1 Introduction

In this chapter, in order to verify the truthfulness of the doctrine of truth in Plato’s allegory of the cave and the concepts of spiritual truth—particularly the transcendent and the non-dualistic worldview—found in the previous chapter, and to explore the significance of the transitions of the essence of truth for human beings, I first investigate the concepts of truth in Buddhism and demonstrate how they resonate with the concepts of spiritual truth and the significance of educating toward the truth found in Chap. 2. By means of conducting a dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics, I then display how the concepts of truth in Buddhism are supported and enriched by various phenomena, theories and philosophies of quantum physics. Finally, on the basis of this dialogue, I explore how these enriched veins of thought, along with the increased confidence in the truthfulness of spiritual truth and the reaffirmed recognition of the significance of the transitions of the essence of truth for human beings, might lead to deeper insights into the essence and purpose of education identified in the preceding chapter and provide powerful tools for educational thinking and curriculum design.

2 The Concepts of Truth in Buddhism

In Buddhism, “truth” refers to the true nature of self and reality, and the concepts of truth are multifold. This section explores the Buddhist concepts of the two truths, the four noble truths, and an overview of the spiritual path as revealed in the four noble truths, and how these resonate with the concepts of spiritual truth and the significance of educating toward the truth found in Chap. 2.

2.1 The Two Truths

In Buddhism, a distinction is made between two truths—the ultimate truth (absolute truth) and the phenomenal truth (conventional truth, relative truth, or commonsensical truth). The ultimate truth is “the object known by a mind discerning the final nature of things—emptiness” (Newland, 2009, p. 131); the phenomenal or conventional truth refers to “objects found by conventional minds that are not analyzing the ultimate nature of things. This includes everything that exists except emptiness” (Newland, 2009, p. 125). The right viewFootnote 1 (samma¯-diṭṭhi, or samyag-dṛṣṭi) of the ultimate truth, which refers to the correct seeing of the ultimate nature of things, is understood as the realization of emptiness. The right view of the phenomenal truth is a proper understanding of the cause and effect of karma and its results (Sopa, 2005, p. 22); it refers to the confidence in the certainty of the process of cause and effect that “positive karma definitely produces happy results and negative karma will definitely produce suffering results” (Sopa, 2005, p. 22). According to Sopa (2005), the right view of both truths is “the basis of all white dharmas, meaning that all positive, happy, and blissful experience arises from that right view” (p. 22). Thus, a correct understanding of both truths is crucial for Buddhist spiritual practices.

In the doctrine of Buddhism, consciousness, self, and reality are inseparable. All phenomena, including the inner self and external reality, are perceived to have an illusionary and projective nature and only exist in consciousness. This view is rooted in the central doctrine of Yogacara Footnote 2 (the Consciousness-Only school of Buddhism), which maintains that “nothing exists except in the consciousness” (Wei, 1973, p. l). According to Wei (1973), VasubandhuFootnote 3 indicated in his “Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only” that the concepts of self and reality do not imply the existence of an ultimately real self and reality; they are merely fictitious constructions, and the phenomena of self and reality are based on the manifestation and transformation of consciousness (p. lvii).

Regarding this point, Hsuan-Tsang (also translated as Xuanzang) (596–664 C.E.), the founder of the Chinese Consciousness-Only Buddhism, explained:

The inner consciousness manifests itself in what seems to be an external sphere of objects… [The] phenomena of [self and reality]… lie within the consciousness, yet, because of wrong mental discrimination or particularization, they are taken to be external objects [that are distinct from consciousness]. (Wei, 1973, p. lviii)

Hsuan-Tsang illustrated this conception by employing the analogy of “a man in a dream, who in that state believes all the images he sees to be real external objects, whereas actually they are only the projections of his own mind” (Wei, 1973, p. lviii). As illuminated by Buddha in the King of Concentrations Sutra, “all phenomena are empty of absolute reality, illusory like the moon reflected in the lake. They appear one way, but that is not their ultimate mode of existence” (Sopa, 2005, p. 139). This illusory and projective nature of all phenomena is in accordance with the implications of Plato’s allegory of the cave, and is the common ground of both ultimate and phenomenal truths taught by Buddha.

As the ultimate nature of self and reality, emptiness is a profound insight attained by an “ultimate mind,” a mind that gets at the basis of things, through both inferential reasoning and introspective meditation (Newland, 2009, pp. 17, 58). In Buddhist terminology, the Tibetan and Sanskrit words which are translated as emptinessFootnote 4 do literally mean “emptiness” (Newland, 2009, p. 6). However, rather than suggesting the lack or absence of meaning, hope, or existence, in this context it refers to the lack of an exaggerated and distorted kind of existence—a false absolute,Footnote 5 essential, and independent existence—that we have projected onto things and onto ourselves (Newland, 2009, p. 6; Sopa, 2005, p. 138). At first, it can be frightening to doubt about the substantiality of reality, and we might feel that persons and things cannot exist at all if they do not exist in a substantial way we are accustomed to seeing them (Newland, 2009, p. 7). Yet, according to Newland (2009), “if it were our essential nature to be as we are, we would always be exactly that. We would be locked into existence-just-as-what-we-are-now. There could be no life—everything would be static and frozen” (p. 7). Thus, “our utter lack of a self-existent self—an independently existing self, an ultimately real self—does not mean that we do not exist at all. Persons and other phenomena do exist interdependently” (Newland, 2009, p. 8).

According to Buddha, the meaning of emptiness is coterminous with dependent origination or dependent arising, which means that all that exists comes into being in dependence upon causes and conditions (Newland, 2009, p. 32; Yin-shun, 1998, p. 132). Based on the causality that “in dependence upon this, that arises” (Newland, 2009, p. 125), we see that things exist and appear due to causes and conditions (Yin-shun, 1960/1998, p. 166), and that

since those causes and conditions are existent and have arisen, they naturally depend on other causes and conditions… Where there is a cause, there is an effect… Apart from causes and conditions, nothing can exist. (Yin-shun, 1960/1998, p. 166)

On one level, the doctrine of dependent origination reveals “how everything that exists in the world is relative, dependent on other parts” (Sopa, 2005, p. 359). While persons and things appear to us to be independent and have their own self-existence or essential reality, in actuality they are empty of such an independent, absolute and intrinsic nature. On this level, Buddha “is revealing the final nature of all things—the emptiness of all phenomena” (Sopa, 2005, p. 359). As Sopa (2005) explained, “the meaning of emptiness is dependent arising” (p. 138). In his Fundamental Treatise, NagarjunaFootnote 6 illuminated that whatever arises dependently we explain as emptiness (Newland, 2009, p. 32). From this perspective, we see that phenomena “exist only through their interconnections with other (equally empty) phenomena” (Newland, 2009, p. 69). Indeed, “it is just empty things that exist and are active in cause and effect relations” (Newland, 2009, p. 37). Thus, not only are emptiness and dependent arising fully compatible, but they are in actuality two ways of talking about the same view of the nature of reality (Newland, 2009, p. 32). Buddha’s way of teaching emptiness and dependent origination as an integrated, unified view of the true nature of things is highly praised by Tsong-kha-paFootnote 7 (Sopa, 2005, p. 359).

