ChristianThomasKohl BuddhismandQuantumPhysics Astrangeparallelismoftwoconceptsofreality

Abstract.RudyardKipling,thefamousenglishauthorofTheJungleBook,born inIndia,wroteonedaythesewords:Oh,EastisEastandWestisWest,andnever thetwainshallmeet.InmypaperIshowthatKiplingwasnotcompletelyright.Itry to show the common ground between buddhist philosophy and quantum physics. There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied by quantum physics.Forneitheristhereafundamentalcoretoreality,ratherrealityconsistsof systemsofinteractingobjects.Suchconceptsofrealitycannotbereconciledwiththe substantial,subjective,holisticorinstrumentalisticconceptsofrealitywhichunderlie modernmodesofthought.

1. Nagarjuna's concept of reality. Nagarjuna was the most significant Buddhist philosopherofIndia.AccordingtoEtienneLamottehelivedinthesecondpartofthe thirdcenturyafterChrist[1].Hisphilosophyisofgreattopicalinterest.Righttothis dayitdeterminesthethinkingofallthetraditionsofTibetanBuddhism.Wehaveno assuredbiographicalknowledgeabouthim,otherthanvariouslegendswhichIwill notenterintohere.Theauthenticityofthirteenofhisworksismoreorlessregarded as etablished by the scholastic research. The Danish scholar Ch. Lindtner was particularlyconcernedwiththeexaminationandtranslationofthesethirteenworks

[2].Nagarjuna'smainwork, Mulamadhyamakakarika[MMK], istranslatedinto German,English,FrenchandotherEuropeanlanguages[3].Nagarjunaisthefounder ofthephilosophicalschoolcalledMadhyamakaorMiddleWay.TheMiddleWay indicatesaspiritualandphilosophicalpaththataspirestoavoidextrememetaphysical concepts, particularly the concepts of substantial and subjective thinking in their variousforms.Inhismainwork[MMK]theMiddleWayisdescribedasfollows: 24.18 What arises dependently [pratityasamutpada] is pronounced to be substancelessness [sunyata]. This is nothing but a dependent concept [prajnapti]. Substancelessness[sunyata]constitutesthemiddleway.[chapter24,verse18].

Nagarjuna's philosophy consists principally of two aspects. The first aspect is an expositionofaconceptofreality[sunyata,pratityasamutpada],accordingtowhich fundamentalrealityhasnofirmcoreanddoesnotconsistofindependent,substantial components but of twobodysystems. Of material or immaterial bodies which reciprocallyaffecteachother.Thisconceptofrealityisdiametricallyopposedtoone ofthekeyconceptsoftraditionalIndianmetaphysics:'svabhava'or'ownbeing'.The secondaspectisananswertotheinnercontradictionsoffourextremeconceptsof reality which are not exhaustively presented but only indicated in principle. Neverthelessitiseasytorecognizethesystemsofthoughttowhichtheseindications relate. This is important as it is from thisrecognition that wecanidentify those aspects of our extreme metaphysical positions that make it impossible for us to recognize the nature of reality. This is not only a debate within the traditional metaphysics of India. I relate these four extreme propositions to the substantial, subjective,holisticandinstrumentalistmodesofthoughtfoundinthemodernworld. Inordertoeffectivelyunderminethesemodesofthoughtonefirsthastorecognize

themassuch.ThereforewithoutanyclaimtocompletenessIwillgiveabriefoutline ofthesefourmodesofthought:

(1.) Substantialism. Substance is something that has independent existence [Webster'sNewWorldDictionary,NewYork1968]. InEurope,substantialismisat thecentreoftraditionalmetaphysics,beginningwithpreSocraticphilosophers[like ParmenidesandHeraclitus,twocriticsofsubstantialthought] throughPlato,upto Immanuel Kant. According to traditional metaphysics, substance or own being is something that has independent existence, something unchangeable, eternal and existing by itself. Substance is the underlying basis for everything else, the non materialfoundationoftheworldinwhichwelive.Platomadeadistinctionbetween two forms of being. Particularly in the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between on the one hand singular objects, which exist exclusively throughparticipationandinsofarasthisisthecasetheyhavenoownbeingandonthe otherhandideasthatdohaveanownbeing.Traditionalmetaphysicsadoptedthis dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditional metaphysicsassomethingthat,asanexistingthing,isnotdependentonanythingelse [Descartes],existingbyitself,subsistingthroughitself[More],whichiscompletely unlimitedbyothersandfreefromanykindofforeigncommand[Spinoza],andexists of itself without anything else [Schelling].In traditional metaphysics the highest substancewasoftenunderstoodasGodorasadivinebeing.SinceKant'ssocalled 'Copernican revolution' the primary question of philosophy is no longer to know reality,butrathertoknowmindorthesourceofperceptionandknowledge.Forthis reasonthetraditionalmetaphysicshaslostgroundinthemodernworld.Infactthe central concepts of the traditional metaphysics such as being, substance, reality, essence, etc had been replaced by the reductionist modes of thought of modern

sciences.Nowatoms,elementaryparticles,energy,fieldsofforce,lawsofnatureetc areseenasthefundamentalgroundforeverythingelse.

