 3) other issues that arise from these assertions.

First, an explanation of the reasonings refuting external existence as

a branch of Cittamatrin’s final view of reality will be given under four
headings reflecting the assertions of four main proponents: Asanga,
Vasubhandu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti. These four headings are: 1) how
Asanga refutes external existence through examples; 2) Vasbhandu’s
method of refuting external existence through the refutation of partless
particles; 3) Dignaga and, 4) Dharmakirti’s way of refuting external
existence through refuting the possibility of subtle and gross particles
being objects of observation.

Second, an explanation of Cittamatrin’s reasonings establishing the

final view will be presented by looking at various instances of the four
parts of a proof statement: subjects, signs, thesis, and examples.

Finally, three other issues related to this will be discussed. First is an

analysis of the imprints that Mind Only speak about when they assert
that all phenomena are established through the ripening of imprints.
Second is the identification of the kind of consciousness spoken of
when they say that all phenomena are one entity with consciousness.
Finally, we will look at how multiple individuals view a single object
simultaneously and whether the same object can appear to different
individuals.

8
 Presentation Summary
What is Buddhist perspective on the world and its beings?

Speaker : Ven. Geshe Lobsang Tenpe Gyaltsen

(Yangteng Tulku), Ph.D.,
Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

All religions answer these four questions about the cosmos and the
beings living in it: How did they evolve? What are their nature? What
becomes of them? Why do they become such?

All religions have their own primary goal of liberation (moksha or

nirvana). So, whatever they explanation they give of their own religion
mainly pertain to cultivating happiness and avoiding suffering and
other secondary off-shoot goals. Accordingly, their presentation of
liberation/salvation are relatively short.

The buddhists answer these four questions? In general, regarding the

process of analysis, the buddhists make three categories to ontological
status of things: the obvious (manifest object), slightly hidden
(obscured) phenomena, and the very hidden (obscured) phenomena.

With respect to the analytical method, there are four logical principles:
relativity; functionality; argumentation; and natural principle.

The answers to these four questions are related to two things: matter
and consciousness. As such what matter comprise are the accumulated
particles and their minute components: the former is made up of eight
subtle constituent particles which are its building blocks: solidity,
fluidity, heat and motile energy; form, odour, taste and tactility. These
building blocks of infinitisemal particles further evolve from extremely
subtle matter called empty-particles. Though the appellation “empty-
particle” is given to such a thing out of mere convention, in reality they
are only in the nature of potentiality or energy. In the end, all physical
forms dissolve back into this empty-particle and, again, they arise and
evolve from it. Thus, there is a continuous process of evolution and
devolution between matter and potentialities in the universe.

In Abhidharmakosha clearly mentions these very subtle particles are

what is known as dharma-rupa-ayatana (form-source-dharma) and
transformed elements.

9
Presentation Summary
In my paper, I also deal with the topics of evolution of the universe,
arisal and dissolution processes of consciousness, as well as the nature/
identity of matter and cognition.

༄༅། །ནང་པས་སྣོད་བཅུད་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཁམས་ལ་ལྟ་ཚུལ་གང་ཡིན་ནམ།
སྤྱིར་ཆོས་ལུགས་ཚང་མས་སྣོད་བཅུད་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཁམས་འདི་ཇི་ལྟར་བྱུང་ངམ། ངོ་བོ་ཅི་
ཞིག་ཡིན། ཇི་ལྟར་འགྱུར། ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་འདི་ལྟར་ཡིན་དགོས་སམ་ཞེས་པའི་དྲི་བ་བཞི་པོ་འདིར་
ལན་འདེབས་མཁན་ཤ་སྟག་ཆགས་ཡོད།
ཡིན་ནའང་ཆོས་ལུགས་མཐའ་དག་གིས་རང་རང་གི་ཐར་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་ཅིག་བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་གཙོ་
བོར་བྱས་ནས་བཤད་ཡོད་སྟབས། ཆོས་ལུགས་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་གང་བྱེད་བདེ་སྡུག་འདོར་ལེན་
གྱི་ཚུལ་གཙོ་བོ་དང་གཞན་རྣམས་དེ་ལས་འཕྲོས་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་ཙམ་ཡིན། རང་རང་གི་ཐར་
པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་དང་བསྡུར་ན་སྣོད་ཀྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་སྐོར་ནི་རྒྱས་པོ་མེད་པ་གསལ་པོ་རེད།
སངས་རྒྱས་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་གྲུབ་མཐའ་སྨྲ་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་བདག་རྟག་པ་དང་། གནས་ལུས་ལོངས་
སྤྱོད་རྣམས་འཇིག་རྟེན་བཀོད་པ་པོས་བཀོད་པ་དང་། ཡང་ན་རྟག་པའི་རང་བཞིན་གྱི་རྒྱུ་མི་གསལ་
ལས་བྱུང་བ་དང་། ཡང་ན་རྒྱུ་མེད་ཐོལ་བྱུང་དུ་བྱུང་བར་འདོད་ཀྱི་ཡོད་པས་དྲི་བ་བཞི་པོ་དེའི་
ལན་ནི་འཇིག་རྟེན་བཀོད་པ་པོ་དང་སྤྱི་གཙོ་བོ་དང་སྟེས་དབང་བཅས་ལ་ཐུག་ཡོད།
ནང་པ་སངས་རྒྱས་པས་དྲི་བ་བཞི་པོ་དེའི་ལན་ཇི་ལྟར་འདེབས་པ་ནི། སྤྱིར་སངས་རྒྱས་པས་
དཔྱད་པ་བྱེད་པ་ན། དཔྱད་བྱའི་ཡུལ་ལ་མཐོང་བ་མངོན་གྱུར་དང་། ཅུང་ཟད་ལྐོག་གྱུར། ཤིན་
ཏུ་ལྐོག་གྱུར་བཅས་སྡེ་ཚན་གསུམ་ཡོད།
དཔྱོད་བྱེད་ཀྱི་རིགས་པ་ལ་ཆོས་ཉིད་ཀྱི་རིགས་པ་དང་། ལྟོས་པའི་རིགས་པ། བྱ་བ་བྱེད་པའི་
རིགས་པ། འཐད་པའི་རིགས་པ་བཞི།

10
 Presentation Summary

དཔྱོད་པ་པོའི་གང་ཟག་ལ་གང་ཟག་མི་རྟོན་ཆོས་ལ་རྟོན། ཚིག་ལ་མི་རྟོནདོན་ལ་རྟོན། དྲང་དོན་

མི་རྟོན་ངེས་དོན་ལ་རྟོན། རྣམ་ཤེས་མི་རྟོན་ཡེ་ཤེས་ལ་རྟོན་དགོས་པའི་ཁྱད་ཆོས་བཞི་ཚང་དགོས།
དྲི་བ་བཞི་པོ་དེའི་ལན་དེ་ཡང་གཟུགས་ཅན་དང་། ཤེས་པའི་སྐོར་གཉིས་སུ་འདུས་པས་གཟུགས་
ཅན་རྣམས་ཇི་ལྟར་གྲུབ་ཚུལ་ནི། གཟུགས་ཅན་ལ་བསགས་རྡུལ་དང་དེ་རྩོམ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་
གཉིས་ལས། བསགས་རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་རྡུལ་རྫས་བརྒྱད་ལྡན་གྱི་གོང་བུ་དེ་རང་ཉིད་རྩོམ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ས་
ཆུ་མེ་རླུང་དང་། གཟུགས་དྲི་རོ་རེག་བྱའི་རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་བརྒྱད་ལས་གྲུབ་ཡོད། རྩོམ་གཞིའི་རྡུལ་
ཕྲ་རབ་དེ་རྣམས་རང་ཉིད་གང་ལས་མཆེད་སའི་འབྱུང་བ་ཤིན་ཏུ་ཕྲ་བ་སྟོང་པའི་རྡུལ་ལས་བྱུང་
བ་དང་། དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་སྟོང་པའི་རྡུལ་ལ་རྡུལ་ཞེས་ཐ་སྙད་བཏགས་པ་ཙམ་ལས་དོན་དུ་ནུས་པ་ཙམ་
དུ་ཟད་པ་ཡིན། དེས་ན་གཟུགས་ཅན་ཆོས་རྣམས་མཐར་སྟོང་པའི་རྡུལ་ལ་ཐིམ་ཞིང་། སླར་ཡང་
སྟོང་པའི་རྡུལ་ལས་ཤར་ཏེ་འཆར་ནུབ་རྒྱུན་མི་ཆད་པར་འགྲོ་བཞིན་ཡོད།
རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་དེ་རྣམས་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐྱེ་མཆེད་ཀྱི་གཟུགས་དང་འབྱུང་འགྱུར་ཡིན་པར་མཛོད་ལས་
གསལ་བར་གསུངས་ཡོད།
དེ་ནས་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཁམས་ཆགས་འཇིག་དང་། ཤེས་པའི་སྐྱེ་རིམ་དང་ཐིམ་རིམ། གཟུགས་
ཤེས་ཀྱི་ངོ་བོ་གང་ཡིན་བཅས་ཀྱི་སྐོར་ཞུ་རྒྱུ་ཡིན།