On another level, as demonstrated in the theory of the twelve links of dependent origination, the doctrine of dependent origination is also taught by Buddha to reveal the process of cause and effect by which the circumstances of samsaraFootnote 8 arise (Sopa, 2005, p. 325). According to Yogacara doctrine, each of our actions of body, speech, and mind deposits “a [karmic] seed or impression [or information] on the consciousness, which carries that seed forward as a potential, will eventually ripen and yield a result in the form of some type of future life experience” (Sopa, 2005, p. 328). Precisely speaking, in Yogacara doctrine, the karmic seeds are deposited in the eighth consciousness, also known as the Alaya or storehouse consciousnessFootnote 9 (Choi, 2011, pp. 53–54). Before ripening, the karmic seeds carried by consciousness will never get lost, and become the causes of various forms of reincarnation (Choi, 2011, pp. 55–56). There are twelve links of dependent origination: ignorance, formative activity, consciousness, name and form, the six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping,Footnote 10 existence, birth, aging and death (Sopa, 2005, pp. 324–360). As the very first of this causal chain, ignorance—meaning being ignorant of the ultimate truth of emptiness—is the most fundamental root of samsara (Sopa, 2005, p. 325). It “is a fundamental inability to recognize the infinite potential, clarity, and power of our own minds” (Mingyur, 2007, p. 117). The very point of the twelve links of dependent origination is that “all the causes that give rise to cyclic existence are within the individual” (Sopa, 2005, p. 352). As a description both of the empty nature of all experiences and phenomena and of the causal chain that perpetuates the cyclic forms of life process, dependent origination thus unites the right view of both truths—the doctrine of emptiness and the law of cause and effect of karma.

The concept of dependent origination appears easy to understand. Nevertheless, Buddha said to Ananda that the “true meaning of ‘all things arise interdependently’ is very profound” (Yin-shun, 1960/1998, p. 165), and since the meaning of emptiness is dependent arising, so is the true meaning of emptiness. By means of observing school buildings, for instance, we can easily conclude that they do not have an intrinsic existence because if they did, they would not depend on causes and conditions and would not change. Yet Newland (2009) reminded us that “we should not therefore conclude that the very meaning of emptiness—things’ lack of intrinsic existence—is simply that things are impermanent or that things depend on causes” (p. 67). He explained:

Often we speak of dependent arising as though it was shorthand only for the dependence of effects upon causes and conditions. However, dependent arising also includes the idea that wholes depend upon their parts as well as the idea that all things depend upon being designated or imputed by consciousnesses. For example, fire arises in dependence upon fuel as a causal condition; but fuel is something that a mind identifies as burnable and on that basis thinks, “There is fuel.” Likewise, cars are physically built up out of auto parts, but auto parts are recognized and imputed by the mind in consideration of their connection with real or potential cars. (Newland, 2009, pp. 69–70)

In Madhyamaka (the Middle Way school of Buddhism), “the term ‘dependent arising’ includes the notion that all things exist in dependence upon conceptual designation”Footnote 11 (Newland, 2009, p. 70). Nevertheless, Thompson (2015) emphasized that “such conceptual dependence doesn’t mean that nothing exists apart from our words and concepts, or that we make up the world with our mind” (p. 331). It means, rather, that upon a basis of designation, the identity of something as a single whole depends on how we cognitively conceptualize this basis and refer to it with a term (Thompson, 2015, pp. 330–131). This is the subtlest level of dependent arising and is crucial for attaining a proper understanding of emptiness. It is also the type of dependent arising that is of the greatest significance for education and as such will be discussed in further detail in Parts III and IV.

A proper understanding of emptiness involves a precise identification of the object of negation without either refuting too much (by denying production) and thus undermining ethics and negating the conventional existence altogether, and falling prey to the extreme of nihilism, or refuting too little (by affirming intrinsic nature) and thus slipping into the other extreme of eternalism or reificationism, and leaving our ignorance intact (Newland, 2009, pp. 28–38). This point is crucial in Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way. Following Buddha’s Middle Way doctrine,

Tsongkhapa identifies this actual object of negation as things having their own way of existing without being posited through the force of consciousness. This is what we mean by “self” or “intrinsic nature” [or svabha¯va, in Sanskrit]. The sheer absence of this is emptiness. Therefore, at bottom, to understand emptiness means understanding that things have no way of existing apart from minds that impute them. (Newland, 2009, p. 70)

In other words, to understand emptiness properly means understanding the profound meaning of dependent origination and the central doctrine of Consciousness-Only that maintains nothing exists except in consciousness. Moreover, from this perspective, “even emptiness is itself empty; that is, when one searches for the ultimate essence of emptiness, it too is unfindable. One finds only the emptiness of emptiness” (Newland, 2009, p. 31). However, this does not mean that emptiness does not exist at all. While “emptiness—as the ultimate nature—does not depend on causes or conditions, it still exists only in interdependence with other phenomena” (Newland, 2009, p. 63). For Tsong-kha-pa, Newland (2009) explained, “emptiness—like all other phenomena—depends on the mind that recognizes it and knows, ‘Emptiness exists’” (p. 63).

Through the above exploration, we have attained a certain conceptual understanding of emptiness; however, the hidden meaning of emptiness is profound and cannot be fully grasped by analytical reasoning alone. As Newland (2009) said, while it is transformative to know with certainty by means of inferential reasoning that things do not exist as they appear to us, “it is still a conceptual and therefore a dualistic kind of understanding” (p. 17). It is not yet a direct and truthful knowing of the actual ultimate truth—emptiness itself. Aiming at refining the conceptual and dualistic understanding of emptiness into nirvana —a liberating and direct, non-dualistic experience of emptiness—along the spiritual path, the bodhisattvaFootnote 12 becomes more and more familiar with emptiness by means of introspective meditation that links analysis with serene one-pointed concentration (Newland, 2009, pp. 17, 64). According to Newland (2009),

this culminates in the profound experience of direct, nondualistic mental perception of emptiness. For this ultimate mind, totally switched over to [another channel of reality]…, no conventional phenomena appear at all. This is what Tsong-kha-pa refers to as the actual ultimate truth. That is, the bodhisattva does not at that time think, “I am realizing emptiness,” or “Oh, emptiness really does exist.” Only emptiness appears. (p. 64)

When switching back to the conventional channel of reality from the ultimate channel experienced in deep meditation, bodhisattvas understand how our everyday reality is merely conventional and is not at all the only or final perspective (Newland, 2009, p. 42). Yet this direct and non-dualistic experience of emptiness does not wipe out the conventional reality; instead, conventional reality has its own kind of validity as objects known by conventional consciousness (Newland, 2009, p. 42). What is wiped out by the profound direct experience of oneness is the dualistic egoistic view that hinders the realization of the true nature of human existence that signifies infinite possibilities and omnipresent love intrinsic in everything. This experience is identical to the realizing of a mysterious unity depicted in the perennial philosophy, which, as discussed in Chap. 2, is the core wisdom common to various religious and spiritual traditions. However, as revealed in Chap. 2, both Huebner and Miller emphasized that what is important about transcendent and non-dualistic moments is the lived experience itself rather than its label or source, and such moments should not be relegated to remote forms of mysticism. As underscored in the perennial philosophy, “this realization can lead to social activity designed to counter injustice and human suffering” (Miller, 2007, p. 18).

As mentioned earlier, the right view of both the ultimate and phenomenal truths is the basis of all positive, happy, and blissful experiences. While we have now attained a certain conceptual understanding of the ultimate truth of emptiness, Sopa (2005) reminded us that since the law of cause and effect of karma was categorized by Buddha as an extremely hidden phenomenon, and “the details of the relationship between karma and its results is extremely profound and subtle; they are much more difficult to understand fully than emptiness” (p. 23). The complexity of the relationship between karma and its results can be found in the Jataka stories, or in sutras, such as The Sutra of the Wise and the Fool, etc. For the purpose of gaining deeper insights into the law of cause and effect of karma, related phenomena and theories of quantum physics will be explored in the next section.

