1

Reality: Meeting of the Buddhist and Scientific Approaches

. Terentyev (Saint-Peters urg!"
- The Question is what is the Question? Is it all a Magic Show? Is Reality an Illusion? John Wheeler, physicist. Phenomena as they appear and resound Are neither established nor real Since they keep changing in all possible and arious manners !ust like appearances in magical illusions" Asvaghosa.2

#n Septe$ er "%th &%"%' (ell-)no(n Russian scientists' philosophers and Buddhist scholars (ere discussing in the *nstitute of Philosophy of the Russian Acade$y of Sciences the stri)ing si$ilarity of the vie(s on reality in Mahayana Buddhis$ and in the +,-tended ,verett.s /oncept0 y M. Mens)y. Such a top level $eeting too) place in Russia for the first ti$e.1 2hat rought e$inent Russian physicists' neurophysiologists' philosophers and the Buddhists at the round ta le3 Prehistory of this $eeting goes ac) to the very eginning of 4uantu$ $echanics (5M! (hen 6ils Bohr too) notice that
in search for the parallels to the ato$ic theory' as a lesson of applica ility li$itations of the ordinary ideations' (e are to refer to 4uite different areas of science li)e psychology' or even to specific philosophical pro le$s - li)e the pro le$s addressed y such thin)ers as Buddha or 7ao-tse (hen trying to correlate our position of oth o servers and actors in the great dra$a of e-istence.8

9. Pauli discussed these pro le$s (ith /.:. ;ung<' == the >alai-7a$a ?*9 studied 4uantu$ physics (ith /. von 2ei@sec)er and >. Boh$ and sponsored series of scientific conferences on this su AectB. Pro a ly the deepest co$$on idea of $odern physics and of Buddhis$ is the idea a out falsity of the vie( of self-sufficiency of pheno$ena and their independence fro$ each other' and understanding that reality should e regarded fro$ the vie(point of inter-conditionality not only in ter$s of episte$ology ut of ontology as (ell. This idea no( see$s to e getting $ore or less generally accepted. =o(ever' so$e recent interpretations of 5M correspond to the Buddhist (first of all' Mahayana! (orldvie( in unusually precise $anner. =ere (e shall asically discuss so$e conse4uences of the C,-tended ,verettDs /onceptC presented in &%%% y conte$porary Russian physicist Prof. Michael Mens)y.
1

The $aterials of Prof. M.B. Mens)y are used in this report.

Quoted from: . Buddhism and modern science: s fruitful dialogue possi!le" ##

$%&'% ( )&**(+,. -%./0(%12 3%&4356 '537/0/38((. 91%3:9*;: <+*:=5 >&0?.@'5A5 A5@&3(:

=/0@(./.%, 2B12. C.DB. E See the survey: EFGHIHJK L MNOOJGPK J L QLIHRFLFS TJGJQK U OJVQNVVJW L XHVRJRNRK TJYFVFTJJ Z[ (/onsciousness in Buddhis$ and 5uantu$ Physics U >iscussion in the *nstitute of Philosophy of the Russian Acade$y of Sciences! \\ ]NOOJGP ZFVVJJ ^Buddhis$ of Russia_ F81. &%"". P. 1`-Ba. D ]Fb [. XGMbIHHcK HINdHcK RbNOc. (Bohr' 6. Selected Scientific 2or)s.! e.: [INQI. "`a". P. &<B. G See: f.g. fFhKSQJH. ijNkJl IRFPFL J iIRFPcl ONkJ: gFYmTnIHn obHVR pINYJ' fIbY qNVRIL rHn J iRbJ LKYJQJs hbFMYKPc TJGJQJl \ tbJMNHI uv[w %x"&. (y.9. yopei)in +Souls0 of Ato$s and +Ato$s0 of the Soul: 2olfgang ,rnst Pauli' /arl :ustav ;ung and +the three great pro le$s of physics0 \\ Tri una z{6w %x"&.! H There are $any pu lications on this su Aect. See' in particular' a oo) of == the >alai7a$a +The zniverse in a Single Ato$0. 6e( |or)' Morgan Road Boo)s' &%%<.