11
Presentation Summary
The Ontology and Epistemology of Reality according to
Quantum Mechanics and Madhyamaka Buddhism

Speaker : Mathew Chandrankunnel, Ph. D.,

Professor at Dharmaram College, Bangalore, India

Classical physics provides an objective and continuous reality

independent of the observer. The absolute space and time where the
observation is made is relativised by the theory of relativity through
combining space-time and giving light a definite velocity. Matter-
space-time became a continuum where the existence of the space-
time, dependent on the presence of matter and gravity became the
property of the curvature of the space-time. The objectivity of the
physical reality and the knowledge about its future evolution are
given with certainty. However, in Quantum Mechanics, the reality
exists only when a measurement is made where the observer is indeed
influencing the observation fusing the observer and the observed. The
Completeness-incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics debate through
the thought experiments like Schroedinger’s cat and EPR and the
alternate interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its denial through
impossibility theorem delve deep into the ontology-epistemology
debate of the physical reality and the possibility of the representation
of the reality through the mathematical theories. This debate on
the dialectics of reality could also be possible to trace in the debate
among the different schools of Madyamaka Buddhism which could be
compared and contrasted with the debate in physics and hence may be
an opportunity to shed light on the representation, the ontology of the
physical reality and the epistemological content we can derive through
experiments and experience of the reality as a whole.

12
 Presentation Summary
Wave-Particle Duality and Nāgārjuna’s
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Speaker : Sundar Sarukkai, Ph.D.,

Professor at Manipal Centre for Philosophy and Humanities,
Manipal University, Manipal, India

Wave-particle duality is not only a central theme of quantum physics

but also poses a fundamental challenge to any philosophy of quantum
theory. The challenge that this view poses to traditional conceptions
of logic, in particular the principles surrounding contradiction, has
been difficult to deal with. Typically, discussion on this theme has had
two parts to it: one is epistemological and is related basically to the
measurement problem, and the other is ontological. In this talk I want
to focus on the ontological dimension. What kind of ontology or the
nature of reality does this duality imply? It is not a surprise that the
nature of wave-particle duality has been a key topic of discussion among
contemporary Buddhist philosophers, especially in the Madhyamaka
tradition. HH Dalai Lama has also discussed the implications of this
problem and its connection to the doctrine of emptiness. In this talk,
I want to explicate in some detail the exact nature of this relation
between Nāgārjuna’s great text,  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, and the
ontology of wave-particle duality. In particular, I hope to show how the
conceptual structure and nature of the argument presented in this text
are extremely important for any attempt to understand the meaning of
wave-particle duality.  
 

13
Presentation Summary
Dependent origination: The absence of intrinsic existence
and tenability of conventional phenomena according to
Prasangika Madhyamika system

Ven. Geshe Jangchub Sangay, Ph.D.,

Sharte College, Gaden Monastic University , Karnataka

The concept of ‘dependent origination’ (Skt. Pratityasamudpada),

the basic reality of things, in Buddhism is recognised as the way in
which the nature of things are established. This philosophical view of
dependent origination explains how pain and pleasure are not only due
to external factors, good or bad, but that our mental attitude, too, plays
its role in them.

1. Causal Dependency
All the philosophical schools of Buddhism unanimously accept the
concept of causal dependency. They explain that every compounded
phenomena including the external world of dwellings and their dwellers,
the living beings, are the diverse results of diverse causes and conditions.
So, when seeing how things arise from many different perspectives has
the special quality of eliminating the narrowmindedness that things
and events happen through a single cause or condition.

2. Dependency in terms relativity to its ‘parts’

This refers to the interdependency of a whole and its parts. For without
the ‘parts of a whole there cannot be a ‘whole’ as such, and in the absence
of the latter it will not make any sense to talk about the ‘parts thereof’.

3. Dependency in terms of a mere nominal designation

When explaining this concept we would deal with these three concepts,
namely: 1) that things are just conceptually designated; 2) that, when
searched for, the desginated object or meaning cannot be found [within
itself or from amongst its constituent factors]; and 3) that all actions
and agents are feasible while things are merely designated by name and
conceptual mind.

14
 Presentation Summary

Though things do not exist intrinsically they are not nought but it is
utterly acceptable that they exist in dependence on others or by way
of designation. Therefore, it is very important for us to differentiate
between to two pairs of ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’, that is to know
‘existence’ as opposed to ‘instrinsic existence’ and to understand ‘non-
existence’ as opposed to ‘intrinsic non-existence’.

Whether something exists conventionally or not should be

delineated by these criteria, namely, that: 1) things are rennowned
in conventional consciousness; 2) this renowned conventional
object is not undermined by another conventional valid cognition,
and 3) this renowned object is also not disqualified by a reasoning
mind critically analysing the reality-as-it-is (tattva or tathata).
Those which do not fulfill these three criteria are termed ‘non-existent’.

Because things are empty [of independent existence] their mere

existential appearance could be established, and vice versa. Therefore,
emptiness and apperance are not incongruent with each other. Because
[Prasangika Madhyamakas] assert that things do not exist intrinsically
or independently they are able to well establish ultimate truth
(paramartha satya) and, as they assert the valid cognition of things only
through dependence on other factors they are able to appropriately
establish conventional truth as well.

The main thrust of the philosophical view of Prasangika Madhyamakas

is twofold: that there is not the slightest of objective existence whatever
and that actions and agents are tenable [with respect to things as they
are merely nominally designated.

15
Presentation Summary

༄༅། །དབུ་མ་ཐལ་འགྱུར་བའི་ལུགས་ལ་ཆོས་རྣམས་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མེད་ཀྱང་
ཐ་སྙད་དུ་རྣམ་གཞག་ཐམས་ཅད་འཐད་པའི་རྟེན་འབྱུང་གི་སྐོར།
དགེ་བཤེས་བྱང་ཆུབ་སངས་རྒྱས།
༄༅། །ནང་ཆོས་ནང་རྟེན་འབྱུང་ཞེས་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་གཞི་རྩའི་གནས་ལུགས་དེ་ལྟོས་གྲུབ་ཀྱི་
རང་བཞིན་ཞིག་ཏུ་ངོས་འཛིན་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡོད། རྟེན་འབྱུང་གི་ལྟ་བ་འདིས་བདེ་སྡུག་རྣམས་ཕྱི་རོལ་
ཡུལ་གྱི་དངོས་པོ་བཟང་ངན་ཁོ་ན་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་བྱུང་བ་མིན་པར་ནང་སེམས་ཀྱི་འཁྱེར་སོ་བཟང་
ངན་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་བྱུང་བར་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་བྱེད་ཅིང་། རྟེན་འབྱུང་གི་རྣམ་གཞག་དེའི་ནང་ལ་རྒྱུ་
འབྲས་ཀྱི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་དང་། རང་གི་ཆ་ཤས་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་གྲུབ་པའི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ། མིང་རྐྱང་བཏགས་
ཡོད་ཙམ་གྱི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་བཅས་གནད་དོན་གསུམ་གྱི་ཐོག་ནས་གོ་དོན་བཤད་ཀྱི་ཡོད།
༡) རྒྱུ་འབྲས་ཀྱི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་འདི་ནི། ནང་པའི་གྲུབ་མཐའ་སྨྲ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས་ཐུན་མོང་དུ་ཁས་
ལེན་ཞིང་། སྣོད་ཀྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་འདི་དང་དེའི་ནང་ཡོད་པའི་ཡོད་པའི་བཅུད་ཀྱི་སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་
ཀྱིས་མཚོན་འདུས་བྱས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་མཐའ་དག་རྒྱུ་དང་རྐྱེན་སྣ་ཚོགས་པ་ལས་འབྲས་བུའི་ཁྱད་པར་
སྣ་ཚོགས་པ་འབྱུང་བའི་ཚུལ་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་འབའ་ཞིག་གི་ལམ་ནས་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་བྱེད།
གནད་དོན་གང་ཡིན་རུང་དེ་ཉིད་ཕྱོགས་མང་པོར་ལྟོས་ནས་གྲུབ་པར་མཐོང་ཚེ་གནད་དོན་དེ་རྒྱུ་
གཅིག་དང་རྐྱེན་གཅིག་པུ་ལས་བྱུང་བའི་གུ་དོག་གི་བསམ་བློ་ཁག་བསལ་ཐུབ་པའི་ཁྱད་ཆོས་
ལྡན།
༢) རང་གི་ཆ་ཤས་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་གྲུབ་པའི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་ནི། ཆ་དང་ཆ་ཅན་ཕན་ཚུན་ལྟོས་ནས་གྲུབ་
པ་དེ་ཡིན། ཆ་མེད་པར་ཆ་ཅན་ཡོང་མི་ཐུབ་ལ་ཆ་ཅན་མེད་པར་ཆ་ཤས་ཀྱི་སྐོར་བཤད་ན་གོ་དོན་
གང་ཡང་མེད།
༣) མིང་རྐྱང་བཏགས་ཡོད་ཙམ་གྱི་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་བཤད་སྐབས། རྟོག་པས་བཏགས་ཙམ་དང་།
བཏགས་དོན་བཙལ་ནས་མི་རྙེད་པ། མིང་དང་རྟོག་པས་བཏགས་ཙམ་ལ་བྱ་བྱེད་ཐམས་ཅད་འཐད་
16
 Presentation Summary

