Abstract
The last two chapters have shown that the fundamental distinction between subject and object in two separate spheres—however obvious it may seem to us—constitutes a philosophical weakness of classical physics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is not entirely clear whether the quotation in this form is literally from Einstein, or just a reproduction of a similar statement made by him. It is often attributed to the following sources: H. Dukas, B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein: The Human Side - New Glimpses From His Archives, Princeton University Press (1954). However, there is no page information.
Here it is quoted by F. Watts, K. Dutton, Why the Science and Religion Dialogue Matters: Voices from the International Society for Science and Religion, West Conshohocken 2006, p. 118. It is quite likely that these sentences reflect Einstein’s views on Buddhism, since similar statements by him can be found in different places. For example: “Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found at earlier levels of development - for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer’s magnificent essays have shown us.” (New York Times Sunday Magazine, November 9, 1930).
- 2.
Speech on quantum theory in October 1937 on the occasion of the commemoration of the 200th birthday of Luigi Galvani (Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani) in Bologna, Italy. See also: Niels Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, edited by John Wiley and Sons, New York 1958), pp. 19/20.
- 3.
For a more detailed account, the reader is referred to T. McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought—Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophy, New York 2002. This work provides a detailed and insightful comparison between Greco-Roman and Indian philosophy from about 600 BC to 400 AD.
- 4.
English translation by J. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995).
- 5.
This paradox can be resolved today using the mathematical concept of limits, which was developed by Newton and Leibniz in the 17th century.
- 6.
Nāgārjuna, Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, 1.
- 7.
This sentence is also often translated as: “Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness is exactly form, form is nothing more than emptiness, and emptiness is nothing more than form.” Instead of “emptiness,” some translators also say “lack of substance,” which is probably closer to the Sanskrit original śūnyatā.
- 8.
Nāgārjuna himself said: “Emptiness wrongly grasped is like picking up a poisonous snake by the wrong end.” We will thus be bitten!
- 9.
For an excellent discussion, see also: C. Kohl, Nagarjuna and Quantum Physics: Eastern and Western Modes of Thought, Saarbrucken (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jaeger, L. (2018). The Eternal Interplay: Surprising Overlaps Between Quantum Physics and Buddhism. In: The Second Quantum Revolution. Copernicus, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98824-5_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98824-5_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Copernicus, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98823-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98824-5
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)