Due to misunderstanding regarding the meaning of emptiness, there has been a recurring quandary concerning the compatibility between emptiness and the law of cause and effect of karma: “If there is no ‘I,’ no ‘mine,’ and all dharmas are utterly empty, how can the law of karma prevail?” (Chang, 1983, p. 411). Chang (1983) inferred:

It is precisely because everything is empty [of an independent, absolute nature] and there is no [absolute, essential and independent] self or ‘I,’ that everything can exist and the principle of karma can prevail. If things were truly existent, i.e., with a definite, enduring substance or entity, then no change or flow would be possible. Because nothing has self-nature (svabhava), everything is possible. (p. 411)

In other words, it is because all phenomena (including the inner self and external reality) are not ultimately real, but rather have a dependent arising nature that the law of the cause and effect of karma is able to function (Sopa, 2005, p. 139). Sopa (2008) stressed that “understanding causality and that things do not exist as they appear are not contradictory” (p. 219). Therefore, not only does emptiness not mean nothingness, but on the contrary, in the words of the 12th Tai Situpa Rinpoche, “emptiness is described as the basis that makes everything possible” (Mingyur, 2007, p. 59). Mingyur (2007) further illuminated that “without emptiness, nothing could appear; in the absence of phenomena, we wouldn’t be able to experience the background of emptiness” (p. 63). Emptiness, or infinite possibility, he continued, “is the absolute nature of reality. Everything that appears out of emptiness… is a relative expression of infinite possibility, a momentary appearance in the context of infinite time and space” (Mingyur, 2007, p. 63). From this perspective, the concept of emptiness and the concept of the transcendent are coterminous descriptions of the ultimate nature of self and reality that signify infinite possibilities. Besides, as the truthful knowing of the ultimate nature of self and reality, the direct, non-conceptual, and non-dualistic experience of emptiness attained through introspective meditation extends our understanding of a non-dualist worldview as a meditative insight that reveals the ultimate wholeness and interconnectedness of everything in the phenomenal world. Together, the conceptual understanding of emptiness attained through inferential reasoning and the non-conceptual and non-dualistic direct experience of emptiness attained through introspective meditation provide us with alternative perspectives for understanding the concepts of spiritual truth—particularly the openness to the transcendent and a non-dualistic worldview—found in Chap. 2.

Additionally, grounded in the Consciousness-Only doctrine which maintains that nothing exists except in the consciousness and suggests the illusory, projective, and dreamlike nature of all phenomena, the ultimate truth of emptiness echoes Plato’s allegory of the cave wherein human beings are likened to a strange sort of prisoners who see the shadows cast on the cave wall as the only truth and reality. The integrated view of the ultimate nature of self and reality that combines the Consciousness-Only doctrine, the notions of emptiness and dependent origination, and the law of cause and effect of karma suggests that the key to infinite possibilities is in our consciousness. It also illuminates why to speak of the spiritual is not to speak of something other than humankind, why “knowing the spiritual” actually refers to knowing oneself and others and the disciplines for knowing oneself and others, and why various modes of knowing are already infused with the spiritual.

2.2 The Four Noble Truths

In addition to the two truths, for those who are ready to strive for the ultimate liberation from all samsaric suffering and cyclic forms of existence, Buddha also taught the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path (Sopa, 2005, p. 4). According to Sopa (2005), by teaching the truth of suffering as the first of the four noble truths, Buddha pointed to the significance of generating the desire for liberation. From the Buddha’s perspective, most worldly beings are “deceived by the mistaken view that apprehends the attractions of samsara as sources of pleasure and happiness, when in fact they produce only dissatisfaction and suffering” (Sopa, 2005, p. 194). Being deceived by the attractive appearance of objects of desire, which are not the true causes of happiness and joy, sentient beings are entrapped in cyclic existence and therefore suffer (Sopa, 2005, p. 194). Sopa (2005) explained that when we are in the prison of cyclic existence, if we do not perceive our imprisonment as a problem, we will have no incentive to get out of it; instead, we grow used to it and become attached to it (p. 192). This is why we need to contemplate the truth of suffering. One of the ways of meditating on the truth of suffering is to contemplate the eight types of suffering, including the sufferings of birth, aging, sickness, death, encountering the unpleasant, separating from the pleasant, not getting what one wants, and the appropriating of aggregates (the combination of body and mind) (Sopa, 2005, pp. 198–224).

In order to achieve the cessation of suffering, we need to find out the cause of suffering. In Buddha’s doctrine, samsaric suffering is caused by various forms of contaminated karma, produced by inner afflictions rooted in ignorance, which refers to being ignorant of the ultimate truth of the emptiness of self and reality, and as a result, “grasping at a false conception of self” (Sopa, 2005, pp. 195, 296, 326). On an essential level, “ignorance distorts the basically open experience of awareness into dualistic distinctions between inherently existing categories of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Ignorance is thus a twofold problem” (Mingyur, 2007, p. 117). By means of perceiving the self as something permanent, essential and independent, we “impute upon the ever-changing aggregates a permanent sense of self—an egocentric, central ‘I’” (Sopa, 2005, p. 195), and start to perceive whatever is not self as the other (Mingyur, 2007, p. 117). Mingyur (2007) analyzed that, as a result, “everything we experience becomes, in a sense, a stranger” (p. 117); by locking ourselves into a dualistic mode of perception, we become unable “to recognize the infinite potential, clarity, and power of our own mind” (p. 117), and “begin looking [outwardly] at other people, material objects, and so on, as potential sources of happiness and unhappiness, and life becomes a struggle to get what we need in order to be happy before somebody else grabs it” (p. 117). This egoistic view which grasps a false ultimately existent nature of the self and all phenomena is the root of samsara (Sopa, 2005, p. 299). However, ignorance—the root cause of suffering—can be eliminated; according to Tsong-kha-pa, the principle antidote to this ignorance is the wisdom that realizes the emptiness of self (Sopa, 2005, pp. 195, 299, 327). The key to the cessation of samsaric suffering thus lies in the right view of the ultimate truth: the realization of emptiness.

With this right view in mind, we still require the methods to actually attain liberation. The truth of the path that will lead to personal emancipation from all of the sufferings of cyclic existence is embodied in the three trainings, which include ethical conduct or discipline, meditative stabilization, and wisdom (prajña¯) that realizes emptiness (Sopa, 2008, p. 4). While it is the training of wisdom that actually brings about the cessation of suffering, achieving that level of realization requires the training of meditative stabilization, and both goals rely on the firm foundation of ethical conduct (Sopa, 2008, p. 4). For those who have developed the bodhisattva’s motivation— bodhicitta , meaning the aspiration to attain the highest spiritual goal of the omniscience of enlightenment for the liberation of all sentient beings in the same miserable situation—Buddha expanded the path of three trainings into the Mahayana practices of six perfections (six paramitasFootnote 13): the perfections of generosity, ethical discipline, patience, joyous perseverance, meditative stabilization, and wisdom (Sopa, 2008, p. 8). According to Sopa (2008), each of the six perfections is a complex combinationFootnote 14 of methods (particularly the first four or five perfections) based on bodhicitta and wisdom (particularly the last two perfections or the sixth perfection) based on the realization of emptiness, and “each perfection supports and is part of the practice of the others” (p. 8). Thus, in the explanation and application of generosity, for example, there is the generosity of generosity, the ethical discipline of generosity, …, and the wisdom of generosity (Sopa, 2008, p. 209). Therefore, the six perfections are not fixed religious dogma to be observed mechanically within the framework of subject–object duality, but rather a dynamic and recursive matrix corresponding to vicissitudinary existential situations for cultivating “the nonperceptual and with no object” (Sopa, 2008, p. 213), for approaching the ultimate truth of self and reality and for the liberation of both oneself and all other sentient beings. Taking generosity as an example, “generosity with no object refers to understanding that the gift, the giver, and the recipient are empty of inherent existence” (Sopa, 2008, p. 214); “practicing giving with a realization of sunyata [emptiness] in the back of the mind is nonperceptual generosity” (Sopa, 2008, p. 214). The other perfections work in a similar way. The point of the six perfections is to cultivate the understanding that there are no ultimately existing objects or subjects; however, this does not mean there are no subjects and objects at all (Sopa, 2008, p. 213). Rather, the goal of these practices is to cultivate the realization that “the subject and object of any action are relative, dependent, and like illusions” (Sopa, 2008, pp. 213–214). Nevertheless, as Buddha emphasized in the Sutra Gathering All the Threads, this does not mean that one should practice the perfection of wisdom only (Sopa, 2008, p. 204). The requirement of both the wisdom-side practices and the method-side practices will be explored further in Chap. 4.