པའི་ཚུལ་བཅས་གནད་དོན་གསུམ་གྱི་ཐོག་ནས་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་བྱ་རྒྱུ་ཡོད།
རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མེད་ནའང་གཏན་ནས་མེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པར་གཞན་ལ་ལྟོས་པ་དང་བཏགས་པའི་
སྒོ་ནས་ཡོད་པ་ཤིན་ཏུ་འཐད་པས་ཡོད་པ་དང་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཡོད་པ། མེད་པ་དང་རང་བཞིན་
གྱིས་མེད་པ་སྟེ། ཡོད་པ་གཉིས་དང་མེད་པ་གཉིས་ཕྱེད་དགོས་པ་ཤིན་ཏུ་གལ་ཆེ་ཞིང་། ཐ་སྙད་
དུ་ཡོད་མེད་ནི། ཐ་སྙད་པའི་ཤེས་པ་ལ་གྲགས་པ་ཡིན་པ་དང་། ཇི་ལྟར་གྲགས་པའི་དོན་དེ་ལ་ཐ་
སྙད་པའི་ཚད་མ་གཞན་གྱིས་གནོད་པ་མེད་པ། དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་ལ་དཔྱོད་པའི་རིགས་པས་གནོད་པ་
མེད་པ་ཞིག་ལ་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་ཡོད་པ་དང་། དེ་དག་ལས་བཟློག་པ་ནི་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་མེད་པ་ཡིན།
སྟོང་པས་སྣང་ཙམ་གྲུབ། སྣང་ཙམ་ཡིན་པ་དེས་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་སྟོང་པར་གྲུབ་པས་སྣང་སྟོང་འགལ་
མེད་དང་། ཆོས་རྣམས་ལ་རང་དབང་དང་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མ་གྲུབ་པར་ཁས་ལེན་པས་དོན་དམ་
པའི་བདེན་པ་དང་། འོན་ཀྱང་དེ་དག་ཚད་མས་གྲུབ་ལུགས་གཞན་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་གྲུབ་པ་ཙམ་དུ་
ཁས་ལེན་པས་ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་ཀྱང་ཤིན་ཏུ་འཐད་ལ། དབུ་མ་ཐལ་འགྱུར་བའི་
ལུགས་ཀྱི་ལྟ་གྲུབ་ཀྱི་གཙོ་བོ་ནི། རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་ཅུང་ཟད་ཙམ་ཡང་མེད་པ་དང་
མིང་གིས་བཏགས་ཙམ་ལ་བྱ་བྱེད་ཐམས་ཅད་འཐད་པས་ཆོག་པ་འདི་གཉིས་ཡིན་ནོ།།

17
Presentation Summary
The Algebra-Geometry Duality

Speaker : Mahan Maharaj, Ph.D.,

Professor at Department of Mathematics,
RKM Vivekananda University, Belur Math, Belur, India

A fundamental duality in Mathematics exists between geometry (dealing

with spaces) and algebra (dealing with functions and operators on
spaces). This duality manifests in different ways in different scientific
disciplines and poses some of the deepest problems. I shall focus on
two of these problems..

1. The problem of time in Physics: 

«Big» questions about «how the universe came to be», etc. are based
on our naive human notion of a 1-dimensional causally ordered time.
This notion of time is now coming under some scrutiny and physicists
are asking for more fundamental structures from which the notion of
time might «emerge».

I will try to say a bit about what mathematical structures could underlie
this and intriguing mathematical questions that arise.

2. A problem in biology: 

Modelling human vison: How do we as human beings obtain a
consolidated idea of what is in the visual field? While a lot of work
has been done, there is a fundamental difference between the way a
computer handles the problem (largely time-ordered) versus the way
the human eye handles the problem (largely space-ordered). Again the
space (geometry) versus time ordering problem arises.

18
 Presentation Summary
The Two Truths: Prasangika Madhyamaka Perspective

Speaker : Ven. Geshe Chisa Drungchen Tulku, Ph.D.,

Gaden Monastic University, Karnataka

Master Chandrakirti was the trailblazer of the Prasangika Madhyamaka

system of philosophy. He lived in the 7th century CE and founded this
school of thought with his writing A Lucid Word Commentary on The
Root Verses of Wisdom of the Middle Way (Skt.: Mula-madhyamaka-
karika-prasannapada-vritti).

His School of Tenet asserts that: (a) the First Turning of Wheel of
Dharma Discourse Sutra subsumes both provisional (or interpretable)
and definitive teachings (b) the Second Turning of Wheel of Dharma
Sutra is a definitive teaching, and (c) the Third Turning of Wheel of
Dharma Discourse Sutra is a provisional teaching.

Briefly, according to this School, I find it suitable to present the basic

ground reality of phenomena on the basis of the two truths (dvayasatya)
and the three natures (trisvabhava). Of the two truths, the conventional
truth is defined as “an object realised by a direct perception cognising
it in a dualistic way”. Whereas the ultimate truth is “an object which
is realised by a direct perception cognising it without duality”. The
latter is categorised into two: selflessness of persons and selflessness of
phenomena (other than persons or beings).

With regard to the presentation the three natures (trisvabhava),

though they are accepted by Chittamatra and Svatantrika Madhyamaka
philosophical schools, the Prasangika Madhyamaka’s definition of
these three natures are totally different. From the vantage point of
this School: (a) the dependent nature (paratantra) refers to whate is
apparent in the conventional things (b) the imputed nature (parikalpita)
is a reification of the dependent nature as the perfect nature, and (c) the
perfect nature (parinispana) is the absence of intrinsic existence in the
conventional dependent nature.

19
Presentation Summary
Experimental Foundations of Quantum Physics
Speaker : Arthur G. Zajonc, Ph.D.,
Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Physics Emeritus, Amherst College,
Amherst, United States of America

All philosophical interpretations of quantum physics are grounded in

certain seminal quantum experiments such as EPR, contextuality and
quantum statistics. These experiments have led to the overthrow of
classical physics and to an entirely different understanding of the world
at its most fundamental level. In my presentation I will concentrate
on the physics experiments themselves and on the consequences that
these have for our understanding of reality. In particular I will describe
delayed-choice and quantum eraser experiments and their implications.
I will relate these to the so-called “measurement problem” in quantum
mechanics and our changed appreciation of the role of the observer in
quantum physics.

20
 Presentation Summary
The difference between the two Madhyamakas :
Prasangika and Svatantrika

Geshe Jamyang Tendar

The theme of my paper touches on two points:

(1) the development of the two sub-schools of the Middle Way

(Madhyamaka) philosophy, i.e. Prasangika and Svatantrika
Madhyamakas, and (2) an explanation of the difference in their tenets.

Regarding the first, I base myself on the All-knowing Master Jamyang

Sheypa’s A Root Text On the Philosophical Systems.