*n Buddhis$ (e consider t(o levels of reality: vyavah}ra U Cordinary realityC of pheno$ena' illusive in the sense that (e i$agine all pheno$ena and events as really e-isting the (ay (e perceive the$ as if +o Aectively independent0 fro$ each other and fro$ our consciousnessw and para$}rtha U real +supre$e reality0:
The A(a)ened #ne' the est of teachers' spo)e of t(o truths' conventional and higherw no third is ascertainedw a conventional state$ent is true ecause of convention and a higher state$ent is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events. a #r: These t(o ^truths_ are neither one nor separate as et(een the e-isting and non-e-isting there is and there is no difference. x

*n Mahay}na the supre$e reality is +dhar$at}0 or +tath}t}0 (herein the pheno$ena and events do not e-ist as separate entities' ut only in Dent$ingledD state (here they condition each other' eing Ce$ptyC of any Cself- eingC: they e-ist only in their inter-conditionality. Perception of reality U at the lo(er or higher level U is deter$ined y the level of our consciousness: and it is for the sa)e of transition to higher levels of co$prehension that training of consciousness is perfor$ed in Buddhis$. As for$ulated y 6}g}rAuna:
The Teaching of Buddha is ased on t(o levels of eing (satya!: ordinary $anifesting eing and essence of eing. Those (ho do not understand the differences et(een these levels of eing' >o not understand the deep reality (t}ttva~! discovered y Buddha. 2ithout relying on the ordinary' the supre$e cannot e graspedw (ithout reaching the supre$e' nirv}a cannot e reached. `

This $eans that nirv}a is reached y $eans of spiritual practice resulting in direct perception of emptiness10 (hich ena les one to perceive the essence of eing U dhar$at} or tath}t}.
That (hich one na$es dhar$a here' is sasara' (hile dhar$at} is nirv}a in ^all_ the three /hariots... The definition of dhar$at} is suchness (tath}t}! ""' indivisi le into o Aect and su Aect' into e-pressed and e-pressing."&

Khathvatthu Aha kath (cited in: http:##en.JiKipedia.org#JiKi#LJoMtruthsMdoctrineNciteMnote:G accessed on BD.11.2B12O P Maitreya\Asaga. >har$adhar$at}vi haga' a. Q 6}g}rAuna' Mla$adhya$a)a)}ri)a' &8.x-"%.
I

unyat} - +e$ptiness0 is to e understood as interconditionality and as +The =eart Sutra of PraA}para$it}0 says: C...in e$ptiness there are neither eye' nor ear' nose' tongue' ody nor $ind' nor for$s nor sounds' nor s$ells' nor tastes' toucha les nor dhar$as0. The uninitiated often mistaKenly understand Buddhist emptiness as RnothingnessR and even compare it to vacuum. Lhis is Sust a misapprehension, emptiness in Buddhist philosophy means Tdependent arisingT, that is the a!sence of any Tindependent UualityT !y all phenomena. 11 +Suchness0 (sans)r. tath}t}! is the essence of pheno$ena unperceiva le y an individual (ho has not reached the level of }rya (characterised y direct perception of emptiness!' and this essence Cappears0 (as =egel used to say!' i.e. appears in the appearances' or pheno$ena' dhar$as. That is' oth profane and DrealD levels of reality are of one entity' one nature. 12 Maitreya\Asanga. >har$adhar$at}vi haga' 1'<.
1B