(2.) Subjectivism. By subjectivist modes of thought I understand the turning of attentiontothesubjectthatresultedfromthechangescreatedbyRen Descartes. According to this doctrine, consciousness is that which is primarily existent and everythingelseismerelycontentoraformoracreationofthatconsciousness.The highpointofthiskindofsubjectivismisrepresentedbytheidealismofBerkeley.The ideasofKantcanbeconsideredasamoderatedsubjectivismoridealism.SinceRen Descartes, subjectivity or selfawareness has become the fulcrum for modern philosophicalthoughtlendingevidentialproofandcertaintyofreality.Thisviewhas beencontinuallybroughtintodoubtbythemodernphysicalsciences,howeverthese doubts have not lead to a new and complementary concept of reality but to a calamitousseparationbetweenphilosophyandthemodernphysicalsciences.Ithas servedonlytosharpenthatdualismthatpreoccupiesmodernthought.Accordingto thephysicistP.C.W.Davieselectrons,photonsoratomsdonotexist,theyarenothing butmodelsofthought.See:P.C.W.Davies,TheGhostintheAtom,Cambridge1986

(3.)Holism.Theviewthatanorganicorintegratedwholehasarealityindependent ofandgreaterthanthesumofitsparts[Webster'sDictionary,NewYork1968].This third approach tries to avoid the calamitous eitherorscheme of the first two approachesbyfusingsubjectandobjectintoonewhole,suchthattherearenolonger any parts but only one identity: all is one. That whole is made absolute and is mystified. It becomes an independentunity that exists without dependence onits parts. Wholeness is understood as something concrete, as if it were an object of experience.AsaphilosophicalapproachfoundingreatperiodsofEuropeanhistory

of philosophy, this view is connected with names like Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Schelling.InquantumphysicsholismisrepresentedbyDavidBohm[4].

(4.) Instrumentalism. The fourth approach consists in refuting or ignoring the existenceofsubjectandobject.Insteadoffavouringeintheroneortheotherorthe twotogether,thismetaphysicalapproachrefutesthemboth.Thesearchforrealityis according to this viewpoint insignificant or meaningless. Instrumentalism is very modern, intelligent [for example in the person of Ernst Cassirer], and sometimes somewhat captious. It is difficult to disengage from it. As an extension of subjectivismitconsistsofregardingthinkingasthinkinginmodels,whichisregarded asaworkingwithinformationwithoutconcernastowhatphenomenatheinformation is about. It inherits this problem from subjectivism,about which the philosopher DonaldDavidsonwrote:OnceonemakesthedecisionfortheCartesianapproach,it seems that one is unable to indicate what ones proofs are evidence for[5]. Instrumentalismisacollectivetermthatdenotesavarietyofscientificapproaches. They have the common feature of considering the totality of human knowledge, includingscientificconstructs,statementsandtheories,asnotatallorsometimes merely not primarily, realistic reproductions of the structure of reality. Rather it considersthemtobetheresultofhuman'sinteractionswithnatureforthepurposeof establishing theoretically and practically successful models. For instrumentalism theoriesarenotadescriptionoftheworldbutareaninstrumentforasystematic classificationandexplanationofobservationsandforthepredictionsoffacts.The instrumentalistapproachisoutlinedbytheexperimentalphysicistAntonZeilinger. Zeilingerstatedinaninterview:Inclassicalphysicswespeakofaworldofthings thatexistssomewhereoutsideandwedescribetheirnature.Inquantumphysicswe havelearnedthatwehavetobeverycarefulaboutthis.Ultimatelyphysicalsciences

arenotsciencesofnaturebutsciencesofstatementsaboutnature.Natureinitselfis alwaysaconstructionofmind.NielsBohronceputitlikethis:Thereisnoworldof quantum,thereisonlyaquantummechanicaldesciption[6].