Regarding the second point, (2A) I mention the differences between

the two schools of thought in broad terms, and (2B) then give details
of whether they accept or reject the concept of objectively established
entities (Skt.: svabhavalakshana).

1. Master Tsongkhapa’s An Illumination of the Thought (Tib.: dgongs-

pa rab-gsal), an explanation of Chandrakirti’s Entering the Middle Way
(Madhyamaka Avatara) reads:

Though [according to the Prasangika Madhyamakas] there is not an

atom of self-defined characteristics in things, we could still assert that
all actions and agents are feasible by relying on this unique system [of
philosophy], which expounds many unique tenets perfectly explicated.

Therefore, Prasangika Madhyamikas:

1. reject that an autonomous syllogism can generate the understanding

of the ultimate reality [i.e., emptiness; shunyata] within an opponent’s
mind; 2) believe that Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas can realise the
lack of inherent existencein things; 3) consider the grasping at a self of
phenomena as afflictive emotion; and 4) assert that disintegratedness
is a functioning thing and because of this their presentation of the three
times (past, present and future) is unique as well.

These are some of the features of Prasangika Madhyamika which

differenttiate them from the Svatantrika Madkhyamikas and I shall
present briefly.

21
Presentation Summary
2. I will give Svatantrika Madhyamika’s ‘proof’ of as they accept ‘self-
characterised phenomena’ (or objectively existing phenomena).

Chandrakirti, in his Entering the Middle Way and its Auto-commentary

[Madhyamakavatara-bhashya], gives four logical consequences to
refute that things exist objectively. They are:

1. the reductio ad absurdum that an arya being’s meditative mind fully

absorbed in emptiness would be the destroyer of functioning things.

2. the reductio ad absurdum that conventional truth could withstand a

reasoning mind which critically analyses things.

3. the logical consequence that the arisal of things in the ultimate sense
cannot be negated.

4. the logical consequence of unacceptability of the Buddha’s teaching

that all phenomena lack intrinsic existence.

བརྗོད་གཞི། དབུ་མ་ཐལ་རང་གི་ཁྱད་པར།
དོན་འདི་འཆད་པ་ལ། དབུ་མ་ཐལ་རང་གི་གྲུབ་མཐའི་བྱུང་རིམ་མདོ་ཙམ་བརྗོད་པ་དང་། གྲུབ་
མཐའ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་མི་འདྲ་སའི་ཁྱད་པར་དངོས་བཤད་པ་གཉིས།
དང་པོ་ནི། ཀུན་མཁྱེན་བླ་མ་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བཞད་པའི་གྲུབ་མཐའ་རྩ་བ་ལས་གསུངས་པ་གཞིར་
བྱས་ཏེ་མདོ་ཙམ་ཞུ་རྒྱུ་དང་།
གཉིས་པ་ལ། སྤྱིར་གྲུབ་མཐའ་གཉིས་ཀའི་མི་འདྲ་བའི་ཁྱད་པར་རགས་རིམ་ནས་བརྗོད་པ་དང་།
བྱེ་བྲག་ཏུ་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་ཞལ་གྱིས་བཞེས་མི་བཞེས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་ཞིབ་ཏུ་བརྗོད་
པ་གཉིས།
དང་པོ། རྗེའི་དབུ་མ་དགོངས་པ་རབ་གསལ་ལས། རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་རྡུལ་ཙམ་
མེད་ཀྱང་། བྱ་བྱེད་ཐམས་ཅད་བཞག་པས་ཆོག་པའི་འགྲེལ་ཚུལ་གྱི་ལུགས་ཐུན་མོང་མ་ཡིན་པ་
22
 Presentation Summary

འདི་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས། རྣམ་པར་དག་པའི་གྲུབ་མཐའ་འགྲེལ་བཤད་གཞན་དང་ཐུན་མོང་མ་ཡིན་པ་
མང་དུ་ཡོད་དེ།ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་ལྟར། རང་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་སྦྱོར་བས་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་གྱི་རྒྱུད་ལ་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་
ཀྱི་ལྟ་བ་སྐྱེད་པ་ཁས་མི་ལེན་པ་དང་། ཉན་རང་ལ་དངོས་པོ་རང་བཞིན་མེད་པར་རྟོགས་པ་ཡོད་
པ་དང་། ཆོས་ཀྱི་བདག་འཛིན་ཉོན་མོངས་སུ་འཇོག་པ་དང་། ཞིག་པ་དངོས་པོ་ཡིན་པ་དང་།
དེའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གྱིས་དུས་གསུམ་གྱི་འཇོག་ཚུལ་ཐུན་མོང་མ་ཡིན་པ་སྟེ། འདི་དག་རང་རྒྱུད་པ་
ལས་མི་འདྲ་བའི་ཐལ་འགྱུར་བའི་ཁྱད་ཆོས་ཡིན་ལ་འདི་རྣམས་རགས་རིམ་ཙམ་ཞུ་རྒྱུ་དང་།
གཉིས་པ། དབུ་མ་རང་རྒྱུད་པས་རང་མཚན་འདོད་པའི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་འགོད་པ་དང་། འཇུག་པ་རྩ་
འགྲེལ་དུ་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་འགོག་པའི་རིགས་པ་བཞི་སྟེ། འཕགས་པ་མཉམ་བཞག་
དངོས་པོའི་འཇིག་རྒྱུར་ཐལ་བ་དང་། ཐ་སྙད་བདེན་པ་རིགས་པས་དཔྱད་བཟོད་དུ་ཐལ་བ། དོན་
དམ་པའི་སྐྱེ་བ་མི་ཁེགས་པར་ཐལ་བ།ཆོས་རྣམས་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་སྟོང་བར་གསུངས་པ་མི་འཐད་
པར་ཐལ་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་དེ་འགོག་ཚུལ་གང་ཐུབ་ཅིག་ཞུ་རྒྱུ་བཅས་སོ།།

23
Presentation Summary
‘Basis’ according to the Mind-Only System
-by Geshe Losang Khechok

The main feature of the Mind-Only philosophy is that all phenomena are
merely outer projections of the inner mind’s reflections and therefore
this tenet asserts that external objects do not exist and the internal
knower is truly established.

As for the presentation of the ‘Basis’ according to this system, although

it is admissible to divide in many ways, here they are included in two
divisions:

1. the presentation of the objects which are objects of knowledge and

2. the presentation of the awareness which is the knower.

As for the presentation of the objects of knowledge there are also various
divisions, here I will give a brief introduction of just few examples as they
are treated while delineating the Mind-Only philosophical presentation
of phenomena:

1) the two truths: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The
conventional truth refers to the entity which is merely the mode of
appearance and the ultimate truth to the entity which is the final mode
of abiding. Again the first refers to the phenomenon/the subject which
is the basis to determine and the second to the nuomenon/the nature
which is to be determined with respect to it (the subject);

2) the three natures: the other-powered or dependent nature, the

imaginary or imputed nature and the thoroughly established nature.
The first refers to the phenomenon/subject which is the basis which
lacks (the object of negation), the second to the object of negation and
the third to the nature which is the negation of the object of negation in
relation to the basis.

3) the three types of objects of comprehension: manifestly perceived

objects, slightly hidden objects and thoroughly hidden objects; classified
in terms of whether or not the mind comprehending it has to depend on
a reason or not.

24
 Presentation Summary
4) the two: affirming and negating, from the point of view of the way the
objects appear to the mind.

5) the two: same and different, from the point of view of the way of
appearing to the thought and the way of being expressed. As for the
presentation of the awareness which is the knower, or science of mind,
here I will briefly introduce:

1) the entity of the knower or awareness;

2) the two: primary mind and mental factors, classified from the point
of view of knowing the entity of the object or knowing its features;

3) the two: sense consciousnesses and mental consciousness, classified

from the point of view of whether or not it has to depend on a physical
sense power which is the dominant condition;

4) the two: valid cognizer and non-valid cognizer, classified from the
point of view of being or not a knower which realizes its object newly;

5) the two: conceptual and non-conceptual awareness, classified from

the point of view of whether there is a determining knower thinking:
«It is this and that» or, in other words, whether or not there is an
appearance of a meaning generality and sound generality.

In particular, I will briefly treat the topic of the lack of existence of

external objects formed by minute particles as part of the presentation
of the ultimate truth.