Tath}t}' dhar$at} as (ell as dhar$adh}tu"1' or tath}gatagar ha"8' or }layaviA}na"< etc. (different Buddhist thin)ers so$eti$es use these ter$s (ith slightly different $eanings! $ay e considered as a )ind of ontological correlate of emptiness as pri$arily episte$ological perception of universal interdependence. All pheno$ena (dhar$as! e-ist' as a $odern physicist (ould say' Cin inter$ingled stateC (ith all other dhar$as. There (e donDt find any separate dhar$as such as D eingsD or entities li)e Dta leD or D ottleD ( ecause all such things are empty U they do not have any 'own-being'! U here (e have the totality of their interrelations U the Dtotal (orldD' $ay e (e can even call it Dthe real (orldD. And no(' (hat si$ilar vie(s can (e find in 5M3 To understand it (e $ust dive shortly into so$e pro le$s of 5M. The particularly difficult parado- of 5M refers to the pro le$ of $easure$ent: "! A $icro-o Aect (say' a particle! e-ists only as pro a ility distri ution: it (as proved that even if (e precisely )no( its state (descri ed y socalled +(ave function0! U (e )no( its position only pro a ilistically' 6#T ,?A/T7|. &! But (hat happens during the $easure$ent (that is (hen the D$easuredD $icro-particle hits the sensor-target!: at the $o$ent of $easure$ent (e accept that the Dpro a ilisticD eing of a particle is finished (this is the so-called /openhagen interpretation of the $easure$ent! - (e can deter$ine the position of a particle ,?A/T7|' ecause (e see the trace of this particle on the target plate. These t(o state$ents present a parado-: ho( and (hy can (e accept that the particle e-isting only as a pro a ility' suddenly eco$es a nonpro a ilistic entity3 The fact that during the $easure$ent one particle hits another does not ring anything ne( U this is happening to particles all the (hile' (ithout any' even slight change in their Dpro a ilisticD nature. 2hy and ho( the nature of particle (ould radically change3 This pro le$ is e-tre$ely i$portant for our understanding of reality' ecause these particles finally deter$ine the DrealD $acro (orld in (hich (e live. /onse4uently' the $icroparticle $easure$ent parado- creates parado-es for our ordinary perception in $acro-(orld. 7et us consider one of the$' suggested y fa$ous physicist Shrdinger and )no(n as +The parado- of SchrdingerDs catC:
+The parado- of SchrdingerDs cat is (ell )no(n. The cat is in a closed o- and in the sa$e o- there is an ato$ of a radioactive isotope' a counter of decay products' and a device that rea)s an a$poule (ith a poison upon actuation of the counter. {or as long as the ato$ persists' the cat is safe and sound' ut (hen the ato$ decays and the counter is actuated' the cat dies of poison. 6e-t there co$es into effect the pro a ilistic nature of 5M: it is
1E

>har$adh}tu $eans sphere of ^all_ pheno$ena.. /f. 6}g}rAuna.s +Mah}praA}para$it} astra0: +2ithin the heart of everything there is the ulti$ate reality it is ^the real nature of_ all things that is called dhar$adh}tu.0 (Translation cited fro$: Ra$anan' y. 9en)ata. 6}g}rAuna.s Philosophy' Rutland: /harles ,. Tuttle /o.' "`BB' pp.&B&-&B1! 1D The 7a)}vat}ra Stra' &&%: +Mah}$ati' the Tath}gatagar ha holds (ithin it the cause for oth good and evil' and y it all for$s of e-istence are produced. 7i)e an actor it ta)es on a variety of for$s and ^in itself_ is devoid of an ego-soul and (hat elongs to it.0 U and +the Tath}gatagar ha is e$ptiness' reality-li$it ( hta-)oi A.T.!' 6irvana.0 Translation is cited fro$ Su@u)i' >.T. The 7a)}vat}ra Stra. >elhi' Motilal Banarsidas (reprint of original 7ondon edition of "`1&!' "```' p. "`%. 1G +The (orld ^as (e see it_ e-ists not Pluralities of things rise fro$ the $ind eing seen ^e-ternally_ Body' property' and a ode are Manifested to us as of the }layaviA}na.0 - 7a)}vat}ra Stra' <8 (Translation cited fro$ Su@u)i' p.8`!.

D un)no(n (hen the ato$ is to decay: at every given ti$e instant' there is only a certain decay pro a ility. To e $ore precise' at every ti$e instant' the ato$ is in a superposition (linear co$ ination! of t(o states: the state in (hich it has not yet decayed and the decayed state. This rings up the parado-. 2hen approaching the closed o-' according to 5M la(s' (e $ust elieve that the syste$ (ato$cat! is in the superposition of t(o states: (undecayed ato$ - alive cat! and (decayed ato$ U dead cat!. =o(ever' on opening the o(e' of course' never o serve any superposition (hatsoever ut see either alive cat (and the undecayed ato$! or a dead cat (and the decayed ato$!. The description of the syste$ depends on (hether (e have already opened the o-. *n $ore general ter$s' the after$easure$ent syste$ description depends on whether the observer has apprehended the result of the measurement (in the case of the Schrdinger cat' the entire procedure outlined a ove can e treated as the $easure$ent and that (hich the o server sees on opening the o- as the $easure$ent result!.0"B