Nagarjunapresentsthesefourextremeconceptsofrealityinaschemethatiscalled inSanskrit:catuskotiandinGreek:tetralemma.Inashortformtheycanbeexpressed asfollows: Thingsdonotarisesubstantially:1.eitheroutofthemselves,2.nor outofsomethingelse,3.noroutofboth,4.norwithoutacause. Behindthis schemethereare,asmetionedbefore,fourconceptsofrealitythatcanberelatedto substantial,subjective,holisticandinstrumentalistmodesofthoughtinthemodern world.Itwouldbedifficulttofindamodernpersonwhodoesnot,inhisownway, holdoneofthesefourextremeviews.ThisshowsthatNagarjuna'sphilosophyisvery uptodate.Nagarjunadidnotrefute1.thesubstantialmodesofthoughtinodertoend upin2.subjectivism,eventhoughthisisoftenclaimedagainsthim.Nordidherefute theeitherormodeofthoughtinordertoendwithaviewof3.holism,identity,or wholeness,whichsomebenevolentinterpreterssayofhim.Nordidherefuteholism inordertoendupat4.instrumentalism,asisbelievedbymanymoderninterpreters inimitationofthephilosopherLudwigWittgenstein.Nagarjunadoesnotfallintoany oftheseextremesbecausethesearetheexactfourextrememetaphysicalconceptsthat hesystematicallyrefutes.

AlreadyintheveryfirstverseoftheMMK,hepointsoutnotonlythedilemmabut thewholetetralemmaofourthinking.Thatversestates:Neitherfromitselfnor fromanother,norfromboth,norwithoutacausedoesanythingwhateveranywhere arises[Garfield's translation]. This verse can be understood as the principal statementoftheMulamadhyamakakarika[MMK]:Therefutationofthefourextreme

metaphysicalviews,thatcannotbereconciledwiththedependentarisingofthings.If thisisthecase,theremainderoftheMMKwouldbemerelyaclarificationofthis firstverse.Thereforethisrequirescarefulexamination.Whatistheassertionmadeby thisverse?Thatnothingcanbefound,thatthereisnothing,thatnothingexists?Was Nagarjunadenyingtheexternalworld?Didhewishtorefutethatwhichevidentlyis? Didhewanttocallintoquestiontheworldinwhichwelive?Didhewishtodenythe presenceeveryehereofthingsthatsomehowarise?Ifby'arise'weunderstandthe notionoftheempiricalarisingofthingsthenweareobligedtoarguethatifathing doesnotariseoutofitself,itmustariseoutofsomethingelse.Soweshouldask: whatisthesignificanceoftheconcept'toarise'?

Inanothertext,Nagarjunahimselfgivessomeindicationofhowtounderstandthis concept. He writes in his work Yuktisastika [YS]: 19. That which has arisen dependentlyonthisandthatthathasnotarisensubstantially[svabhavatah].Whathas notarisensubstantially,howcanitliterally[nama]becalled'arisen'?.Thatwhich originates due to a cause and does not abide without [certain] conditions but disappearswhentheconditionsareabsent,howcanitbeunderstoodas'toexist'? [7].Bytheconceptsof'arising'and'exist'Nagarjunadoesnotmeantheempiricalbut the substantial arising or existence. When in many other passages of MulamadhyamakakarikaNagarjunastatesthatthingsdonotarise[MMK7.29],that theydonotexist[MMK3.7,MMK5.8,MMK14.6],thattheyarenottobefound [8MMK 2.25, MMK 9.11], that they are not [MMK 15.10], that they are unreal [MMK13.1],thenclearlythishasthemeaning:Thingsdonotarisesubstantially,they do not exist out of themselves, their independence cannot be found, they are dependentandinthissensetheyaresubstantiallyunreal.Nagarjunaonlyrefutesthe ideaofasubstantialarisingofthings,ofanabsoluteandindependentexistence.He

doesnotrefutetheempiricalexistenceofthings.Thisiswhatheisexplainingwhen hestates:MMK15.10'Itexists'impliesgraspingaftereternity.'Itdoesnotexist' implies the philosophy of annihilation. Therefore, a discerning person should not decideoneitherexistenceornonexistence.ForNagarjunatheexpression'toexist' hasthemeaning'toexistsubstantially'.Hisissueisnottheempiricalexistenceof things[dharma]buttheideaofapermanentthingandofthingshavingasubstance. Onlytheideaofanownbeing,withoutdependencetosomethingelse,isrefutedby Nagarjuna.Thingsdonotariseoutofthemselves,thedonotexistabsolutely,their permanentbeingisnottobefound,theyarenotindependentbuttheyaredependently arising.

ThemanyinterpretationsofNagarjunathatclaimthatheisalsorefutingtheempirical existence of objects, are making an inadmissible generalization that suggests Nagarjunaapproachessubjectivismorinstrumentalism.Suchinterpretationsoriginate in metaphysical approaches that themselves have a difficulty in recognizing the empiricalexistenceofthepresentingdata,whichisnotatallthecasewithNagarjuna.

HowdoesNagarjunapresentthedependenceofphenomena?Thestartingpointofthe MMK is the double nature of phenomena. These fundamental twobodysystems cannotbefurtheranalyticallydivided.Thetwobodiesconstituteasystemoftwo material or immaterial components that complement each other. One of the componentscannotexistwithouttheotherone;eachformsthecounterpartofthe other.IntheMMKNagarjunaconcernshimselfwithsuchconcretetwobodysystems as:athing&itsconditions,awalkingperson&thewaytobewalked,seer&seen, cause&effect,anentity&itscharacteristics,apassion&apassionateperson,arising

& conditions of arising, agent & action, fire & fuel. Some examples of this dependenceofthetwopartsareduscussedbelow.