25
Presentation Summary

How mind operates on the objects according to the true and

false aspects within Cittamatra School of philosophy

Geshe Ngawang Sangay

Losel Ling College, Drepung Monastic University

With regard to Cittamatra philosophy of Buddhism, when a mind

operates on its object, we could divide it into “the true-aspectant
Cittamatrin” and “the false-aspectant Cittamatrin” in terms of a
division drawn on the basis of the aspect of the object formed on the
mind. This division is made according to whether they accept, or not,
that the object, e.g. blue colour, could be established as blue just as
it appears, or just as the aspect of blue appears, to the consciousness
perceiving blue.

1. The point of contention between the “true aspectant’ and “false

aspectant” and their assertions:

The point of contention between the “true aspectant” and “false

aspectant” Cittamatrins is whether the ‘aspect’ [of the object] such as a
colour blue, [for example,] exists, or does not exist, just as it appears to
be blue to the visual consciousness perceiving blue. The ‘true aspectant’
Cittamatrin assert that the blue exists just as it appears as blue to the
visual perception of blue, whereas the ‘false aspectant’ Cittamatrin
rejects it to be so.

2. The convergence and difference in assertion between the “true

aspectant’ and “false aspectant”:

Both converge on accepting that the colour blue appears as blue to the
visual perception of a colour blue, and that it appears as a coarse and
an external object, too.

The difference: the ‘true aspectant’ Cittamatrin contend that the

appearance of externality of the blue is tinged with ignorance/
misknowledge (avidya) while the appearance of the coarseness and
blueness are not affected by avidya. However, the ‘false aspectant’
Cittamatrin contend that not only the appearance of externality of blue
but also the other two appearances are tinged by the avidya.

26
 Presentation Summary
3. Sub-divisions within each of the “true aspectant’ and “false
aspectant”:

The “False aspectant” Cittamatrin who asserts “stained [nature of

mind]”: they are the ones who assert that the nature of mind is innately
stained/defiled by the stains of ignorance (avidya); whereas the “False
aspectant” Cittamatrin who asserts “unstained [nature of mind]” are
those who contend that the nature of mind is not innately stained/
defiled, even a slightest bit, by the stains of ignorance (avidya). This
sub-division could also be made on account of whether they assert the
nature of mind is defiled or undefiled.

The sub-division within the “true aspectant” is threefold: “sameness

in the number of object and subject”; “half-eggist”; and “myriad non-
dual”.

4. Arguments to the assertion that the sensory perceptions realise/

recognise their objects together with [the formation of] the objects’
aspect:

When we look at a multi-coloured painting the [the perception of the

painting] should have the aspect of the multi-coloured object [cast on
it]. Otherwise, the perception would not correspond to the aspect of
the object and hence it cannot realise/recognise the object precisely (or
accurately). Moreover, since thorough cognition (rnam par shes pa;
vijnana) cannot be different in nature from the aspect [of the object],
should the aspect be myriad its cognition must correspondingly be
myriad as well.

5. In response to the above question three different systems developed

which assert that cognition has the aspect [of its object]:

a) The response from those asserting the “equal number of the

object and subjective cognition” is the position mentioned in Master
Shantarakshita’s Madhyamikalankara and its Panjika Commentary
wherein it is said that when looking at a myriad colour painting the
multiple visual perceptions, which are of similar type and which arise
in relation to the painting, must correspond in number to the number
of colours in the painting.

27
Presentation Summary
b) the second response comes from the “Half Eggist”

c) the third response comes from “Diversity with non-duality” I will

explain them in detail.

I shall further deal with the development of challenges and responses

amongst these Cittamattrin sub-schools: for example, how Acharya
Shantarakshita, a proponent of “diverse but non-dual” system, objects
the proponents of the “equal number of object and subjective cognition”,
and how the latter countered their challenge and the issue between the
proponents of “non-duality in diversity” and the “Half Eggists”, and so
on.

28
 Speakers
Prof. Michel Bitbol 

Michel Bitbol is a French researcher in philosophy of science. He

is “Directeur de recherche” at  CNRS, previously in the Centre de
Recherche en Epistémologie Appliquée (CREA) of École polytechnique
(Paris, France). He is now a member of Archives Husserl, Ecole Normale
Superieure (Paris, France). His research interests are mainly focused
on the influence of  quantum physics  on  philosophy. He first worked
on Erwin Schrödinger’s metaphysics and philosophy of physics.

Using theorems demonstrated by  Jean-Louis Destouches,  Paulette

Destouches-Février, and R.I.G. Hughes, he pointed out that the
structure of quantum mechanics may be derived to a large extent from
the assumption that microscopic phenomena cannot be dissociated from
their experimental context. His views on quantum mechanics converge
with ideas developed byJulian Schwinger and Asher Peres, according to
whom quantum mechanics is a “symbolism of atomic measurements”,
rather than a description of atomic objects. He also defends ideas close
to Anton Zeilinger’s, by claiming that quantum laws do not express
the nature of physical objects, but only the bounds of experimental
information.

Ven. Geshe Ngawang Sangye

From 1979 to 2000, he studied at Gaden Monastic University and

completed his Ph. D (Geshe Lharam). In 2001 he joined Gyutoe Tantric
College to do one year on Tantra. Since 2002 he has been serving as a
religious instructor at the Sera Monastic University. He is specialised in
Abhidharmakośa (mdzod) and Vinaya (‘Dulba) and has written many
articles on Buddhist Philosophy.

Ven. Geshe Lobsang Tenpe Gyaltsen (Yangteng Tulku)

He studied in Sera Mey Monastic University and completed his Ph.D

(Geshe Lharam) and presently serving in the His Holiness the Dalai
Lama’s office.

29
Speakers
Prof. Mathew Chandrankunnel

Chandrankunnel studied physics and philosophy in several Indian

universities. In 1998 he earned a PhD in Philosophy of Science from
the University of Leuven in Belgium. His worked under Aage Bohr, Carl
Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Ilya Prigogine in developing his thesis,
which compared the interpretations of Niels Bohr and of David Boehm.
He did post-doctoral research at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics, and lectured at the State University of New York. In
July 2000 he won the Science and Religion Course Award from the
Centre for Theology and Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California for
his contribution: “Search for Unity and Interconnectedness: Meeting
Point between Science and Religion”.

Prof. Sundar Sarukkai

Sarukkai is trained in physics and philosophy, and has a PhD from

Purdue University, USA. His research interests include philosophy of
science and mathematics, phenomenology and philosophy of language
and art, drawing on both Indian and Western philosophical traditions.
He has been a Homi Bhabha Fellow, Fellow of the Indian Institute of
Advanced Studies at Shimla and PHISPC Associate Fellow. Other than
numerous papers, he is the author of the following books: Translating
the World: Science and Language, Philosophy of Symmetry, and Indian
Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. He is also a co-editor of two
volumes on logic: Logic, Navya-Nyaya & Applications: Studies in
Logic Series 15, Eds. M. Chakraborty, B. Lowe, M.N. Mitra, S. Sarukkai,
College Publications, London and Logic and its Applications: Springer
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 5378, Eds. R. Ramanujam and
S. Sarukkai. His forthcoming books are What is Science? (National Book
Trust) and The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and
Theory (Oxford University Press; co-authored with Gopal Guru). He is
an Editorial Board member of the Leonardo Book Series, an influential
series published by MIT Press on science and art. Presently, he is a
Professor at the Manipal Centre for Philosophy & Humanities, Manipal
University, Manipal, India.

30
 Speakers
Ven. Geshe Jangchub Sangay

In 1980, Geshe Jangchub Sangay joined Gaden Shartse Monastic

University to study the five major treaties – logic, over all Buddhist
teachings, philosophy of middle way, metaphyscis, and Vinaya.
Alongside he was also trained in language, poetries, astrology, and
aesthetic mandala designs. He was one of the topers for the six year
intensive exam for the final Geshe Degree (PhD.) In 2000, he received
PhD degree (Geshe Lharampa). Soon after, he joined Gyutoe Tantric
College for a year’s course on Tantra. For fifteen years, he took the
responsibility of giving lectures in his Monastic University. Since
2011, he has been also serving as one of the contributors and editors of
Compendium of Buddhist Science and Philosphy (tib: nangpay tsenrig
dhang tadrub kuntue) text.

Sh. Mahan Maharaj

Mahan Maharaj, also known as Swami Vidyanathananda, is

an Indian mathematician, well known for his work on the Proof of
existence of Cannon–Thurston Maps. Born Mahan Mitra, he joined
the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, where he initially chose
to study electrical engineering but later switched to mathematics. He
graduated with a Masters in mathematics from IIT Kanpur in 1992.