But nor$ally. (e thin): the cat is either alive or dead. 2e do not perceive any superposition. of different states of particles U and' conse4uently' of different realities.' li)e the si$ultaneously dead and alive cats. The )ey point for solving this parado- $ight lie in the analysis of the nature of pro a ility here: is this Cpro a ilityC of episte$ological character (i.e. if the fact is Dpro a leD only for us' ecause of our lac) of )no(ledge a out it3! or of ontological character (if the very nature of pheno$ena is pro a ilistic3!. The first option loo)s $ore accepta le to our consciousness. =o(ever' the physicists proved this assu$ption to e incorrect as (as de$onstrated y BellDs theore$' later proved y AspectDs e-peri$ent. "a *t is no( unani$ously accepted y the scientistDs co$$unity' that our lac) of infor$ation. has nothing to do (ith the nature of 4uantu$ pro a ilities: particles do e-ist #67| pro a ilistically. The first $an (ho dared to follo( the logic in relation to the D$easure$ent parado-D (as A$erican physicist =ugh ,verett (ho suggested in "`<a' that ecause (e have no grounds to ta)e Dthe $easure$entD as an act that changes the nature of a particle' (e $ust accept that particleDs pro a ilistic nature re$ains intact U and it $eans that all positions of this particle' having the pro a ilities higher than % do coe-ist si$ultaneously as superposition (or Dsu$D!. This logic see$s clear and undisputa le' isnDt it3 As e-plained y M. Mens)y:
,ach of the states included in the superposition as its co$ponents' $ight e actually o served. 2e can say that such a state presents so$e classical reality. {or e-a$ple' the t(o superposed states in (hich correspondingly +cat is alive0 and +cat is dead0' present t(o possi le (alternative! classical realities. =o(ever' ecause of the real (orld eing 4uantu$ (orld' these classical realities are included in the actual state of the (orld only Aointly' as the co$ponents of a superposition. This $eans that the alternative classical realities actually coe-ist. *n order to $a)e the situation in the ,verett.s interpretation $ore visual' the great physicists and adepts of this interpretation' ;ohn Archi ald 2heeler and Bryce >e2itt' proposed a convenient i$age for the superposition of $acroscopically distinct configurations of the (orld. They suggested to spea) of such a superposition as of coe-isting Everetts worlds . ,ach ,verett.s (orld is purely classical (not 4uantu$! so that its configuration is al(ays in agree$ent (ith our intuition. {or e-a$ple' in one of the ,verett.s (orlds the (Schrdinger.s! cat is alive and the o server in this (orld perceives the cat eing alive' (hile in another ,verett.s (orld the cat is dead and the o server sees that the cat is dead... *n each of these (orlds there is +a t(in0 of the o server' so that the t(ins of one and the sa$e o server in different ,verett.s (orlds see different alternative classical realities...

1H

M. B. Mens)y. /oncept of consciousness in the conte-t of 4uantu$ $echanics

Physics-zspe)hi' 8x

(&%%<!. P.1`"-1`&.
1I

We shall not discuss it here. Lhose Jho are interested may looK into the a!ove JorK !y VensKy, p.EQD.

G *t is i$portant to e$phasi@e that the ,verett.s (orlds are not real physical (orlds. The e-pression +,verett.s (orld0 is only a conventional designation for one of the co$ponents of the superposition' (hile only the fa$ily of all coe-isting ,verett.s (orlds (the superposition as a (hole! presents the state of the real physical (orld ((hich is actually 4uantu$!... These realities' or (orlds' are assu$ed to e e-actly e4uivalent' i.e.' none of the$ is $ore real than the others. Thus' coe!istence o" alternative classical realities is a necessary conse#$ence o" #$ant$m mec%anics."x