The truth of suffering and the truth of the cause of suffering provide us with deepened insights into why being ignorant of the ultimate truth of emptiness and attaching to a dualistic mode of perception are the sources of suffering. The truth of the cessation of suffering informs us that the key to the cessation of suffering lies in the cultivation and realization of the ultimate truth of emptiness, which signifies infinite transcendental possibilities and features a non-dualistic worldview. The truth of the path reveals the significant interrelationships between ethical conduct, meditative stabilization, and wisdom, and illuminates how each of these three trainings is indispensable to a spiritual pathway that will genuinely lead to positive, blissful life experiences and the achievement of various spiritual goals, whether these be “a better rebirth in our next life, personal liberation from cyclic existence, or perfect buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings” (Sopa, 2005, p. 4).

The above exploration of the four noble truths provides us a glimpse of the essence of Buddhism’s spiritual path that not only deepens our understanding of the metaphor of the four-stage transition depicted in Plato’s allegory of the cave, but also, to a certain extent, offers answers to our question regarding the significance of the transitions of the essence of truth from one stage to another for human beings. Thus, the educational significance of the concepts of truth in Buddhism (including the two truths doctrine and the four noble truths) lies in that they make clear the existential significance of spiritual truths and spiritual practices for human beings that is intimately related to both the individual and collective experiences of genuine happiness and ultimate liberation. However, just as the extent of the truthfulness of Plato’s doctrine of truth needs to be investigated, the educational significance of the concepts of truth in Buddhism need to be established based on the truthfulness of the Buddhist doctrine of truth. In the following section, therefore, a dialogue between the concepts of truth in Buddhism and their corresponding or supportive phenomena, theories, and philosophies in quantum physics is developed.

3 A Dialogue Between Buddhism and Quantum Physics

As discussed previously, in the doctrine of Buddhism, consciousness, self, and reality are inseparable, and the concepts of truth are established upon the doctrine of Consciousness-Only that maintains that nothing exists except in the consciousness. For the purpose of verifying the truthfulness of the Consciousness-Only doctrine and the Buddhist doctrine of truth, in this section, based on my identification of threads of continuity between the two systems of thought of Buddhism and quantum physics, I explore how we might understand the Buddhist concepts of truth—including emptiness, dependent origination, the law of cause and effect of karma, and the Consciousness-Only doctrine—from the perspective of quantum physics. The phenomena, theories, and philosophies of quantum physics to be explored are separated into three parts: the quantum measurement problem, uncertainty, and superstring theory; the holographic principle; and quantum entanglement, the theory of It from Bit, the participatory universe, and QBism.

3.1 The Quantum Measurement Problem, Uncertainty, and Superstring Theory and Buddhism

During the last 100 years, quantum mechanics is the most startling discovery in physics which undermines the whole conceptual schema of classical physics (Greene, 2004, p. 177). According to Greene (2004), the concepts of space and time in classical physics, established on Newton’s equations of motion, are absolute, rigid, and immutable (pp. 7–8). However, in 1905, Einstein determined that space and time are not independent and absolute, but rather are enmeshed, relative, flexible, and dynamic (Greene, 2004, p. 9). By the 1930s, propelled by experimental results, physicists were forced again to introduce a whole new conceptual schema known as quantum mechanics (Greene, 2004, p. 10). In contrast to classical physics, quantum theory portrays a distinct reality “in which things sometimes hover in a haze of being partly one way and partly another. Things become definite only when a suitable observation forces them to relinquish quantum possibilities and settle on a specific outcome” (Greene, 2004, p. 11). According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is not a question of a particle having a position that we do not know because we have not yet performed a measurement. Rather, in contrast to what we would expect, a particle “simply does not have a definite position before the measurement is taken” (Greene, 2004, p. 94); it “exists in a nether state, a sum of all possible states, until a measurement is made” (Kaku, 1994, p. 260), and therefore, prior to measurement, the coexisting possibilities move collectively, behaving like a wave. This is usually referred to as the quantum measurement problem. This phenomenon has been illustrated in a variety of double-slit experiments (Greene, 2004, pp. 84–88), culminating in a 1974 experiment wherein the Italian physicists Pier Giorgio Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio Pozzi successfully repeated Young’s double-slit experiment using single electrons and showed that, when not being observed, even a single electron interferes with itself as predicted by quantum theoryFootnote 15 (Rosa, 2012). Niels Bohr summarized that everything “has both wavelike and particle-like aspects. They are complementary features” (Greene, 2004, p. 185).

Moreover, “through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics claims that there are features of the world… that cannot simultaneously have definite values” (Greene, 2004, p. 112). For example, a particle cannot simultaneously have a definite a position and velocity, nor can it have a definite spin, either clockwise or counter-clockwise, about more than one axis (Greene, 2004, p. 112); “instead, particles hover in quantum limbo, in a fuzzy amorphous, probabilistic mixture of all possibilities; only when measured is one definite outcome selected from the many” (Greene, 2004, p. 112). This phenomenon echoes the doctrine of dependent origination and refutes the idea that particles have “their own way of existing without being posited through the force of consciousness” (Newland, 2009, p. 70). The mystic interrelationship between the observer’s consciousness and the behavior of the observed electron is one of the most intriguing implications of this phenomenon. Since quantum theory is greatly at odds with our everyday experiences, at the time when quantum theory was first proposed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, Einstein revolted against this concept and was fond of asking “Does the moon exist just because a mouse looks at it?” (Kaku, 1994, p. 260). Today, however, according to Greene (2004), the majority of physicists agree that particle properties only “come into being when measurements force them to” (p. 121), and when “they are not being observed or interacting with the environment, particle properties have a nebulous, fuzzy existence characterized solely by a probability that one or another potentiality might be realized” (p. 121).

Apparently, quantum physics negates absolutism and objectivism, and depicts a drastically different picture of reality than that portrayed by classical physics. Nevertheless, for decades, there has been a widespread impression that quantum mechanics is only applicable in the invisible microscopic realm (Vedral, 2011, p. 38). This assumption was overturned, however, in 2010, when Aaron O’Connell created the world’s first quantum machine and performed the first quantum measurement visible to the naked eye (Cho, 2010, p. 1604). The journal Science honored it as the Breakthrough of the Year of 2010, and commented that this machine “might lead to tests of our notion of reality” (Cho, 2010, p. 1604). O’Connell’s invention suggests that quantum mechanics is universally applicable to everything in both the microscopic and macroscopic realms. According to Greene (2004), if “quantum mechanics is a universal theory that applies without limitations to everything, [then] the observed and the observer should be treated in exactly the same way” (p. 203). This equal treatment of the observer and the observed convincingly suggests the inseparability of consciousness, self, and reality and a non-dualistic worldview. Furthermore, if quantum mechanics is applicable to the macroscopic realm, then the seemingly absolute, substantial, essential, and independent macroscopic material world, just like the microscopic realm depicted by quantum theory, when not being observed, would also be merely “a nebulous, fuzzy existence characterized solely by a probability that one or another potentiality might be realized” (Greene, 2004, p. 121), and thus be empty of any absolute, substantial, essential, and independent nature. This is exactly the meaning of emptiness.