Mahan Mitra joined the PhD program in mathematics at University

of California, Berkeley. He received the Earle C. Anthony Fellowship,
U.C. Berkeley in 1992–1993 and the prestigious Sloan Fellowship for
1996–1997. In 1997, he worked briefly at the Institute of Mathematical
Sciences in 1998. Spiritually inclined, he joined the Ramakrishna
Math as a renunciate upon being impressed by the life and work of the
Vedantic philosopher Ramakrishna Paramahansa. 

Mahan Maharaj has widely published and presented his research in the

area of hyperbolic manifolds and “ending lamination spaces”. He is a
Professor of mathematics at the Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda
University at Belur Math at Belur, India. He is a recipient of the
prestigious Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award in 2011 for his contribution
to Mathematical Sciences.

31
Speakers
Ven. Geshe Chisa Drungchen Tulku

Since 1980, Geshe Chisa Drungchen Tulku engaged in formal studies

in Buddhist Psychology, logic, and compendium of metaphysics after
joining Rongpo Gonchen Monstery as a monk. In 1994, he joined
Gaden Jangtse Monastery for further training in the studies of Middle
Way Philosophy, overall studies of Buddhism, metaphysics and so
forth. In 2009, he received PhD degree (Geshe Lharampa) and joined
Gyutoe Tantric college. Since 2011, he served as one of the contributors
and editors of Compendium of Buddhist Science and Philosphy (tib:
nangpay tsenrig dhang tadrub kuntue) text.

Prof. Arthur Zajonc

Arthur Guy Zajonc is a physicist and the author of several books related
to science, mind, and spirit; one of these is based on dialogues about
quantum mechanics with the Dalai Lama.

Zajonc received a B.S. in engineering physics from the University of

Michigan  in 1971. He received an M.S. (1973) and Ph.D. (1976) in
physics at the University of Michigan as well. From 1976-1978 he was
a research associate at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
at the University of Colorado and the National Bureau of Standards,
Boulder, Colorado.

Zajonc was the physics department chairman at Amherst College for

three different appointments: 1987-1989, 1998–2000, and 2005–
present. Professor emeritus at  Amherst College  as of 2012,  has been
teaching there since 1978. He has served as the General Secretary of
the Anthroposophical Society in America. From January 2012 to June
2015 he was president of the Mind and Life Institute. He held a number
of dialogues with the Dalai Lama in 1997 which were published in 2004
under his scientific coordination and editorship as  Dalai Lama: The
New Physics and Cosmology. He was moderator for the 2003 dialogue
with the Dalai Lama at MIT.

32
 Discussants
Prof. N. Mukunda 

Narasimhaiengar Mukunda is a prominent Indian theoretical physicist. He

works as a senior professor at Centre for Theoretical Physics, IISc, Bangalore.
He is also an honorary professor at IISER, Thiruvananthapuram. His
major contributions are in the fields of Classical and Quantum Mechanics,
Theoretical Optics and Mathematical Physics.

Mukunda obtained his BSc (Hons) in Mathematics from Delhi University,

and then joined the physics section of the Atomic Energy Establishment
Trombay Training School. After two years in the Theoretical Physics
Group of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai,
he went to the University of Rochester, NY, USA, and completed his PhD
(Physics) under the guidance of ECG Sudarshan. Following Research
Associateships at Princeton and Syracuse Universities, he returned
to TIFR as a member of the Theoretical Physics Group. In 1972 he
moved to the newly created Centre for Theoretical Studies at the Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, from where he retired in 2001. 
In quantum mechanics his areas of work are: coherent states and their
generalizations; new approaches to geometric phases; theory of Wigner
distributions; classical optics including polarization, partial coherence,
beam characterization and propagation problems. In quantum optics
his work includes: characterization of nonclassicality, squeezing and
connections to entanglement.

Prof. Geshe Ngawang Samten

Prof. Geshe Ngawang Samten is the former Vice Chancellor of Central

University of Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, and has been
Professor of Indian Buddhist Philosophy at the University before
assuming the high office. He is educated both in the modern system as
well as in the Buddhist and Tibetan Studies in the monastic mode.
He has such important publications to his credit, as a definitive critical
edition of Ratnavali with commentary, Abhidhammathasamgaho;
Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Pindikrita and the Pancakrama of
Nagarjuna; Manjusri, an illustrated monograph on Tibetan Buddhist
scroll paintings, and co-authored The Ocean of Reasoning, (Oxford

33
Discussants
University Press, New York) an annotated English translation of
the commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamaka Karika by the
Tibetan master-philosopher Tson-Kha-Pa. And scores of papers in
various learned anthologies published in India and abroad. He has
been Visiting Professor in various Universities and colleges in USA and
Australia. He has also been instrumental in promoting Buddhist Studies
in India. Various Indian Universities have sought his guidance and
advice in the matter of formulating their syllabi of Buddhist philosophy
and researches. He is on numerous academic bodies, Universities
and expert committees of the Ministries of the Government of India.
In 2008, he was decorated with Padma Shri by the President of India
in recognition of his distinguished services in the fields of education
and literature.

Ven. Geshe Lhakdor

Ven. Geshe Lhakdor is currently the director of the Library of Tibetan

Works and Archives in Dharamshala, India, and was the English
translator for His Holiness the Dalai Lama from 1989 to 2005. His work
in the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative (ETSI) has helped to integrate
science courses into the curriculum of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries
in India. While serving as a translator and religious assistant, he
accompanied His Holiness to over 30 countries and translated or
co-translated several books by His Holiness, including The Way to
Freedom, The Joy of Living and Dying in Peace, Awakening the Mind
and Lightening the Heart, and Stages of Meditation, among others. He
studied specialized Buddhist philosophy at the Institute of Buddhist
Dialetics in Dharamsala for 10 years. He is an honorary professor at the
University of British Columbia and the University of Delhi.

Prof. Rajaram Nityananda

Rajaram Nityananda is an Indian physicist who works on Astronomical

Optics, Image Processing & Gravitational Dynamics. He is at present
Professor at Azim Premji University Bengaluru. He was formerly the
Director of the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, TIFR, Pune. He

34
 Discussants
also currently serves as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Astrophysics
& Astronomy, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences. He is
also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Institute
of Technology, Tiruchirappalli. He is currently serving as a faculty
member at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research,
Pune. Previously he worked at Raman Research Institute from 1975 to
2000.

Nityananda developed the theory of light propagation in cholesteric

liquid crystals, predicting the optical analogue of the Borrmann effect.
He was also involved in identifying Berry’s geometric phase as a case
of the Pancharatnam phase for polarised light, thereby opening up the
possibility of many new experiments. In the area of condensed matter
physics he has worked on the theory of resistivity of binary liquid
mixtures, predicted the rapid rotation of neutron polarisation in helical
magnetic structures. He also collaborated with others to find the forces
between defects in elastically anisotropic nematic liquid crystals. He
applied the maximum entropy method to the crystallographic “phase-
problem” and for image reconstruction in astronomy. He has worked
on gravitational lenses, galaxy dynamics, and structure formation.
Statistical methods were developed for detecting and removing radio
frequency interference, and correcting for the effect of polarization
imperfections in radio telescopes.

Nityananda entered the Materials Science Division, National

Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore in 1969 to work for his PhD
degree. He joined Raman Research Institute as a member of scientific
staff in 1975 and he became Professor in the year 1995 and served as
Dean during 1994-96. In the year 2000, he moved to Pune to take up an
invitation to serve as the Centre Director, NCRA-TIFR, Pune, a position
which he held till February 2010.

Prof. Somak Raychaudhury 

Somak Raychaudhury is an Indian astrophysicist and presently the

Director of the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics
(IUCAA), Pune. He is a Professor of Physics (on leave), Presidency

35
Discussants
University, Kolkata,  India, and is also affiliated to the  University of
Birmingham, United Kingdom. He is best known for the discovery
and detailed analysis of the Shapley supercluster, the largest and most
massive structure of galaxies in the local Universe, and for his work
on X-ray, radio and optical studies of galaxy formation and evolution,
and observational studies of stellar mass black holes and supermassive
black holes.  His significant contributions include those in the fields
of gravitational lensing, galaxy dynamics and large-scale motions in the
Universe, including the Great Attractor.