6o(' instead of the D,verett.s (orldsD' Mens)y suggests to spea) of the +alternative classical realities0 or si$ply +classical alternatives0 (hich are in superposition (coe-ist! ut our $ind perceives only one of the$. This description of the sa$e situation helps to avoid the notion of +t(in0 (hich is not 4uite clear. According to Mens)y' different classical realities (i.e. the +,verett.s (orlds0! o Aectively coe-ist in superposition ut are separated in conscio$sness so that' perceiving one of the$' an o server does not perceive the other:
2e say that different classical realities (,verett.s (orlds! o Aectively coe-ist' ut they are separated in t%e conscio$sness. As a result of this separation' (hen perceiving one of these realities' the o server su Aectively does not perceive the rest of the$' so that the other alternative realities see$ none-isting to hi$. Thus' the picture of a single classical reality is only an ill$sion' appearing in consciousness of o servers."`

Lhus, according to Wverett#VensKy interpretation of QV, there is a Jorld Jhere our cat is dead and the Jorld Jhere the cat is aliveX And Jhatever alternative Je perceive, it Jould !e an illusion in the sense that Je mistaKenly accept it for the only and true reality, Jhile the TtrueT reality is in the language of QV is TsuperpositionT of all classical alternatives Ysimilar to TtathZtaT, TdharmadhZtuT or Jhatever in the language of BuddhismO. [\, !ut one may asK: W]^ an o!server can perceive the Jorld Jith a dead cat, or can perceive the other Jith alive cat" n Buddhadharma Je KnoJ that our perception and circumstances are arising dependently as e_plained in the !asic doctrine of dependent arising. Lhe type of our Jorld:perception depends on our Karma. t is e_plained in this Jay in many sutras, such as `imalaKirti:nirdesha sutra:
... venera le Sariputra had this thought: C*f the uddha-field is pure only to the e-tent that the $ind of the odhisattva is pure' then' (hen Sa)ya$uni Buddha (as engaged in the career of the odhisattva' his $ind $ust have een i$pure. #ther(ise' ho( could this uddha-field appear to e so i$pure3C The Buddha' )no(ing telepathically the thought of venera le Sariputra' said to hi$' C2hat do you thin)' Sariputra3 *s it ecause the sun and $oon are i$pure that those lind fro$ irth do not see the$3C Sariputra replied' C6o' 7ord. *t is not so. The fault lies (ith those lind fro$ irth' and not (ith the sun and $oon.C The Buddha declared' C*n the sa$e (ay' Sariputra' the fact that so$e living eings do not ehold the splendid display of virtues of the uddha-field of the Tathagata is due to their o(n ignorance. *t is not the fault of the Tathagata. Sariputra' the uddha-field of the Tathagata is pure' ut you do not see it.C Then the Brah$a Si)hin said to the venera le Sariputra' CReverend Sariputra' do not say that the uddha-field of the Tathagata is i$pure. Reverend Sariputra' the uddha-field of the Tathagata is pure. * see the splendid e-panse of the uddha-field of the 7ord Sa)ya$uni as e4ual to the splendor of' for e-a$ple' the a odes of the highest deities.C Then the venera le Sariputra said to the Brah$a Si)hin' CAs for $e' # Brah$a' * see this great earth' (ith its highs and lo(s' its thorns' its precipices' its pea)s' and its a ysses' as if it (ere entirely filled (ith ordure.C
1P 1Q

!id., p. EQQ. YWnglish translation is slightly edited !y me # A"T"O !id.