InthiswayweareledintothecentreofNagarjuna'sphilosophy.Inthefirstten,and somesubsequentchaptersofMMKNagarjunaemphasisesonecentralidea:material orimmaterialbodiesoftwobodysystemsarenotidenticalnorcantheybeseparated. The most important characteristic of phenomenais their interdependence andthe resultant: substancelessness: the impossibility of existing individually or independently.Thisisthemeaningofsunyata:phenomenaarewithoutownbeingand without independence. Reality does not consist of single, isolated material or immaterialcomponents;phenomenaariseonlyindependenceonotherphenomena. They do not arise substantially because dependent phenomena can have no independentexistence.

Athingisnotindependentofitsconditions,norisitidenticalwiththem.Walking doesnotexistwithoutthewaytobewalked.Thewalkingpersonandthewayarenot one.ASeerisnotthesameastheseenobject,butaseerwithoutanobjectdoesnot exist.Therecanbenocausewithoutaneffect,oraneffectwithoutacause.The concept'cause'hasnomeaningwithouttheconcept'effect'.Causeandeffectarenot one, but they cannot be separated into two independent concepts. Without a characteristic wecannot speakofacharacterised,orof acharacterisedwithout a characteristic.Howcouldtherebeapassionatepersonwithoutpassion?Whenthere arenoconditionsofarisingthereisnoarising,neitherexistsstandingalone.Without actiontherecanbenoagent,withoutfiretherecanbenothingdesignatedasfuel. The material or immaterial components of a twobodysystem do not exist in isolation,theyarenotoneandyettheyarenotindependentofeachother:andbecause

ofthistheyarenot'real'.Fortwocomplementaryphenomenaorfordoubleconcepts thenatureandtheexistenceofeachisdependentoftheother.Theoneariseswiththe otheranddisappearswiththeother.Thisiswhyathingarisessubstantially,neither outofitself,noroutofanotherone,noroutofboth,norwithoutacause.Thereisno fundamentalcoretoreality;ratherrealityconsistsofsystemsofinteractingbodies.

Thisconceptofrealityisinitiallymerelyanidea;apointertotherealitywhichcannot be described in words. One who can speak about conceptfree reality has not experiencedit.FortheBuddhisttraditionbasedonNagarjunatheyogicexperienceof substancelessness,theascertainmentofdependentarising,thedirectperceptionof realityasitis,allpresupposeahighlevelofaspiritualrealizationwhichentailsthe abandonment of extreme views and the dissolution of the whole edifice of dualisticthought. To experience sunyata or the substancelessness of phenomena meanstobecomefreeofallentanglementstothisworld.Nirvanaissimplyanother expressionforthis.

2. Interpretations. For Nagarjunatheprimaryquestion was not aboutmind, nor abouttheoriginofknowledgebutaboutreality.Suchsubjectiveinterestappliesmore readilytotheYogacaraSchoolandthephilosophicalbaseoftantricBuddhism.But theinterpretationsofthemostimportantworksofYogacaraarecontroversialbecause theycanbeunderstoodinanontologicalsensethatisdenyingtheexternalworldand isadoptingtheviewofidealismorinanepistemicsenseforthestudyofthenatureof knowledgewhereperceptionisaprojectionofmind.WhatinYogacaraistermed 'alayavijnana' or the fundamental mind, or in tantric Buddhism 'clear light' or 'Mahamudra', refers to the experience and perception of sunyata. Nagarjuna's philosophyisreferingtosunyataitself.In2003TarabTulkuRinpochepresentedan

all encompassing position. He says, that everything existing partakes in a fundamental'mindfield',whichisthebasic'substance'fromwhichbasismindina moreindividualwayandtheindividualbodydevelop[8].

InordertoemphasisethatNagarjunadoesnotspeakonlyaboutconceptswithout substancebutalsoaboutobjectswithoutsubstance,Icomparehisconceptofreality totheconceptofrealitysuggestedbyquantumphysics.Physicsisnotonlyabout conceptsbutalsoabouttheconditionsofphysicalreality.Undoubtedlyphysicsonly createsmodels and thus examinesonlyrealitiesthathadbeenpositedbyphysics itself.Neverthelessweshouldnotgosofarastoconsiderallourperceptionsand thoughtmodelstobepurelyadventitious.Whiletheconstructionsofourmindarenot directlyidenticalwithrealitytheyarenotpurelycoincidentalandnormallytheyare notdeceptive[IrvinRock][9].Behindthesemodelsareempiricalobjectsandthereis someapproximationofastructuralsimilaritybetweenagoodphysicalmodelandthe correspondingphysicalreality.