The quantum measurement problem and the principle of uncertainty provide us with a scientific perspective for contemplating the doctrine of the truth of emptiness. Nevertheless, the true meaning of emptiness is more profound than we might think. According to superstring theory—a leading theory developed to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics—the particles (e.g., electrons, quarks, etc.) thought of as the smallest indivisible constituents of matter are not concrete dots at all (Greene, 2004, p. 17). Rather, “every particle is composed of a tiny filament of energy, some hundred billion billion times smaller than a single atomic nucleus… which is shaped like a tiny string” (Greene, 2004, pp. 17–18), and, much as different vibrational patterns of strings on a violin produce different musical notes, different vibrational patterns of the filaments of energy produce different particle properties (Greene, 2004, p. 18). Therefore, at the ultramicroscopic level, the universe described by superstring theory would be akin to a string symphony of pure energy vibrating matter into existence (Greene, 2004, p. 347). Moreover, for the fusion of general relativity and quantum mechanics to be mathematically sensible, superstring theory “requires nine spatial dimensions and one time dimension. And in a more robust incarnation of superstring theory known as M-theory, unification requires ten space dimensions and one time dimension” (Greene, 2004, p. 18). Superstring theory, thus, provides us with a novel framework for contemplating an eleven-dimensional space-time, to which the phenomenal world refers and which forms the basis of what is perceived in our daily life. From the perspective of superstring theory, the four-dimensional phenomenal world we have so far glimpsed is but “a meager slice of reality” (Greene, 2004, p. 18), and is far from being substantial, absolute, and permanent. Therefore, in his teaching regarding the emptiness of all phenomena, rather than denying the existence of the everyday physical world, what Buddha emphasized is that this is far from the ultimate reality (Choi, 2011, p. 90).

When viewed from the perspective of the quantum measurement problem, the principle of uncertainty, and superstring theory, the doctrine of the ultimate truth of emptiness becomes more sensible and conceivable. Additional theories in quantum physics that resonate with the concepts of truth in Buddhism include the holographic principle and parallel universes. In the following subsection, I explore how we might understand the central doctrine of Consciousness-Only, the concepts of dependent origination, and the law of cause and effect of karma from the perspective of the holographic principle and parallel universes.

3.2 The Holographic Principle and Buddhism

A hologram (or holographic film) of an object is a piece of two-dimensional etched plastic negative produced by the interference patterns of waves of two separate beams of a single laser light (Talbot, 2011, p. 14). When illuminated with appropriate laser light, a hologram will project a three-dimensional image by means of Fourier transforms, which are mathematical equations that are able to convert between three-dimensional images and waveform interference patterns (Greene, 2004, p. 482; Talbot, 2011, p. 27). In addition to the three-dimensionality of the projected image, another remarkable characteristic of holograms is the whole in every part property: Every fragment of a hologram contains all the information recorded in the whole. If a piece of a hologram containing the image of an apple is cut into pieces and then illuminated by a laser, each one of these pieces will still be found to contain the entire image of the apple (Talbot, 2011, pp. 16–17). Evolved from David Bohm’s holographic model of the universe, which he called the holomovement (Bohm, 1980, pp. 190–197), and the parallel universe proposals, as well as “over thirty years of theoretical studies on the quantum properties of black holes” (Greene, 2011, p. 8), the holographic principle posits that “all we experience is nothing but a holographic projection of processes taking place on some distant surface that surrounds us” (Greene, 2011, p. 8).

As early as the 1970s, based on a long-term contemplation and an inspiration kindled by hologram, quantum physicist David Bohm became convinced that the universe was a kind of giant, flowing hologram (Talbot, 2011, p. 46). For Bohm, “the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image” (Talbot, 2011, p. 46). Underlying this tangible reality, there is a deeper order of existence—“a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world” (Talbot, 2011, p. 46) in much the same way that a piece of hologram gives birth to a holographic image (Talbot, 2011, p. 46).

Bohm’s idea of a holographic universe explains many puzzles in quantum mechanics, including the effect consciousness seems to have on the subatomic world (Talbot, 2011, p. 49). Bohm felt that “most physicists go about it the wrong way, by once again trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle” (Talbot, 2011, p. 49). Bohm believed that it was meaningless to speak of the observing instrument and the observed object as interacting, because all such things are merely different aspects of an undivided wholeness, the holomovement (Bohm, 1980, p. 169; Talbot, 2011, p. 50). In addressing the issue of fragmentation between the observer and the observed, Bohm (1980) indicated that “one of the most difficult and subtle points about this question is just to clarify what is to be meant by the relationship between the content of thought and the process of thinking which produces this content” (p. 23). Employing the metaphor of a turbulent mass of vortices in a stream, Bohm (1980) explained:

The structure and distribution of vortices, which constitute a sort of content of the description of the movement, are not separate from the formative activity of the flowing stream, which creates, maintains, and ultimately dissolves the totality of vortex structures… Similarly, when we really grasp the truth of the one-ness of the thinking process that we are actually carrying out, and the content of thought that is the product of this process, then such insight will enable us to observe, to look, to learn about the whole movement of thought and thus to discover an action relevant to this whole, that will end the “turbulence” of movement which is the essence of fragmentation in every phase of life. (Bohm, 1980, p. 24)

Bohm’s metaphor of vortices in a stream effectively illuminates his point regarding how the observer and the observed—or the thinking process and its content, or consciousness and what is experienced—are merely different aspects of an undivided dynamic wholeness. His insights, in some ways, not only buttress the Consciousness-Only doctrine and the non-dualistic worldview, but also highlight the significance of the realization of the wholeness and interconnectedness of everything for guiding our actions and ending the fragmentation.

In the early 1990s, based on the theoretical studies of information storage of black holes, Nobel laureate Gerard’t Hooft and Leonard Susskind began to envision a prototype of the holographic principle (Greene, 2004, p. 482). A consolidation of the holographic principle came in 1997 when the Argentinian physicist Juan Maldacena made a dramatic breakthrough (Greene, 2004, p. 483); by applying superstring theory mathematically, he convincingly argued that “everything taking place within the specified universe is a reflection of laws and processes acting themselves out on the boundary [surrounding this specified universe]” (Greene, 2011, p. 263). His results “realized explicitly the holographic principle, and in doing so provided the first mathematical example of Holographic Parallel Universes” (Greene, 2011, p. 263). “The holographic ideas have been subject to a great many stringent mathematical tests; having come through unscathed, they’ve been propelled into mainstream thought among physicists” (Greene, 2011, p. 269). In 2015, by means of calculating the value of entropy of entanglement, Arjun Bagchi, Rudranil Basu, Daniel Grumiller, and Max Riegler further theoretically confirmed the validity of the holographic principle (Vienna University of Technology, 2015). According to Greene (2011), there has been exciting evidence that within the next few years the holographic ideas may well be able to be tested experimentally (p. 263).

While the holographic principle suggests that what we experience in daily life is but a reflection of a parallel process taking place in the universe that surrounds us “much as what we see in a holographic projection is determined by information encoded on a bounding piece of plastic” (Greene, 2004, p. 482), in reconfiguring our worldview, it is vital to bear in mind Bohm’s caution against further fragmenting reality by saying that one separate thing interacts with another. The eleven-dimensional universe depicted in superstring theory, the four-dimensional phenomenal world experienced in our daily life, the hologram-like universe of information storing, processing, and projecting, and the consciousness should therefore be considered as merely different aspects of an undivided wholeness, and therefore inseparable.