H Brah$a Si)hin replied' CThe fact that you see such a uddha-field as this as if it (ere so i$pure' reverend Sariputra' is a sure sign that there are highs and lo(s in your $ind and that your positive thought in regard to the uddha-gnosis is not pure either. Reverend Sariputra' those (hose $inds are i$partial to(ard all living eings and (hose positive thoughts to(ard the uddha-gnosis are pure see this uddha-field as perfectly pure.C Thereupon the 7ord touched the ground of this illion-(orld-galactic universe (ith his ig toe' and suddenly it (as transfor$ed into a huge $ass of precious Ae(els' a $agnificent array of $any hundreds of thousands of clusters of precious ge$s' until it rese$ led the universe of the Tathagata Ratnavyuha' called Anantagunaratnavyuha. ,veryone in the entire asse$ ly (as filled (ith (onder' each perceiving hi$self seated on a throne of Ae(eled lotuses. Then' the Buddha said to the venera le Sariputra' CSariputra' do you see this splendor of the virtues of the uddha-field3C Sariputra replied' C* see it' 7ord =ere efore $e is a display of splendor such as * never efore heard of or eheldC The Buddha said' CSariputra' this uddha-field is al(ays thus pure... {or e-a$ple' Sariputra' the gods of the Trayastri$sa heaven all ta)e their food fro$ a single precious vessel' yet the nectar (hich nourishes each one differs according to the differences of the $erits each has accu$ulated. ;ust so' Sariputra' living eings orn in the sa$e uddha-field see the splendor of the virtues of the uddha-fields of the Buddhas according to their o(n degrees 2B of purity.

n this Jay the Buddha shoJed that our perception of the Jorld, depends primarily on our state of mind. f Je asK Jhich of the Jorlds the aariputrabs Jorld, or Brahmabs Jorld is more crealb, it !ecomes clear that the Uuestion is improper: each Jorld is real to the consciousness Jhich perceives it. But !oth are unreal or, !etter to say partially real, in the sense that they !elong to only one of the relative levels of reality. Lhis seems similar to Wverettbs interpretation of QV: !y doing TmeasurementT Je are TseparatingT YTisolatingTO the components of this TsuperposedT state from each other, so that each of the superposed Jorlds is perceived as the only one e_isting, i.e. seeming Treal JorldT for us. As mentioned earlier, V. VensKy also argues that this Tseparating the possi!le realitiesT is the act of consciousness21, and, this a!ility to divide the csuperpositionb into separate crealitiesb a the function Ymay!e the !asic, or primordial functionO of the consciousness of the o!server:
There is good reason to recall fro$ ti$e to ti$e (and to necessarily do so (henever difficulties or hesitation sho(! that in reality' no $any classical (orldsD e-ist at all. (This is (hy in Buddhis$ (e say that this (orld is 7*y, an illusion A.T.!. There is only one (orld' and this is a 4uantu$ (orld' and it is in the superposition state. But every co$ponent of the superposition ta)en separately corresponds to (hat our consciousness perceives as the picture of the classical (orld... ,ach classical (orld is Aust one classical proAectionD of the 4uantu$ (orld. These different proAections are produced y the o serverDs consciousness' (hile the 4uantu$ (orld itself e-ists independently of (hatever o server.22

2B

`imalaKirti dirdesa autra. Lr. !y eo!ert A. f. Lhurman : http:##JJJ2.Kenyon.edu#gepts#eeligion#fac#Adler#eeln2HB#`imalaKirti.htm Yaccessed on BD.11.2B12O. 21 Lhis identification of splitting the Uuantum reality into Tclassical alternative JorldsT and the act of consciousness of o!server, is V. VensKyTs contri!ution to WverettTs concept: h*f o Aectively (i.e.' in accordance (ith 5M la(s!
no selection of alternatives occurs and nevertheless the o server al(ays eco$es a(are of a single alternative' this $eans that the alternative selection ta)es place in the o serverDs consciousness.0 U Mens)y' op. cit.' p. 8%".

t is interesting to note a language parallel: the aansKrit Jord for cconsciousnessb viSiZna : consists of tJo parts. Lhe particle cvib has cseparationb as one of its main meanings, Jhile SiZna means KnoJledge Ycf. eussian c+3%3(/bO, thus may !e rendered as cseparation of KnoJledgeb someJhat similar to VensKy interpretation. Lhis understanding is Uuite common for Li!etan Buddhist Chilosophy, especially in the \agyu lineage cf. important JorK !y the Erd \armapa eang !yung rdo rSe: Rnam par shes pa dang ye shes byed pai bstan b !s" or #isting$ishing %&'na (r!m )i%&'na. Actually, !esides !eing ideal or sub$ecti e, the Uuality of separating out a part of reality, maKing it a part of our personal Jorld, ccognijingb, or even crealijingb it Yetymologically this is an e_act reference to VensKyT ideaXO is the main characteristic of consciousness. 22 VensKy, op.cit., p.DBB.