3.Themetaphysicalfoundationsofquantumphysics.Thisisnotapresentationor criticism of quantum physics but a discussion of the metaphysical mindsets and principlesthatunderliequantumphysics.Theconceptofrealityinquantumphysics can be expressed by the key words: complementarity, four interactions and entanglements[entanglementswillnotbeexplainedinthisshortpaper.Accordingto Roger Penrose quantum entanglement is a very strange type of thing. It is somewherebetweenobjectsbeingseparateandbeingincommunicationwitheach other Roger Penrose, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, Cambridge UniversityPress2000,p.66].

In the long prehistory of quantum physics it could not be proved experimentally whetherthesmallestelementsoflightwereparticlesorwaves.Manyexperiments arguedinfavourofoneortheotherassumption.Electronsandphotonssometimesact likewavesandsometimeslikeparticles.This'behaviour'wasnamedawaveparticle dualism.Theideaofdualismwasthereinunderstoodasalogicalcontradiction,in that only one or the other could actuallyapply; but paradoxically bothappeared. Accordingtothisunderstandingelectronsandphotonscannotbebothparticlesand waves. This is the understanding according to atomism. According to atomism a scientificexplanationconsistsofareductionofavariableobjectintoitspermanent componentsormathematicallawsthatapplytoit.Thisisthefundamentaldualistic conceptthatmodernatomismhasadoptedfromthenaturalphilosophyoftheancient Greeks:Accordingtothissubstanceandpermanencecannottobefoundinobjectsof perceptionoftheworldinwhichwelive,butcanbefoundintheelementaryelements makingupobjectsandthemathematicalorderapplyingtothem.Thesematerialand immaterial foundations hold the world together, they do not change, although everythingelsechanges. Accordingtotheexpectationofatomismitshouldbepossibletoreduceanobjectto its independent elements or to its mathematical laws or to its simple and fundamental principles and according to these the fundamental elements must be eitherparticlesorwaves,notboth.

Whatistobeunderstoodby independent elements?AsIhavementionedbefore: Platomadeadistinctionbetweentwoformsofbeing.Particularlyinthesecondpart ofhis'Parmenides'hedistinguishedbetweenontheonehandsingularobjects,which existexclusivelythroughparticipationandinsofarasthisisthecasetheyhavenoown beingandontheotherhandideasthatdohaveanownbeing.Traditionalmetaphysics

adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characzerised in traditionalmetaphysicsassomethingthat,asanexistingthing,isnotdependenton anythingelse[Descartes],existingbyitself,subsistingthroughitself[More],whichis completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command [Spinoza],andexistsofitselfwithoutanythingelse[Schelling].AlbertEinsteinwas followingthismetaphysicaltraditionwhenhewrote:Fortheclassificationofthings thatareintroducedinphysics,itisessentialthatthesethingshaveforacertaintime anindependentexistence,insofarasthesethingslie'indifferentpartsofspace'. Without the assumption of such an independent existence [Sosein, suchness] of things which, in terms of ordinary thought are spatially distant from each other, physicalthoughtintheusualsensewouldnotbepossible[10].

Thisideaofanindependentrealitywasprojectedontothebasicelementoftheworld of matter byatomism.For atomism,ascientificexplanationmeanstoreducethe variability and variety of objects and conditions to their permanent, stable, independent, indivisible elements or to their conformity with mathematical laws. Accordingtotheexpectationsofatomismallvariationsinnaturecanbeexplainedin termsofseparation,associationandmovementsofunchanging,independentatomsor stillmoreelementaryparticles.Theseparticlesandtheirconformitytomathematical lawsconstitutethecoreofthings,underlieeverythingandholdtheworldtogether. The question whether the fundamental objects are waves or particles, was an explosive issue: at stake were the traditional metaphysical concepts of reality availabletoquantumphysics.Itbecameevidentthatthefundamentalrealitycouldnot be grasped by traditional concepts of reality. What is the explanatory worth of atomismifitbecomeclearthattherearenoindependent,stableatomsorelementary particlesandthatobjectshavenostablecore?Werethesequantumobjectsobjective,

subjective,bothorneither?Whatisreality?Isthequantumworlddistinctfromthe worldinwhichweareliving?