Bohm’s holographic paradigm resonates with neuroscientist Karl Pribram’s brain theory. In the 1970s, when Pribram had collected enough experimental evidence for his holographic brain theory, he met, and collaborated with, David Bohm (Talbot, 2011, pp. 30–31). Together, they concluded that “our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time. The brain is a hologram enfolded in a holographic universe” (Talbot, 2011, p. 54). For Pribram, all that we perceive as out there—including our own brains and bodies—is but “a vast ocean of wave and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur [of waveform interference patterns] and convert it into the sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world” (Talbot, 2011, p. 54). From this perspective, the seemingly objective world, which is usually deemed as separate from ourselves, is but a filtered interpretation by our consciousness out of one single undivided holographic universe, and the pertinent question regarding the two different aspects of reality—what we perceive in our everyday life (i.e., the phenomenal aspect of reality) and the other aspect of the holographic blur of waveform interference patterns (i.e., the ultimate aspect of reality)—would be: “Which one is real and which is illusion?” (Talbot, 2011, p. 55).

The central concept of the holographic principle is reified in Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s simple but curious philosophy that we are in a computer-simulated universe (Greene, 2011, p. 288). As a theoretical physicist and string theorist, Brian Greene (2011) totally agreed with Bostrom’s deduction, stating that “logic alone can’t ensure that we’re not in a computer simulation” (p. 289), and that “after all, according to our belief, we’re in one” (p. 289). In such a computer simulation, a “sufficiently well-structured program would keep track of the mental states and intentions of its simulated inhabitants, and so would anticipate, and appropriately respond to, any impending stargazing” (Greene, 2011, p. 287). At the very least, as Greene (2011) asserted, evidences for simulated worlds are grounds for rethinking the nature of our own reality (p. 293).

The holographic principle and Bostrom’s philosophy of a computer-simulated universe provide us with a scientific framework for contemplating the central doctrine of Consciousness-Only that nothing exists except in the consciousness and Hsuan-Tsang’s analogy of a man in a dream. This scientific framework not only expands our understanding of the doctrine of dependent origination, particularly regarding how things cannot have independent ways of existence without being posited through the force of consciousness, but also helps us realize the significance of consciousness in the creation of our own reality and how the division between inner self and external phenomena is merely illusionary in nature. In the West, the best-known philosopher to propound a similar idealism is George Berkeley (Butler, 2010, pp. 39–40; Siderits, 2007, p. 146). This is a sort of philosophy that not everyone will be persuaded to accept. One anecdote states that when Samuel Johnson first heard of Berkeley’s claim that matter is a figment of the mind’s conjuring, he kicked a stone and said “I refute it thus!” (Greene, 2011, p. 298; Siderits, 2007, p. 146). Johnson’s reaction is a representative refutation built upon an objectivist worldview. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the holographic principle and Bostrom’s computer-simulated universe, Johnson’s experiences—including his thoughts, body, speech, and the stone he kicked in what he thought of as an external objective world—are but an abstraction, an interpretation by his own consciousness in a computer-simulated holographic universe, akin, in a sense, to the experiences of a man in a dream. As Lusthaus (2002) explicated, “even the notion that ‘things exist external to my consciousness’ is a notion conceived, affirmed, or denied in consciousness” (p. 5).

Given the whole in every part property of a hologram, Bohm (1990) developed the notions of the enfolded or implicate order and the unfolded or explicate order (p. 273):

The essential features of the [enfolded or] implicate order are… that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything and that each thing is enfolded in the whole. From this it follows that in some way, and to some degree everything enfolds or implicates everything, but in such a manner that under typical conditions of ordinary experience, there is a great deal of relative independence of things. The basic proposal is then that this enfoldment relationship is not merely passive or superficial. Rather, it is active and essential to what each thing is. It follows that each thing is internally related to the whole, and therefore, to everything else. The external relationships are then displayed in the unfolded or explicate order in which each thing is seen, as has already indeed been indicated, as relatively separate and extended, and related only externally to other things. The explicate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical (Newtonian) physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understood properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order. (Bohm, 1990, p. 273)

Bohm’s proposal of implicate order and explicate order harkens back to the Buddhist doctrine of two truths and demonstrates the profound meaning of dependent origination. In this holographic dependently arising relationship, everything actively implicates everything else and the whole. Therefore, the interdependency between things is much more complicated and immediate than we might have thought. Bohm’s proposal also resonates with the poetic Buddhist metaphor of Indra’s net,Footnote 16 in which an infinite number of interconnected jewels strung together in a net reflect one another and themselves, thus illustrating the whole in every part concept embodied in holograms as well as the mysterious connections that exist between everything. Since the whole universe is enfolded or implicated in everything, whatever actions of mind, body, and speech we direct toward others must, in a holographic sense, reflect back upon ourselves much like the reflections of the jewels in Indra’s net. Philosophically speaking, the concept of implicit order suggests the likelihood of the law of cause and effect of karma.

In addition to Bohm’s concept of implicate order, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement and the theory of It from Bit also suggest the dependently originating nature of the phenomenal world and the law of cause and effect of karma. In the following subsection, quantum entanglement and the theory of It from Bit and the ways in which both resonate with Buddhist concepts of truth are explored.

3.3 Quantum Entanglement, the Theory of It from Bit, the Participatory Universe, and QBism and Buddhism

Quantum entanglement is a bizarre state of interconnectedness between two particles (Greene, 2004, p. 116; Talbot, 2011, p. 36). According to various repeatable experiments, given a pair of appropriately prepared particles with common origin, no matter how far apart they are, if the measurement of a certain property of one particle is performed at a precise moment, the other particle (i.e., the one not measured) immediately relinquishes the fuzzy state of quantum limbo and takes on the identical or related property as if this measurement was performed directly on it (Greene, 2004, pp. 80, 116). According to Greene (2004), the phenomenon of quantum entanglement challenges a basic property of space that “it separates and distinguishes one object from another” (p. 122), and shows that two things “can be separated by an enormous amount of space and yet not have a fully independent existence” (p. 122). In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen proposed a thought experiment (now referred to as the EPR paradox) intended to attack quantum theory by showing that when the distance between two particles was enlarged to a certain extent, “no ‘reasonable definition’ of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist” (Talbot, 2011, p. 37); yet, decades later, what they thought of as absurd was demonstrated experimentally to be true (Greene, 2004, p. 11). These experiments include the work of Alain Aspect and his collaborators in the early 1980s, and a refined version of Aspect’s experiment carried out by Nicolas Gisin and his team in 1997 (Greene, 2004, pp. 113, 115; Theckedath, 1997, p. 64). Greene (2004) explained that space “does not distinguish such entangled objects. Space cannot overcome their interconnection. Space, even a huge amount of space, does not weaken their quantum mechanical interdependence” (p. 122). This phenomenon reveals how two particles that come from one origin in the microscopic realm are dependently arising and become the causes and conditions of each other. Furthermore, in 2011, experimental research on entanglement between two separated diamonds, visible to the naked eye, at room temperature, confirmed that “entanglement can persist in the classical context of moving macroscopic solids in ambient conditions” (Lee et al., 2011, p. 1253).

While the phenomenon of quantum entanglement reveals the most astonishing example of dependent origination and suggests the likelihood of the existence of the law of cause and effect of karma, in our everyday life, we rarely experience an immediate quantum entanglement phenomenon. The theory of decoherence provides an explanation that it is because particles, despite being too small to have any significant effect of quantum entanglement on a large object, are able to continually nudge the probability wave of a large object, meaning they disturb the coherence of the probability wave by blurring its orderly sequence of crests and troughs, and melt the quantum probabilities into the familiar probabilities of everyday life (Greene, 2004, pp. 209, 210). Nevertheless, Greene (2004) pointed out that “even though decoherence suppresses quantum interference…, each of the potential outcomes embodied in a wavefunction still vies for realization. And so we still left wondering how one outcome ‘wins’” (p. 212).