Lhis idea has many conseUuences, and the first one is the understanding that our macro: Jorld is in a Jay created YTchosenTO !y our consciousness. Lhus it is up to us, or rather to our consciousness YJhich Je can only partly controlO, to accept that the a!ove cat is alive or dead2E. V.B. VensKy calls his interpretation TLhe W_tended Wverett konceptT and this interpretation seems to !e a!le to finally resolve the parado_ of measurement in QV, thus maKing the Uuantum theory linear and free from internal contradictions. *n the ,verett\Mens)y interpretation they also use the notion of the consciousness relating to the (hole 4uantu$ (orld:
,verettDs concept deals (ith t(o aspects of consciousness. The consciousness as a (hole ((e could co$pare this Dconsciousness as a (holeD (ith BuddhaDs $ind or A}na A.T.! splits et(een alternatives' and a co$ponentD of consciousness (Buddhist viA}na3 U A.T.! lives (ithin one classical alternative. *n psychology' only that (hich is su Aectively perceived is ter$ed the consciousness' i.e.' only the classical co$ponentD of the consciousness' according to our ter$inology. (And this see$s to relate also to classical Buddhis$ of the Sutras U A.T.! Therefore' to identify the notion of consciousnessD (ith so$e notion fro$ the 4uantu$ theory of $easure$ent' (e $ust roadly interpret the consciousness as something capable of embracing the entire quantum world rather than exclusively as its classical projection. Therefore' (e arrive at the follo(ing identification hypothesis: The a ility of a hu$an (and of any living creature! referred to as consciousness is the sa$e pheno$enon as that (hich is ter$ed the reduction of state or alternative selection in the 4uantu$ theory of $easure$ent and (hich appears in ,verettDs concept as the separation of the single 4uantu$ (orld into classical alternatives 2e $a)e this state$ent so$e(hat $ore precise. The co$$on part of 4uantu$ physics and psychology' (hich $ay' in the conte-t of 4uantu$ physics' e ter$ed the separation of alternatives' is to e identified only (ith the deepest (or the $ost pri$itive! stratu$ of the consciousness. *t is ... inti$ately related to the effect of perception' i.e.' to the transition fro$ the state (hen so$ething is not reali@ed to the state (hen it has een reali@ed0 &8

But ho( does the +real0 4uantu$ (orld (herein (e are living' loo)s li)e fro$ the vie(point of physics3 *t is difficult and' strictly spea)ing' even i$possi le for us to i$agine' ecause (e cannot perceive particles (hen their pro a ilities are less than "' and' as Mens)y e-plains' in 4uantu$ (orld:
Cthere are correlations et(een any re$ote do$ains and in virtue of these correlations' the future of local syste$ depends on the present in all of the re$ote do$ains *t $eans that )no(ing the state of so$e space do$ain' one cannot even appro-i$ately forecast (hich (ould e the state of this do$ain in the future0 &<.

*n other (ords' in 4uantu$ (orld there is a cause-effect dependence of everything upon everything' therefore it turns out to e i$possi le to single out' perceive and designate the independent individual things and pheno$ena (dhar$as! U they are Aust $issing. *n Buddhis$ such state is denoted y the ter$ unyat} - +e$ptiness0.
2E

aome clever people in eussia realijed the practical possi!ilities of this idea years ago, and noJ you can find at every esoteric !ooKshop in eussia and elsJhere the !ooKs !y `. leland on the so:called hLransurfing eealitym this is hoJ they named the efforts and techniUues to choose a Jorld Jhere this or that desire is fulfilled.
2D Mens)y' op.cit.' p. 8%". 2hen in Mahayana Buddhis$ (e go fro$ the teachings of Stra to the real$ of higher Tantra' (e also co$e across to the central concept of the deepest level of consciousness. U in Ti etan gnyugs se$s. This is a )ind of essence of consciousness (hich is eyond perceptions and for$s a )ind of ase for the ordinary B sensory consciousness of the Stra teachings. Possi ly' (hat Mens)y says a out +consciousness stratu$ at the oundary of consciousnessD (hich is inti$ately related to perception' i.e.' to the transition fro$ the state (hen so$ething is not reali@ed to the state (hen it has een reali@ed0 is a )ind of his anticipation of the gnyugs se$s3 2G Personal letter to the author of %x.%`.&%"%.

