Tibetan Buddhism And Modern Physics, CH 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This teaching is tied to the Buddhist understanding of compassion:

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

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

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

An ‘inferior’ person – one who is ‘below’ us in some way. So, I, being a ph.d. student can think of people in high school or college. I could also think of people with less money, poorer health, poorer living conditions, etc, etc. It’s a good way to see just how well off you really are. In any case – imagine this person so well that you can speak for him or her. Literally put yourself in his/her shoes. Then say everything about YOU (now from the outside) that this person would say. “Wow, that Justin sure has it good – a caring family, a great education, good health, and a loving fiancee, and he still can’t seem to just be happy – or even nice so much of the time.”
As Mansfield reminds us, “it is important to notice that… the negative states such as jealousy, haughtiness, or criticism are directed at ourselves.” (p.37)
Next we occupy an ‘equal’ person. This brings out the competitive spirit that person would have toward us.
Finally we inhabit a ‘superior’ person and again say all the negative things about us that such a person could possibly say of us.

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

THE OBLIGATIONS OF COMPASSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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