Carlo Rovelli and Barry Kerzin: What is real? Nagarjuna's Middle Way.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2021
- QISS Virtual Seminar
Title: What is real? Nagarjuna’s Middle Way. A discussion with Barry Kerzin and Carlo Rovelli.
Time and date: 29 of October 2021, 4pm CEST (10am EDT)
Abstract: Two interlocutors with a common fascination for Nagarjuna’s thought, a physician and Buddhist monk, and a theoretical physicist with a keen interest in the philosophy and history of science, discuss with the help of a moderator. The trilogue hopes to intrigue as to the pertinence of Nagarjuna’s philosophical stance on what and what not can consistently be said to exist, for deep seated conceptual issues in modern relativistic and quantum physics.
Speakers: Barry Kerzin is an American physician, academic in medicine and Buddhist monk. Dr. Kerzin has lived in Dharamshala since 1988, serving as personal physician to the 14th Dalai Lama, founded the Altruism in Medicine Institute, whose mission is to increase compassion and resilience among health care professionals and their patients, and authored `Nagarjuna’s Wisdom: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Middle Way’, that introduces the reader to the basics of Madhyamaka (middle way) thought. Dr. Kerzin is adjunct professor at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), adjunct professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and formerly Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington. He is founder and president of the Altruism in Medicine Institute (AIMI) and founder and chairman of the Human Values Institute (HVI) in Japan.
Carlo Rovelli is a theoretical physicist, known for his work in quantum gravity and contributions to the history and philosophy of science. Rovelli is a prolific author of technical literature and has penned best sellers in science popularisation. In his latest book, Helgoland, Prof. Rovelli argues that Nagarjuna’s Middle Way, in particular his doctrine of sunyata, or emptiness, which says that nothing exists entirely unto itself but only in relation to other things,provides the right framework for understanding `a reality made up of relations rather than objects.’ Rovelli is Professor of physics at the Aix-Marseille University in France, Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute, and Adjunct Professor at the Department of Philosophy, Western University, in Canada.
Hosted by: The online discussion is hosted by the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. This is an initiative in the context of the project the Quantum Information Structure of Spacetime supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About QISS
The Quantum Information Structure of Spacetime (www.qiss.fr) is an interdisciplinary research initiative among several universities and research institutes all over the world, supported by the John Templeton Foundation through the grant www.templeton.org/grant/the-q... , coordinated from The Samy Maroun Center for Space, Time and the Quantum (www.spacetimeandquantum.com).
The goal of QISS is to explore and connect the research domains of Quantum Information/Computing, Quantum Gravity and Quantum Foundations. Main objectives are to found the physics of quantum spacetime on an information-theoretic basis, to bring within reach empirical access to quantum gravity in 'table-top' laboratory conditions by exploiting rapid advances in quantum computing related technologies and using quantum information theoretic concepts, and to promote an extensive interaction between physicists and philosophers on the conceptual role of information in spacetime physics. - Розваги
Very interesting, thank you for posting.
I would have liked hearing more about the conversation about mind that Carlo briefly mentioned. Perhaps there is another video on that or one coming out soon?
Thanks a lot! 🌹
wow amazing
very very cool, this has made my day
Very happy to view this
Very humane persons and scholars in each field
Of course perfection is not here, just human efforts which are blessed quality of humanity
Ture, their efforts.
Very interesting exchange of ideas. But there is one little point, maybe tangential, which stuck in my throat. Barry Karzin says that Sanskrit developed with Buddhism, the same way as English developed with Christianity. May I point out that Sanskrit was the language used in the Vedas, dating to at least a thousand years before the Buddha. It did not wait for the Buddha to develop.
My understanding of the "middle way" (based as it is almost completely in ignorance), is that reality does not lie in consciousness any more than reality lies in the physical world - that neither is ultimately "true".