*f (e accept the $ain thesis of Mens)y U that essentially consciousness has the a ility to divide. the 4uantu$ (orld' or to choose. fro$ the DsuperpositionD one classic (orld' corresponding to our state of $ind U (e co$e to entirely ne( ground for etter understanding $any aspects of reality in general and of the Buddhadhar$a in particular. =ere * shall $ention only fe( points. {irst of all there is definite si$ilarity of negation of Dreal e-istenceD in oth physics and Buddhist philosophies ased on Madhya$a)a. 2e cannot spea) a out the Dreal e-istenceD on the relative level: in ter$s of physics Dthe realityD is the state of superposition of all Dclassical (orldsD' (here all events depend on each otherw in Buddhis$ it is tath}t} U the state of co$plete interdependance' (here no dhar$as e-ist separately. To illustrate the affinity of these vie(s' letDs ta)e the (ell-)no(n e-a$ple' differently interpreted in various Buddhist schools: a glass of (ater for hu$ans is a glass of nectar for gods and is a glass of pus and lood for hungry spirits. The 4uestion is C2hat is the DrealD su stance in the glass3C {ro$ the point of vie( of 5M the ans(er is evident U it is a superposition of all possi le options U it is senseless trying to find so$e per$anent su stance here' as senseless - as trying to find per$anent sva hava. The Buddhist elief in Dpure landsD is another interesting e-a$ple. zp to no(' as far as * )no(' there (ere no atte$pts to correlate the possi ility of e-istence of pure lands (ith any ideas of conte$porary physics or cos$ology. Su)havati' A hirati and others are considered y non- elievers as only a part of Buddhist Mythology. 6o( the ,verett\Mens)y /oncept see$s to hint on scientific possi ility of e-istence of such Dclassical alternativesD created y po(erful $inds of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The sa$e $ay refer to other DheavenD and DhellsD of Buddhist /os$ologies. #ne $ore aspect refers to visuali@ation practices used in different Buddhist Schools. *n 9aAray}na' for e-a$ple' the yogi usually starts y dissolving the surrounding (orld or so$e parts of it into e$ptiness' and then creates fro$ the real$ of e$ptiness such things as offerings' or the (hole $andala of so$e |ida$. {ro$ the point of vie( of ,verett\Mens)y interpretation of 5M' these processes $ay correspond to dissolving the Dclassic realityD of the practitionerD ordinary consciousness into DsuperpositionD of all possi le states ( dhar$adh}tu3! and then choosing fro$ this DsuperpositionD a ne( Dclassical realityD. *t is possi le' if the pro a ility of appearance of such reality is $ore than %. #n the other hand' * (ant to point out that the scientific (orldvie( ased on ,verett /oncept (and even $ore on the D,-tended ,verett /onceptD! can enefit fro$ the Buddhist theory. *f it (ere other(ise U there (ould e no reason (hy so $any leading Physicists (ere so interested in the Buddhist philosophical ideas. *n ter$s of cognition' oth Science and Buddhis$ are pursuing one o Aect: to find out the real state of things. Physics says that the one feature of the 4uantu$ (orld is interdependence of A77 events in it. *n other (ords' (e live in the 4uantu$ (orld and the s$perposition o" alternatives is the very true state of things. There are no individual entities (ith their o(n nature ut everything e-ists in an interrelated (ay. Therefore, it see$s to e heuristically interesting to correlate the 4uantu$-$echanical idea of

+classical alternatives0 y ,verett-Mens)y (ith the Buddhist notion of relative reality as the (orld of pheno$ena' and the idea of superposition of classical alternatives U (ith the notions of dhar$at}' tath}t}' dhar$adh}tu' etc. as +true0 reality in Buddhis$. =o( far could this parallel e dra(n3 The physicists (ill have their o(n ans(er to this 4uestion' ut as a 2estern Buddhist practitioner * feel a great inspiration and faith (hen * see that it is possi le to correlate so$e asic Buddhist and the scientific vie(s of reality.