Speaking from the perspective of the holographic principle, the theoretical physicist John Wheeler, who coined and popularized the picturesque terms of black hole, wormhole, and gravitational radiation, etc. in modern physics (Narlikar, 2013, pp. 23–24), proposed that “things—matter and radiation—should be viewed as secondary, as carriers of a more abstract and fundamental entity: information” (Greene, 2011, p. 239). Greene (2011) explained that what Wheeler argued is that matter and radiation “should be viewed as the material manifestations of something more basic. He believed that information… forms an irreducible kernel at the heart of reality” (p. 239). Greene (2011) continued that, for Wheeler, “such information is instantiated in real particles…, is something like an architect’s drawings being realized as a skyscraper” (p. 239). Wheeler called his theory It from Bit and elucidated that the universe sprang into being because it was observed (Kaku, 2005, pp. 171–172). “This means that ‘it’ (matter in the universe) sprang into existence when information (‘bit’) of the universe was observed,” and Wheeler called this universe the “participatory universe” (Kaku, 2005, p. 172). In this participatory universe, “the universe adapts to us in the same way that we adapt to the universe… [and] our very presence makes the universe possible” (Kaku, 2005, p. 172).

Influenced by John Wheeler’s writings regarding “law without law,” QBism is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics developed by Christopher Fuchs and some others since 1993 (Fuchs, 2016, p. 1). The theory of QBism suggests that “a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality but an agent’s personal probability assignments, reflecting his subjective degrees of belief about the future content of his experience” (Fuchs & Schack, 2014, p. 1). Coined in 2009, the term QBism initially stood for Quantum Bayesianism, but now also associates the “B” with the idea of “bettabilitarianism”—the idea that “the world is loose at the joints, that indeterminism plays a real role in the world” (Fuchs, 2016, p. 10). In an interview, Fuchs emphasized that “quantum mechanics is not about how the world is without us; instead it’s precisely about us in the world. The subject matter of the theory is not the world or us but us-within-the-world, the interface between the two” (Gefter, 2015, para. 14). As Fuchs and Schack (2014) explicated,

in QBism, there are no agent-independent elements of physical reality that determine either measurement outcomes or probabilities of measurement outcomes. Rather, every quantum measurement is an action on the world by an agent that results in the creation of something entirely new. QBism holds this to be true not only for laboratory measurements on microscopic systems, but for any action an agent takes on the world to elicit a new experience. It is in this sense that agents have a fundamental creative role in the world. (pp. 9–10)

QBism and other voices in physics, such as “the ‘Copenhagen’ views of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli, the observer-participator view of John Wheeler, the informational interpretation of Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner, the relational interpretation of Carlo Rovelli” (Fuchs, 2016, p. 1) that seeks “to insert a first-person perspective into the heart of physics” (Fuchs, 2016, p. 1) have been termed as “participatory realism” (Fuchs, 2016, p. 1). Yet, “rather than relinquishing the idea of reality…, they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture (Fuchs, 2016, p. 1). The question we would ask following the theory of QBism is: What, then, are the underlying rules that govern “an agent’s personal probability assignments… [that reflect] his subjective degrees of belief about the future content of his experience” (Fuchs & Schack, 2014, p. 1)?

In the Buddhist doctrine of karma, akin to Wheeler’s theory of It from Bit, each of our virtuous or non-virtuous actions of body, speech, and mind simultaneously deposits a corresponding karmic seed into the storehouse consciousness ( Alaya ) which carries the potential to ripen into corresponding pleasant or suffering type of results that is never inconsistent with the type of its seed (Sopa, 2005, pp. 20–22). Similar to the way a tiny seed can grow into an enormous tree, a small inner karmic seed can possibly produce great results (Sopa, 2005, pp. 22–23). In Buddha’s teaching, the order in which various virtuous and non-virtuous karmic seeds ripen is as follows:

  1. 1.

    Whichever karma is weightiest will ripen first.

  2. 2.

    If weights are equal, whatever karma is manifest at the time of death will ripen first.

  3. 3.

    If this also is the same, whatever karma you have predominantly become habituated to will ripen first.

  4. 4.

    If this also is the same, whatever karma you have done first will ripen earliest. (Tsong-kha-pa, 1402/2000, p. 242)

The order of the ripening of karmic seeds provides us with a glance at the mechanics underlying the law of cause and effect of karma. Since Buddha’s doctrine of karma is profound and complicated, the details of the rules will not be discussed here. These rules, however, suggest the possibility of understanding the karmic seeds as the “Bit” (i.e., information) in Wheeler’s It from Bit theory that, like an architect’s drawings, hold the potential to be realized as a skyscraper. This understanding, combined with Wheeler’s theory of participatory universe and particles as carriers of information, QBism and participatory realism, Bostrom’s computer-simulated universe, quantum entanglement, the holographic principle, and Bohm’s implicate order, allows us to conceptualize an expanded holographic computer-simulation model of participatory universe that will always, in a sense, reflect the “Bit” or the information or the karmic seeds in our consciousness by virtue of following its own rules. This model is conducive to the speculation regarding the likelihood of the law of cause and effect of karma and the possible answer to Greene’s question regarding how one potential outcome embodied in a wave-function wins and is realized in the material realm.

In this model, despite the fact that we do not always experience the immediate results of karma in our everyday lives, each of our actions of body, speech, and mind would simultaneously deposit corresponding information or karmic seeds into our database or storehouse consciousness. The probabilities of various potential future happenings inspired by accumulated information are therefore constantly altered by our actions, and, in this sense, the potential happenings vie for realization as certain type of life experience. Although it is extremely difficult to verify the law of cause and effect of karma by means of methods other than deep meditation (particularly when it involves multiple lives), the above conjecture serves as a basis for developing confidence in the certainty of the law of cause and effect of karma for those who are willing to cultivate this belief.

In summation, the phenomena, theories, and philosophies of quantum physics greatly extend our understanding of the concepts of truth in Buddhism, including emptiness, dependent origination, the law of cause and effect of karma, and the Consciousness-Only doctrine. In the following section, the implications of this dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics for education and educational purposes are investigated.

4 The Implications of This Dialogue for Education

In the preceding section, the dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics demystifies the religious language of Buddhist concepts of truth, including the meaning of emptiness, dependent origination, the law of cause and effect of karma, and the Consciousness-Only doctrine. Rather than contradicting each other, to our surprise, these two branches of thought exhibit common threads of continuity and a startling tendency toward convergence. Echoing Heidegger’s interpretation of Plato’s cave allegory, both Buddhism and quantum physics reveal that the phenomenal world we experience in everyday life is indeed a “deft master of disguise” (Greene, 2004, p. 22) and is in fact merely “a meager slice of reality” (Greene, 2004, p. 18) empty of any absolute, essential, and independent nature. Both branches of thought suggest the inseparability of consciousness, the inner self, and external reality. Both refute absolutism and objectivism, signify infinite possibilities, and uncover the profound dependently arising nature and the oneness of all phenomena. This convergence not only renews our comprehension of both branches of thought and deepens our understanding of the concepts of the transcendent and the non-dualistic worldview found in educational literature, but also increases our confidence in the truthfulness of both Plato’s doctrine of truth and the concepts of truth in Buddhism.