Raychaudhury went to complete a BA degree in Physics at Trinity

College, Oxford, University of Oxford, supported by an Inlaks
Scholarship from the Inlaks Shivdasani Foundation, where he won
a Douglas Sladen Essay prize. He then proceeded to obtain a PhD in
Astrophysics from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, as a
member of Churchill College, Cambridge, in 1990, supported by an Isaac
Newton Studentship. Here, he was a recipient of a Smith’s Prize (J.T.
Knight Prize) in 1988. He has been a Smithsonian postdoctoral fellow
at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and a tutor
at  Lowell House,  Harvard University. Following his PhD, he was a
SERC Research Fellow at the Institute of Astronomy, at the University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, and a resident Junior Research fellow at St.
Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge.

He is a member of the International Astronomical Union, a Fellow

of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a Fellow of the European
Astronomical Society. He is a Life Member of the Astronomical Society
of India, and was an elected member of its Executive Council during
1998–2000.

Prof. Anirban Chakraborti

Anirban Chakraborti is presently the Dean, School of Computational

and Integrative Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi,
India, a School he joined directly as a Professor. Prior to this he was
Chercheur Senior (Associate Professor), Laboratoire MAS, École
Centrale Paris, France during 2011 – 2014 and Chargé de Recherche

36
 Discussants
(Assistant Professor), Laboratoire MAS, École Centrale Paris, France
during 2009 – 2011. He obtained a Ph.D. in Physics from the Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, India and then the Habilitation in Physics
from Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI), France. He has the
experience of working as a scientist in many reputed universities and
educational institutions in India, Europe and USA. He was awarded
the prestigious Young Scientist medal of the Indian National Science
Academy in 2009.

Chakraborti’s research focuses on statistical physics and its

interdisciplinary application to problems in complex systems in
economic and social sciences, and combinatorial optimization. He
has also research experience in: (i) Theoretical and computational
condensed matter physics, and (ii) Quantum physics and studies of
quantum entanglement.

Ven. Geshe Losang Kheychog

Ven. Geshe Losang Kheychog was trained in the following subjects

– logic, psychology, and the philosophy of Prajnaparamita in Tibet.
In 1994, he joined Drepung Gomang Monastic University. He went
through six years of rigorous training and exam of Geshe Lharampa.
After receiving PhD degree (Geshe Lharampa), he was enrolled in
Gyumey Tantric college for a year. Since 2011, he has been serving as
one of the contributors and editors of Compendium of Buddhist Science
and Philosphy (tib: nangpay tsenrig dhang tadrub kuntue) text.

Ven. Geshe Jamyang Tendhar

Ven. Geshe Jamyang Tendhar studied in Drepung Gomang Monastic

University from 1993 to 2008 and completed his Ph.D (Geshe
Lharam). Presently he is specializing in Madhyameka Philosophy and
besides working as an editor for Monlam IT to standardized Buddhist
vocabulary.

37
Discussants
Ven. Geshe Ngawang Sangay

Ven. Geshe Ngawang Sangay, having trained in psychology, logic,

compendium of Buddhist topics, philosophy of Prajnaparamita, while
he was in Tibet, he then joined Drepung Loseling Monastic University
in India in 1984 to pursue through the study of five major treatises.
After completing the six year intensive exam as prerequisite for the
final degree, he was awarded PhD degree (Geshe Lharam.) He joined
Gyumey Tantric college for a year’s training in Tantra. Since 2011, he
has been serving as one of the contributors and editors of Compendium
of Buddhist Science and Philosphy (tib: nangpay tsenrig dhang tadrub
kuntue) text.

38
 Excerpts from Chapter 3
The Universe in a Single Atom:
The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
By H.H. The Dalai Lama, Morgan Road Books, New York, 2005

My grasp of quantum theory is, I confess, not all that good - though I
have tried very hard! I am told that one of the greatest of all quantum
theorists, Richard Feynman, wrote, “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics,” so at least I feel I am in good company.
But even for someone like myself who cannot follow the complex
mathematical details of the theory - in fact, mathematics is one area of
modern science to which I seem to have no karmic connection at all - it
is apparent that we cannot speak of subatomic particles as determinate,
independent, or mutually exclusive entities. Elementary constituents of
matter and photons (which is to say, the basic substances, respectively,
of matter and of light) can be either particles or waves or both. (In fact,
the man who won the Nobel Prize for showing that the electron is a
wave, George Thomson, was the son of the man who won the same prize
for showing that the electron is a particle, J. J. Thomson.) Whether one
perceives electrons as particles or waves, I am told, is dependent on the
action of the observer and his or her choice of apparatus or measurement.

Although I had long heard of this paradoxical nature of light, only in

1997 - when the experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger explained it to
me with detailed illustrations - did I feel I had finally managed to grasp
the issue. Anton showed how it is the experiment itself that determines
whether an electron behaves as a particle or as a wave. In the famous
double-slit experiment, electrons are fired one at a time through an
interference barrier with two slits and are registered on material such as
a photographic plate behind the barrier. If one slit is open, each electron
makes an imprint on the photographic plate in the manner of a particle.
However, if both slits are open, when a large number of electrons are
fired, the imprint left on the photographic plate indicates that they have
passed through both slits at the same time, leaving a wavelike pattern.

Anton brought an apparatus that could repeat this experiment on a

39
smaller scale, so all the participants had great fun. Anton likes to remain
very close to the empirical aspects of quantum mechanics, grounding
all his understanding in what we can directly learn from experiments.
This was quite a different approach from that of David Bohm, who was
primarily interested in the theoretical and philosophical implications
of quantum mechanics. I later learned that Anton was and remains
a strong advocate of what is called the Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics, while David Bohm was one of its strongest critics.

I must admit I am still not quite sure what the full conceptual and
philosophical implications of this paradox of wave-particle duality might
be. I have no problem in accepting the basic philosophical implication,
that at the subatomic level the very notion of reality cannot be divorced
from the system of measurements used by an observer, and cannot
therefore be said to be completely objective. However, this paradox also
seems to suggest that - unless one accords some kind of intelligence to
electrons at the subatomic level two of the most important principles
of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle,
appear to break down. In normal experience, we would expect that what
is a wave cannot be a particle, yet at the quantum level, light appears to
be a contradiction because it behaves as both. Similarly, in the double-
slit experiment, it appears that some of the photons pass through both
slits at the same time, thus breaking the law of the excluded middle,
which expects them to pass through either one slit or the other.

Regarding the conceptual implications of the results of the double-

slit experiment, I think there is still considerable debate. Heisenberg’s
famous uncertainty principle states that the more precise one’s
measurement of an electron’s position the more uncertain is one’s
knowledge of its momentum, and the more precise one’s measurement
of its momentum the more uncertain one is of its position. One can
know at anyone time where an electron is but not what it is doing, or
what it is doing but not where it is. Again this shows that the observer is
fundamental: in choosing to learn an electron’s momentum, we exclude
learning its position; in choosing to learn its position, we exclude

40
learning its momentum. The observer, then, is effectively a participant
in the reality being observed. I realize that this issue of the observer’s
role is one of the thorniest questions in quantum mechanics. Indeed, at
the Mind and Life conference in 1997, the various scientific participants
held differently nuanced views. Some would argue that the observer’s
role is limited to the choice of measuring apparatus, while others accord
greater importance to the observer’s role as a constitutive element in the
reality being observed.

This issue has long been a focus of discussion in Buddhist thought. On

one extreme are the Buddhist “realists,” who believe that the material
world is composed of indivisible particles which have an objective reality
independent of the mind. On the other extreme are the “idealists,” the
so-called Mind-only school, who reject any degree of objective reality
in the external world. They perceive the external material world to
be, in the final analysis, an extension of the observing mind. There is,
however, a third standpoint, which is the position of the Prasangika
school, a perspective held in the highest esteem by the Tibetan tradition.
In this view, although the reality of the external world is not denied, it
is understood to be relative. It is contingent upon our language, social
conventions, and shared concepts. The notion of a pre-given, observer-
independent reality is untenable. As in the new physics, matter cannot
be objectively perceived or described apart from the observer - matter
and mind are co-dependent.

This recognition of the fundamentally dependent nature of reality-

called “dependent origination” in Buddhism - lies at the very heart of
the Buddhist understanding of the world and the nature of our human
existence. In brief, the principle of dependent origination can be
understood in the following three ways. First, all conditioned things and
events in the world come into being only as a result of the interaction of
causes and conditions. They don’t just arise from nowhere, fully formed.
Second, there is mutual dependence between parts and the whole;
without parts there can be no whole, without a whole it makes no sense
to speak of parts. This interdependence of parts and the whole applies

41
in both spatial and temporal terms. Third, anything that exists and has
an identity does so only within the total network of everything that has
a possible or potential relation to it. No phenomenon exists with an
independent or intrinsic identity.