As the world does not give birth to mind - nor does mind give birth to the world. Neither can be trusted. That without the world to first reflect its own image, consciousness could not be aware of anything. _Even of itself._
This is, of course, simply an extrapolation of the concept that the existence of things is _always_ predicated upon the existence of some opposite quantity. One that lends it meaning. For example, "hot" can only exist after the concept of "cold" has been born into the world. Without "cold" the term "hot" isn't just difficult to define, it's simply meaningless.
It is tempting to view the physical world, that which we see around us, as being completely illusory. That only consciousness truly exists (or at least that's how I had come to view it!). However, if idealism were true and mind was all that existed, then how could mind know that it existed in the first place? If mind was all, then it couldn't question what was real, because it couldn't question _anything._ How could consciousness know the world, or itself, if nothing else was real? It couldn't. It could never even dream that itself existed.
But then we know, at least on some level, that the physical world _must_ be illusory. Which then presents us with a potential problem... If mind requires the instantiation of its _exact_ opposite to exist, but its opposite is ultimately illusory, then what fate mind? Well, the answer is ineluctable, both the world _and_ consciousness must be _equally_ illusory... Each is born, each is sustained, and then each dissolves away once more.
Neither is permanent. Neither is ultimately real. This is "nothingness".¹
¹ That all said, I've only ever seen the one 20 minute introduction to Buddhism, and buried within that I've only ever seen the one 5 minute introduction to Nargujuna and the philosophy of the "middle way". So I am almost certainly misrepresenting (if not outright opposing!) the true essence of Nargujuna's teachings. Please take my comment as that of a personal opinion only... And even then one should probably consume it with a large helping of salt!
Avagoodone!
@Barry Kerzin
a. Is the idea of ‘interdependent arising‘ according to Nagarjuna has ‘intrinsic‘ or ‘conventional‘ significance?
b. You spoke of the ‘highest form of mind ‘ (the most subtle mind) or luminosity. Is this an ‘intrinsic‘ or a ‘conventional‘ mind? (This highest form of mind too is ‘emptiness‘, anyway!)
@ Carlo Rovelli
a. Is the word ‘identical‘ in a sentence like ‘‘all electrons are identical'‘ in quantum physics for you would have an ‘intrinsic‘ or a ‘conventional‘ significance?
Thank you both for the discussion on Nagarjuna‘s remarkable philosophy.
I have a lot of respect for Carlos Rovelli work. I think it pertains very much to Nagurjuna and Candrakirti ideas of processes, things and emptiness. And to the concept of conventional reality and ultimate reality. Carlos Rovelli work on loop quantum gravity and the concept of timelessness is very similar to Nagurjuna.. However time does exist along with space in the conventional sense of the everyday world. But not in the ultimate sense.
As Georgios was saying, the way they define "ultimate reality" is simply meaningless. Of course there is no reality existentially independent of our knowing (or concepts) .. we couldn't know it (or conceptualise it).
* Carlo
(he's Italian, not hispanic)
I think you have to differentiate between self consciousness and consciousness itself. The dual role of consciousness as observer and observed. This is the key to understanding Nagurjuna Karika. Mind is composed of self and consciousness. However, consciousness was what you were born with. You weren't born with a self or an identity that comes later after you were born. I have found sprung translation of Candrakirti the best understanding of the Buddha's, Nagurjuna enlightenment.
While I agree with you completely (or at least I _think_ I do), which form of consciousness do you ascribe to our (in the general understanding of the term) sense of self?
@Sime Said
Hi,
In answering your question in what form of consciousness I ascribe to. I can only say the one I was born with. The consciousness that includes all our feelings and perceptions of the WORLD that is derived through our senses. However, the sense of self, that comes from believing you have ownership of this body is something I disagree with. The mind is only a frame of reference for the brain/body dynamic. The mind/consciousness is a process in the brain (of energy) lighting up the field of awareness and experience. Without this energy or waveforms in the brain there is no consciousness and no world. It's interesting, though, that we take it for granted that we are this material, impersonal body/ brain but neglect the other half which is pure energy. It's very hard to drop the concept that you are this body.