Niels Bohr. In 1927, the physicist Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarityintoquantumphysics.Accordingtothisconceptthewaveformand theparticleformarenottwoseparateformsthatcontradictandexcludeeachotherbut are mutually complementary forms that only together can provide a complete description of physical manifestations. According to Niels Bohr, complementarity meantthatinthequantumworlditisimpossibletospeakaboutindependentquantum objectsbecausetheyareinaninteractiverelashionshipwitheachother,aswellas with the instrument if measurement. Niels Bohr emphasised that this interaction betweenthequantumobjectandtheinstrumentofmeasurementwasaninseparable element of quantum objects,becauseit playsamajorpartinthedevelopmentof several features of quantum objects. Certain measurements establish electrons or photonsasparticlesanddestroytheinterferencethatdistinguishestheobjectasa wave.Othermeasurementsestablishtheobjectasawave.ThiswasNielsBohr'snew conceptofreality.Fromtheinsightthatthequantumobjectandtheinstrumentof measurementcouldnotbeseparated,NielsBohrdidnotconcludethatthereareno quantumobjects.Atleasthedidnotdosowhenhewasarguingintermsofphysics. Whenhespokeaboutthe metaphysicsof quantumphysicshesometimestookan instrumentalist approach [11]. For Niels Bohr the fundamental physical reality consistsofinteractingandcomplementaryquantumobjects.

Interaction in the standard model of quantum physics. In the meantime the conceptofthefourinteractionswasintroducedintothestandardmodelofquantum physics.Thesefourelementaryinteractionsorfourforcesobstructthereductionof

quantum objects into independent objects as Democritus had suggested. The interactions,theforcesthatoperatebetweenthequantumobjects,areaddedtothe quantumobjects.Insteadofsingular,independentobjectstwobodysystemsormany bodysystemswereestablishedasthebaseofmatter.Betweenthebodiesinteracting forces are effective in keeping the bodies together [12]. These interactions are a composite of the bodies. Mostly they are forces of attraction and in the case of electromagnetic forces they can also be forces of repulsion. One visualises the interaction between the elementary particles as an interchange of elementary particles.ThephysicistStevenWeinbergwritesaboutthis:Atthepresentmomentthe closestwecancometoaunifiedviewofnatureisadescriptionintermsofelemntary particles and their mutual interactions [...] The most familiar are gravitation and electromagnetism, which, because of their long range, are experienced in the everydayworld.Gravityholdsourfeetonthegroundandtheplanetsintheirorbits. Electromagneticinteractionsofelectronsandatomicnucleiareresponsibleforallthe familiarchemicalandphysicalpropertiesofordinarysolids,liquidsandgases.Next, bothinrangeandfamiliarity,arethe'strong'interactions,whichholdprotonsand neutronstogetherintheatomicnucleus.Thestrongforcesarelimitedinrangeto about1013 centimeterandsoarequiteinsignificantinordinarylife,oreveninthe scale(108centimeter)oftheatom.Leastfamiliararethe'weak'interactions.Theyare ofsuchshortrange(lessthan1015centimeter)andaresoweakthattheydonotseem toplayarleinholdinganythingtogether[13]. Inthisrespecttheexplanationsenterintoverydifficultandsubtleparticulars.How forexample,cananelectronwhichconsistsonlyofoneparticlehaveaninteraction withanotherquantumobject?Whatpartofitselfcanitemitifitconsistsonlyofone particle?Thisquestioncanbeansweredbytheconceptofinteractions.Infactan electrondoesnotexistofonlyasingleparticleexactlybecausetheinteractionofthe

electron is a part of it. In an article from 1978 about supergravitation the two physicists Daniel Z. Freedman and Pieter von Nieuwenhuizen wrote about it as follows:Theobservedelectronmassisthesumofthe'baremass'andthe'self energy'resultingfromtheinteractionoftheelectronwithitsownelectromagnetic field.Onlythesumofthetwotermsisobservable[14].

Whatquantumphysicsknowsaboutinteractionsisheresummarisedinthewordsof thephysicistGerhard'tHooftwhowrites:Anelectronissurroundedbyacloudof virtualparticles,whichitcontinuallyemitsandabsorbs.Thisclouddoesnotconsist ofphotonsonly,butalsoofpairsofchargedparticles,forexampleelectronsandtheir antiparticles,thepositrons[...]Evenaquarkissurroundedbyacloudofgluons andpairsofquarkandantiquark[15].

Singular,isolated,independentquarkshaveneverbeenobserved.Inthenewresearch thisphenomenoniscalled'confinement'.Thismeansquarksarecaptives,theycannot appearasasinglequarkbutonlyasoneofapairorasoneofatrio.Whenyoutryto separate two quarks by force, there will appear new quarks between them, that combine into pairs and trios. Claudio Rebbi and other physicists have reportet: Betweenthequarksandgluonsinsideanelementaryparticle,additionalquarksand gluonsarecontinouslyformedandafterashorttimeagainsubside[16]. These cloudsofvirtualparticlesrepresentorproduceinteractions.