And the world is made up of a network of complex interrelations. We

cannot speak of the reality of a discrete entity outside the context of
its range of interrelations with its environment and other phenomena,
including language, concepts, and other conventions. Thus, there are
no subjects without the objects by which they are defined, there are no
objects without subjects to apprehend them, there are no doers without
things done. There is no chair without legs, a seat, a back, wood, nails,
the floor on which it rests, the walls that define the room it’s in, the
people who constructed it, and the individuals who agree to call it a
chair and recognize it as something to sit on. Not only is the existence
of things and events utterly contingent but, according to this principle,
their very identities are thoroughly dependent upon others.

In physics, the deeply interdependent nature of reality has been

brought into sharp focus by the so-called EPR paradox - named after
its creators, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen - which
was originally formulated to challenge quantum mechanics. Say a pair
of particles is created and then separates, moving away from each other
in opposite directions - perhaps to greatly distant locations, for example,
Dharamsala, where I live, and say, New York. One of the properties of
this pair of particles is that their spin must be in opposite directions - so
that one is measured as “up” and the other will be found to be “down.”
According to quantum mechanics, the correlation of measurements
(for example, when one is up, then the other is down) must exist
even though the individual attributes are not determined until the
experimenters measure one of the particles, let us say in New York. At
that point, the one in New York will acquire a value - let us say “up” -
in which case the other particle must simultaneously become “down”.
These determinations of up and down are instantaneous, even for the
particle at Dharamsala, which has not itself been measured. Despite

42
their separation, the two particles appear as an entangled entity. There
seems, according to quantum mechanics, to be a startling and profound
interconnectedness at the heart of physics.

Once at a public talk in Germany, I drew attention to the growing

trend among serious scientists of taking the insights of the world’s
contemplative traditions into account. I spoke about the meeting ground
between my own Buddhist tradition and modern science-especially in
the Buddhist arguments for the relativity of time and for rejecting any
notion of essentialism. Then I noticed von Weizsäcker in the audience,
and when I described my debt to him for what little understanding of
quantum physics I possess, he graciously commented that if his own
teacher Werner Heisenberg had been present, he would have been
excited to hear of the clear, resonant parallels between Buddhist
philosophy and his scientific insights.

Another significant set of issues in quantum mechanics concerns the

question of measurement. I gather that, in fact, there is an entire area
of research dedicated to this matter. Many scientists say that the act
of measurement causes the “collapse” of either the wave or the particle
function, depending upon the system of measurement used in the
experiment; only upon measurement does the potential become actual.
Yet we live in a world of everyday objects. So the question is, How, from
the point of view of physics, do we reconcile our commonsense notions
of an everyday world of objects and their properties on the one hand and
the bizarre world of quantum mechanics on the other? Can these two
perspectives be reconciled at all? Are we condemned to live with what is
apparently a schizophrenic view of the world?

At a two-day retreat on the epistemological issues pertaining to

the foundations of quantum mechanics and Buddhist Middle Way
philosophy at Innsbruck, where Anton Zeilinger, Arthur Zajonc, and I
met for a dialogue, Anton told me that a well-known colleague of his
once remarked that most quantum physicists relate to their field in a
schizophrenic manner. When they are in the laboratory and play around
with things, they are realists. They talk about photons and electrons going

43
here and there. However, the moment you switch into philosophical
discussion and ask them about the foundation of quantum mechanics,
most would say that nothing really exists without the apparatus defining
it.

Somewhat parallel problems arose in Buddhist philosophy in relation

to the disparity between our commonsense view of the world and
the perspective suggested by Nagarjuna’s philosophy of emptiness.
Nagarjuna invoked the notion of two truths, the “conventional” and the
“ultimate,” relating respectively to the everyday world of experience and
to things and events in their ultimate mode of being, that is, on the level
of emptiness. On the conventional level, we can speak of a pluralistic
world of things and events with distinct identities and causation. This is
the realm where we can also expect the laws of cause and effect, and the
laws of logic - such as the principles of identity, contradiction, and the
law of the excluded middle - to operate without violation. This world of
empirical experience is not an illusion, nor is it unreal. It is real in that
we experience it. A grain of barley does produce a barley sprout, which
can eventually yield a barley crop. Taking a poison can cause one’s death
and, similarly, taking a medication can cure an illness. However, from
the perspective of the ultimate truth, things and events do not possess
discrete, independent realities. Their ultimate ontological status is
“empty” in that nothing possesses any kind of essence or intrinsic being.

I can envision something similar to this principle of two truths applying

in physics. For instance, we can say that the Newtonian model is an
excellent one for the commonsense world as we know it, while Einsteinian
relativity - based on radically different presuppositions- represents in
addition an excellent model for a different or more inclusive domain.
The Einsteinian model describes aspects of reality for which the states of
relative motion are crucial but does not really affect our commonsense
picture under most circumstances. Likewise, the quantum physics
models of reality represent the workings of a different domain - the
mostly “inferred” reality of particles, especially in the arena of the
microscopic. Each of these pictures is excellent in its own right and for

44
the purposes for which it was designed, but if we believe any of these
models to be constituted by intrinsically real things, we are bound to be
disappointed.

Here I find it helpful to reflect on a critical distinction drawn by

Chandrakirti (seventh century C.E.) in relation to the domains of
discourse that pertain to the conventional and the ultimate truths of
things. Chandrakirti argues that, when formulating one’s understanding
of reality, one must be sensitive to the scope and parameters of the
specific mode of inquiry. For example, he argues that to reject distinct
identity, causation, and origination within the everyday world, as some
interpreters of the philosophy of emptiness had suggested, simply
because these notions are untenable from the perspective of ultimate
reality, constitutes a methodological error.

On a conventional level, we see cause and effect all the time. When we’re
trying to find who’s at fault in an accident, we are not delving into the
deeper nature of reality, where an infinite chain of events would make
it impossible to place blame. When we accord such characteristics as
cause and effect to the empirical world, we are not working on the basis
of a metaphysical analysis that probes the ultimate ontological status of
things and their properties. We do so within the boundaries of everyday
convention, language, and logic. In contrast, Chandrakirti argues, the
metaphysical postulates of philosophical schools, such as the concept
of the Creator or the eternal soul, can be negated through the analysis
of their ultimate ontological status. This is because these entities are
posited on the basis of an exploration into the ultimate mode of being
of things.

In essence, Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti are suggesting this: when we

relate to the empirical world of experience, as long as we do not invest
things with independent, intrinsic existence, notions of causation,
identity, and difference, the principles of logic will continue to remain
tenable. However, their validity is limited to the relative framework
of conventional truth. Seeking to ground notions such as identity,
existence, and causation in an objective, independent existence is

45
transgressing the bounds of logic, language, and convention. We do not
need to postulate the objective, independent existence of things, since
we can accord robust, non-arbitrary reality to things and events that
not only support everyday functions but also provide a firm basis for
ethics and spiritual activity. The world, according to the philosophy
of emptiness, is constituted by a web of dependently originating
and interconnected realities, within which dependently originated
causes give rise to dependently originated consequences according to
dependently originating laws of causality. What we do and think in our
own lives, then, becomes of extreme importance as it affects everything
we’re connected to.

The paradoxical nature of reality revealed in both the Buddhist

philosophy of emptiness and modern physics represents a profound
challenge to the limits of human knowledge. The essence of the
problem is epistemological: How do we conceptualize and understand
reality coherently? Not only have Buddhist philosophers of emptiness
developed an entire understanding of the world based on the rejection of
the deeply ingrained temptation to treat reality as if it were composed of
intrinsically real objective entities but they have also striven to live these
insights in their day to day lives. The Buddhist solution to this seeming
epistemological contradiction involves understanding reality in terms of
the theory of two truths. Physics needs to develop an epistemology that
will help resolve the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the picture
of reality in classical physics and everyday experience and that in their
quantum mechanics counterpart. As for what an application of the two
truths in physics might look like, I simply have no idea. At its root, the
philosophical problem confronting physics in the wake of quantum
mechanics is whether the very notion of reality - defined in terms of
essentially real constituents of matter- is tenable. What the Buddhist
philosophy of emptiness can offer is a coherent model of understanding
reality that is non-essentialist. Whether this could prove useful, only
time will tell.

46