Cheers,
Mark
I was disappointed when Mr. Kerzin interrupted Mr. Rovelli just as he was about to explain why he believed that, according to Nagarjuna, emptiness should not be construed as the ultimate constituent of what is real.
I think he wants to keep the objects of physics and the conscious mind, in relationship, equally basic.
The "contradictions" that Barry brings up about Identity only run if one ignores the possibility of Change in logic. Yes, Identity is given by the automorphism group of an Object, but this has to be seen as a transformation and not a static relation.
In abidarma there is being and concept. For example a group/combination of being is a concept. Because concept don't point to any single being, this is why concept change along time.
In order to said there is a being, it must have an intrinsic nature. Nagajuna is arguing that everything is empty of intrinsic nature(self) even for the tiniest being.
Thus changing of state cannot happen because the intrinsic nature of the being before and after are not the same. It is not same being by definition.
I didn’t realize Barry was such a scholar.
Esiste in italiano..
We can only see and feel consciousness and energy partially according to our brain limitations which we call conventional reality ultimate consciousness and energy along is beyond our consciousness and Nagarjun calls it, 'sunya'.
How i understand Sunyata:
Sunyata is a lack if independent origination.
How i understand Sunyata from a scientific standpoint:
There are no fundamental quantum fields - all fields are effective(approximate).
Phonons for example are not 'real' - they are a low energy approximation. Atoms can be considered real in that case. But what if all atoms and elementary particles are low energy approximations as are phonons. This reasoning can be continued ad infinitum. The concept is somewhat similar in spirit to Indra's net.
I feel Dr. Rovelli would benefit greatly with a discussion with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup on Idealism's (mind only ontology) scientific predictive power.
Rovelli would greatly benefit from an introductory lab in experimental physics. :-)
@Chaim Mendel Conman. Like Peterson.
@Chaim Mendel He says things which are just plainly untrue like the Bible is the necessary precondition for all truth, or all atheists would be immoral and actually believe in God and that Derrida was a Marxist. Flagrantly false things.
@@dharmadefender3932 Why he is so popular beats me. How someone with seemingly so little love or compassion could be a clinical psychogist is also strange.
Perhaps in an age of narcissism people are drawn to narcissists.
I say this not to wish Peterson or his minions of followers any ill whatsoever. I wish them to be free of suffering as I wish myself, you and everyone.
I just cannot see anything being done by him except that which deepens and adds to suffering.
Kastrup is somehow even less intelligent than Jordan Peterson, which is an impressive feat. He does not even believe in "mind only ontology," he is a dualist. All idealists are dualists who just pretend otherwise, because if you ask them to defend idealism they will immediately jump to Chalmer's "hard problem" which is impossible to take seriously unless you're stuck in 18th century dualist philosophy, and it directly stems on ancient metaphysics. That's why western idealists are profoundly uninteresting, they are not only stuck in outdated dualist philosophy but even worse are profoundly stuck in ancient metaphysics and cannot move beyond the notion of autonomous objects and "fundamental ontology" like "mind" or whatever. Eastern philosophies were some of the earliest philosophies to move beyond metaphysics of autonomous entities but it has since been adopted into materialist and realist schools. Western idealists are not worth talking to because their philosophy desperately clings to things-in-themselves and fundamental ontology like "minds" and "self," but even "matter" as particles only have properties in relation to other particles, not in themselves. Once you read someone like Friedrich Engels or Ludwig Wittgenstein and come to reject the notion of things-in-themselves then you necessarily have to extend that, to be logically consistent, to also reject the self and "minds," to reject all fundamental ontology, but idealists desperately cling to the self and to the mind seeing it as a fundamental ontology they should hang onto. As Benoist said, reality just is what it is. Ontology is secondary.