As discussed earlier, the holographic principle makes manifest the fact that this phenomenal world we experience in everyday life is but “a reflection of laws and processes acting themselves out on the boundary” (Greene, 2011, p. 263) in much the same way “as what we see in a holographic projection is determined by information encoded on a bounding piece of plastic” (Greene, 2004, p. 482) and is therefore “but a faint inkling of a far richer reality that flickers beyond reach” (Greene, 2011, p. 238). Given the consistency between Plato’s allegory of the cave and the holographic principle, Greene (2011) opened his book chapter on the holographic principle by introducing this allegory, remarking that “two millennia later, it seems that Plato’s cave may be more than a metaphor” (p. 238). This increased confidence in the truthfulness of Plato’s doctrine of truth and the concepts of truth in Buddhism provides us with a deepened and broadened conceptual ground for reconsidering the significance of spiritual truth and the relationship between truth and education found in Chap. 2. As Greene (2004) stressed, only when our understanding of the true nature of physical reality is deepened does a profound reconfiguration of our sense of ourselves and our experience of the universe emerge (p. 5). This reconfiguration inevitably propels us into a reconsideration of the essence and purpose of education.

Attesting the value of understanding the true nature of the universe to the appraisal of life’s meaning and significance, Greene (2004) reasoned by the analogy that if evolution had proceeded differently and we had only the sense of touch, then everything we knew would come only from tactile impressions, or, if human development halted during early childhood and our emotional and intellectual skills never progressed beyond those of a five-year-old, then our assessment of life would be thoroughly compromised (p. 4). In such a case, if we suddenly gained the senses to see, hear, smell, and taste, or the freedom to develop mental faculties beyond those of a five-year-old, our collective view of the meaning and significance of life would, of necessity, change profoundly (Greene, 2004, p. 4). Following this analogy, in comparison with the true nature of consciousness, self, and reality unveiled in the above dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics, what we know from our rudimentary perceptions of everyday life would be parallel to the mere tactile impressions, or a five-year-old’s conception of the world. From this perspective, the espousal of positivism and its associated concepts of absolutism and objectivism, as well as the exclusion of spirituality from education, could be tantamount to confining human sensory perception to mere touch or restraining the human development of mental faculties from progressing beyond those of a five-year-old.

Greene’s analogies, as well as the dialogue between quantum physics and Buddhism, reveal the significance of the realization of the true nature of human existence for the recognition of the essence and purpose of education. As revealed in the dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics—as well as in the perennial philosophy and Plato’s allegory of the cave—for thousands of years, what the spiritual and religious traditions endeavor to achieve is to emancipate human beings from the imprisonment of a shadowy and deceptive phenomenal reality and to guide us to the unhidden or the Highest Idea of the upper world outside of the cave (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 260) by means of exposing the generally unrecognized truth that there is something beyond the facade of our everyday experience. From this perspective, the essence of spirituality could be understood as the unveiling of the ultimate truth of human existence that brings about ultimate liberation. However, over the past 300 years, since the introduction of classical physics, the gradual neglect and exclusion of spirituality from curriculum and education has further confined human beings to the prison of shadowy phenomenal reality. By means of deterring generations of human beings from turning around and accessing their true nature, this exclusion hinders the transition of humankind toward the ultimate truth of the most extremely unhidden, and consequently prevents genuine education from occurring. The resulting thoroughly compromised appraisal of human nature and the value and purpose of life not only prevents us from leading a fulfilled and meaningful life, but also becomes the root of various global crises. From this viewpoint, the revival of spirituality in education is never dispensable or optional, but rather imperative.

As discussed in Chap. 2, the deliberation of the essence of education as fundamental concerns of “our Being as men” (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 257) can be traced back to Plato. By virtue of apprehending Plato’s allegory of the cave as not only a metaphor for education but also as an explication of the four-stage transition of the essence of truth as presumed or realized by an individual, Heidegger (1942/1962) illuminated the essential relationship between education and the truth that underpins the significance of spiritual truth for education found in educational literature. The preceding exploration of the concepts of truth in Buddhism and the dialogue between Buddhism and quantum physics resolves our questions regarding the extent of the truthfulness of Plato’s doctrine of truth and the significance of the four-stage transition of the essence of truth for human beings; it also points to the fundamental role played by consciousness in dominating the possibilities of transplanting human beings into the region of their essence in pure education, wherein “everything commonly known to man up to this time and the way it was known become different” (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 257).

According to Heidegger (1942/1962), in Plato’s own interpretation of this allegory, the things that are lying in the sunlight outside of the cave are “the image for what the real reality of beings consists in” (p. 254), and are that “through which beings display themselves in their ‘outward appearance’” (p. 254). Yet this “outward appearance” (from the Greek word ἰδέα or idea) does not mean a mere “aspect,” but rather “something of an extrusion through which each thing ‘present’ itself” (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 254). For Plato, if a person

did not have these ideas before his gaze as the respective “outward appearance” of things, living creatures, men, numbers, and the gods, then he would never be able to perceive this or that particular thing as a house, as a tree, or as a god. (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 254)

Nevertheless, Heidegger (1942/1962) pointed out that a person usually believes what he or she sees is exactly this house, that tree, and everything that is, and seldom suspects that “everything holding value for him in all its familiarity as the ‘real’ is always seen only in the light of ‘ideas’” (p. 254). From Plato’s perspective, what “is supposed to be alone and really real, the immediately visible, audible, comprehensible, and calculable, still steadily remains… only the silhouette projected by the ideas, and consequently a shadow,” and it is this “reality” that “keeps man in its grasp day in and day out. He lives in a prison and leaves all ‘ideas’ behind him” (Heidegger, 1942/1962, p. 254).

Heidegger’s restatement of Plato’s own interpretation of cave allegory echoes with Wheeler’s theory of It from Bit, which contends that things should be viewed as carriers and manifestations of something more basic—information—that forms the irreducible kernel at the heart of reality (Greene, 2011, p. 239). The “outward appearance” or “ideas” in Plato’s interpretation of this allegory can thus be understood as playing the role of the “Bit” or the information carried by particles and radiation akin to an architect’s drawings waiting for being realized as a skyscraper, or the karmic seeds which have the potential of ripening into future life experiences. Heidegger (1942/1962) further argued:

Consciousness, properly speaking, has to do with the way outward appearance manifests itself and is preserved in the brightness of its steady appearance. Through this one can view whatever each being is present as. Consciousness, properly speaking, applies to the ἰδέα. The “idea” is the outward appearance which gives a perspective upon what is present. The ἰδέα is pure shining in the sense of the phrase “the sun shines.” The “idea” does not just let something else (behind it) “make an appearance,” it itself is what appears, and it depends upon itself alone for its appearing. The ἰδέα is the apparent. The essence of the idea lies in the qualities of being apparent and visible. The idea achieves presence, namely the presence of every being as what it is. Each being is continuously present in the What of beings. Presence however is really the essence of Being. Being, then for Plato, has its real essence in its What. (pp. 261–262)

Heidegger’s clarification of the concepts of and relationship between consciousness and idea resonates with not only Wheeler’s theory of It from Bit, but also Bohm’s contention of the oneness of the thinking process and its content (Bohm, 1980, pp. 23–24), and the two truths and Consciousness-Only doctrine in Buddhism. It also reaffirms the existential significance of the “What” that resides in consciousness, particularly the essence of truth presumed or realized by an individual. From this perspective, the concern of our Being as humans is in essence the concern of human consciousness, and the essence and purpose of education as the four-stage transition of the essence of truth is in essence the transformation of consciousness—from the grasping of deceptive phenomenal everyday experiences to the conceptual understanding of the true nature of self and reality, the direct non-dualistic realization of the ultimate truth of emptiness, ultimate personal liberation, and the highest spiritual goal of the liberation of all sentient beings from the cyclic forms of existence in the suffering-laden shadowy phenomenal world.

Following the realization of the essence and purpose of education as consciousness transformation (a realization informed and supported by Huebner’s and other curriculum theorists’ work as well as Heidegger’s interpretation of Plato’s cave allegory, Buddhism, and quantum physics), in the next chapter, I investigate into the Buddhist spiritual practices of consciousness transformation for educational use and explore how we might begin to understand curriculum as an experience of consciousness transformation.