Wenowarrivedatthecentralcoreofquantumphysics.Itconsistsofanewconceptof reality,thatnolongerperceivessingular,independentelementsasthefundamental unitofrealitybutrathertwobodysystemsortwostatesofaquantumobjectortwo conceptssuchasearth&moon,proton&electron,proton&neutron,quark&anti

quark,wave&measuringinstrument,particle&measuringinstrument,twinphotons, superpositions,spinup&spindown,matter&antimatter,elementaryparticle& fieldofforce,lowofnature&matter,symmetry&antisymmetryetcThesesystems cannotbeseparatedintoindependentparts.Theycannotbereducedtotwoseparate, independent bodies or states, nor isone fudamental andtheother derivedas the metaphysical eitherorscheme of substantialism or subjectivism usually try to establish.Noraretheyjoinedintoaseamlessunity,theyarenotthesame,theyarenot identical,theyarenotamysteriouswholenessasholismindicates.Norcanoneclaim thattheyarenothingbutmathematicalmodelsthatwehaveconstructedandthatdo notcorrespondtophysicalreality,asinstrumentalismclaims.

Inphysicsthereisafundamentalrealitythatisnotaonebodysystembutatwo bodysystemoranassemblyofbodies,aclaudofvirtualparticles,whichsurround thecentralorthe'naked'body.Betweenthesebodiesthereisaninteractionthatisone ofthecompositeofthesebodies.Thisunderstandingofphysicscannotbedisloged and yet all our metaphysical schemata struggle against it. This cloud does not conformtoourtraditionalmetaphysicalexpectationsofthatwhichshoulddelineate andunderpinstability,substantialityandorder.Howcancloudsbewhatweareused tocallingthebasicelementsofmatter?Howcanthissmallvibratingsomethingbe whatgenerationsofphilosophersandphsicistshavebeensearchingforinoderto arriveatthecoreofmatterorattheultimatereality?Isthissupposedtobeit?From theselittlecloudsweattempttousemetaphysicalinterpretationtodistilsomething that has substance and that endures. Entirely within the sense of the substance metaphysicsofPlato,WernerHeisenbergsaidthatthemathematicalformsarethe idea of elementary particles and that the object of elementary particles is corresponding to this mathematical idea. Carl Friedrich von Weizscker called

mathematics 'the essence of nature'.AccordingtothephysicistHerwigSchopper, fields of force are the ultimate reality [17]. Some of us want to see reality as a mysterous whole [holism], or dismiss them as a construction without any correspondencetoempiricalreality[instrumentalism].Allofthisonlybecausewedo notfinditeasytoadmitthatthecomplexinteractionsoftheworldinwhichwelive, havetheirrootsinarealitythatisitselfacomplexreality.Itisimpossibletoescape fromtheentanglementofthisworldbyquantumphysics.Itisimpossibletofindan elementary quantum object that is not dependent on other quantum objects or dependentonpartsofitself.Itisimpossibletodissolvethedoublesidedcharacterof quantumobjects.Thefundamentalrealityofourphysicalworldconsistsofcloudsof interactingquantumobjects.

4.Results. Realityisnotstatic,solidorindependent.Itdoesnotconsistof singular,isolatedmaterialorimmaterialfactors,butofsystemsofdependent bodies. [I use the expression 'body' synonymously like 'quantum object' or 'particle'or'field'or'system'or'entity'.Thereisjustasmalldifferencebetween theseexpressionsthatcanbeneglected].Mostlythesystemsconsistofmore thantwocomponents,buttherearenosystemsthatconsistoflessthattwo components.Inquantumphysicswecallsuchfudamentaltwobodysystems earth&moon,electron&positron,quark&antiquark,elementaryparticle& fieldofforce.Nagarjunacallshissystemsordependentpairswalkingperson& waytobewalked,fire&fuel,agent&action,seer&objectofseeing.Bothof thesemodelsdescribetwobodysystemsortwoentitieswhichhavebodiesthat areneitherproperlyseparate,norproperlyjoinedtogether.Theydonotfallinto one,nordotheyfallapart.Thesebodiesarenotindependentandtheycannot beobservedsinglybecauseintheirveryexistenceandconstitutiontheyare

dependentoneachotherandcannotexistorfunctionindependentlyofeach other.Theyareentangledbyinteractions,eveninafardistance.Oneofthem cannotbereducedtotheother;itisnotpossibletoexplainoneofthemonthe basisoftheother.Theresultantsystemshaveafragilestability,thecomponents of which are maintained by interactions and mutual dependencies that are sometimes known, sometimes not fully known and sometimes as with entangledtwinphotonsforexample,totallyunknown. Whatisreality?Wehavebecomeaccustomedtofirmgroundbeneathourfeet andfleetingcloudsinthesky.TheconceptofrealityofNagarjuna'sphilosophy andtheconceptsofcomplementarityandinteractionsofquantumphysicsteach us something quite different that one could express metaphorically as: everythingisbuildonsandandnoteventhegrainsofsandhaveasolidcoreor nucleus. There stability is based on the unstable interactions of their componentparts. Notes 1. Lamotte, Etienne. 19491980. Trait de la grande vertu de sagesse, Mahaprajnaparamitasastra,Vol.III,p.ix.Louvain:Museon.2.Lindtner,Chr. 2002. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the writings and philosophy of Nagarjuna. India:MotilalBanarsidass. Therearesomedoubtsabouttheauthenticityof someofNagarjuna'sworks.Forexample:TilmannVetter,OntheAuthenticity oftheRatnavali,in:AsiatischeStudienXLVI(1992),S.492506 3. Kalupahana, David J. 1999. Mulamadhyamakakarika Nagarjuna: The philosophy of the middle way. India: Motilal Banarsidass. Garfield, Jay L. 1996. The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nagarjuna's 'Mulamadhyamakakarika'.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

4.Bohm,David.2000.Wholenessandtheimplicateorder.London:Routledge Classics. Bohm's key word is 'holomovement', an 'undivided wholeness in flowingmovement'. 5. Davidson, Donald. 1988. The myth of the subjective. In: Subjective, intersubjective,objective.DonaldDavidson.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. 6.AntonZeilinger,Interviewatthegermannewspaper'Tagesspiegel',December20th, 1999.StevenHawkingsisdefendingaverysimilarposition.Hesays:I,ontheother hand,amapositivistwhobelievesthatphysicaltheoriesarejustmathematicalmodels we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whethertheypredictobservations,StephenHawkings,in:RogerPenrose2000,169. Itisnotmeaninglesstoaskaboutthecorrespondencebetweenamodelandobject, becauseifamodeliscorrectthenithasstructuralsimilaritieswiththephenomena thatitisreconstructing;otherwiseitcanleadtopredictionsforwhichthereareno meaningful physical explanation, because they have no correspondence to experimentaldata.Seealso:Fraassen(1980,1989). 7.See:Chr.Lindtner,op.cit.,p.109,113 8.TarabTulkuRinpoche,UDNewsletterN.4,January2006.Rabten,Geshe.2002. Mahamudra.DerWegzurErkenntnisderWirklichkeit.Switzerland:LeMontPlrin. Keown,Damien2003.ADictionaryofBuddhism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. 9.Rock,Irvin.1995.Perception.NewYork:H.W.Freeman&Company. 10.Einstein,Albert.1948.QuantenmechanikundWirklichkeit,'Dialectica2'.32024. 11.Bohr,Niels.19885. CollectedWorks,Volume6, Amsterdam:ElsevierScience Publishers.Idonotknowwhatquantummechanicis.Ithinkwearedealingwith some mathematical methods which are adequate for description of our experiments[103].

12.Themostconvenientcontextforinvestigatingtheforcesofnatureisasystemof two objects bound together by mutual attraction. The earth and the moon, for example, constitute the most readyly accessible system in which to observe the gravitationalforce.Thehydrogenatom,consistingofanelectronandaproton,has longbeenanessentialtestinggroundfortheoriesoftheelectromagneticforce.The deuterion,madeupofaprotonandaneutron,representsamodelsystemforstudies of the forces in the atomic nucleus. Now there is a bound system in which to investigatetheforcethatactsbetweenquarks,theconstituentsofprotons,neutrons andmanyrelatedparticles.Thesystemiscalledquarkonium,anditconsistsofa heavyquarkboundtoanequallymassivantiquark.Theforceatworkinquarkonium isthestrongestoneknown;ithascometobecalledthecolorforce,anditisnow thoughttobethebasisofallnuclearforces.Ofthevarioustwobodysystemsthe simplestinsomerespectsistheartificialatomcalledpositronium[Bloom,EllotD., andGaryJ.Feldman.1982.Quarkonium.ScientificAmerican246(5):4253]. 13. Weinberg, Steven. 1974. Unified theories of elementaryparticle interaction. ScientificAmerican231(1):5059. 14. Friedman, Daniel Z., and Peter Niuwenhuizen. 1978. Supergravity and the unificationofthelawsofphysics.ScientificAmerican238(2):12643. 15.'THooft,Gerhard.1995. SymmetrieninderPhysikderElementarteilchen.In: Teilchen,FelderundSymmetrien.Heidelberg:Spektrum. 16.Rebbi,Claudio,quotedin:FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung,September5th,2001 17. Heisenberg, Werner. 1985. Gesammelte Werke, 5 Vol., Vol. 3, Physik und Erkenntnis19691976.Mnchen:PieperVerlag. 2001. DerTeilunddasGanze, PieperVerlagMnchen1969,p.260.Seealso:VonWeizscker,CarlFriedrich.1981, 134.EinBlickaufPlaton,Stuttgart:PhilippReclamjun.SeealsoHerwigSchopper, FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung',May5th,1999

Email:christianthomaskohl@gmail.com