कृपया हिन्दी ट्रान्स्लेशन करो/भारी मात्रामे लोग सुनेंगे/
Are you sure that if I say there is no intrinsic reality but intrinsic interdependence there is less conflict? Because there can be also very extreme relational positions that are incompatible. Actually, if there is no ultimate reality...reality is what it is...I mean what it happens in all its relations...and also violence happens. For this reason I guess in Buddhism there is also Karma...and it is not just a human cultural bias because violence is also made by nature, but I would say phenomenon, in all its manifestations...At the end for Buddhism this intrinsic interdependence responds to Karma...and so it is not enough to know intrinsic interdependence but you need also to afford the wheel of karma...to emancipate from it...that is not just with awareness of interdependence that can be done...suffering is of this world...I think awareness of intrinsic interdependence is just a stadium of enlightenment...then you need to work on the transformation of your karma that calls and is called from that particular intrinsic interdependence that constitutes the relation you meet and makes you suffer...Mantra chanting is to achieve a level of energy that makes you stronger of your suffering to transform your karma because you arrive to perceive yourself as the cosmos itself...You must perceive yourself as the potential void...that transcends birth, age, sickness and death...
If I watch the news on TV and get angry at the state of the world it is real. If I choose not to watch it because I don't want to feel angry, I am still making it real.
Reciprocal cause and effect is not actually unique to Buddhism, it is something Friedrich Engels also argues in _Anti-Durhing._ If you reject the thing-in-itself, if everything is in a sense constituted by everything else, then it logically follows you have to reject a cause-in-itself, everything is caused by everything else, something Louis Althusser called "overdetermination." The result is that cause and effect run into each other, are reciprocal, and depend upon point of view of how you are looking at a system and what is relevant to you. As Richard Wolff would put it, overdetermination suggests that whatever you identify is a cause says just as much about you as the system itself you are describing.
Well said
It appears the river has Noname
It appears that the river has Noname;
did she fall in? Surely not from the shore!
Perhaps she lost here mind or simply just her feet?
Did she hear a splash or is she now a wave?
Superposition exists in the mind of the observer, not in reality.
Only 60 people liked this video? we're fucking doomed. I realize, not a very Buddhist perspective......maybe with beginningless and endless cosmic cycles of rebirth, just maybe we'll get less stupid ....maybe. That's why I am grateful for Madhyamika....and Montepulciano! ;)
What is there to like about this kind of bullshit? Even if we leave the Buddhist bullshit aside, the physics bullshit is already enough to dislike it.
We are not. 60 is many. Breath my friend. We are fine
It’s a very specific topic of interest only for 1% of the population. Ken Wilber talks about this in levels of consciousness of integral theory. This is a very refined topic and most of us humans don’t grasp that.
Time is not linear, we are not becoming anything. All possibilities are happening simultaneously
Everything is real AND everything is not real AND "Nothing" is real AND "Nothing" is nothing. Hence the Middle Way. So we choose what reality we want as it suits us. Charles, did you take the last cookie from the cookie jar? Be honest now. No Mommy it wasn't me.
and how about "some contradictions between truth an falsity are true, some not". And "absolutely everything is relative, except that which is not, like: we should be kind not nasty".
It’s a strange phenomena that those who teach interdependence and compassion seek to separate themselves via outward appearances.
I’m with Georgios.
The “duality” of subject-to-object is what is real. The concept of “intrinsic existence” as radically independent objects is simply meaningless. Objects exist and are intrinsically relative to the subject. Similarly, as Georgios says, “ultimate” existence as Barry defines it cannot even be referred to in any meaningful manner. How could Barry’s statement at the end, that the “ultimate” reality we talk about is not actually ultimate reality, be true? How do we know that there is such an ultimate?
I’m also with Georgios in implying that, while objects are really and relatively existent, the mind pole is more fundamental. For the existence of any artefact, such as the chair they discuss, is entirely dependent upon the mind of the artificer, and then of others. A Boeing 747, in the age of the dinosaurs would not be a Boeing 747.
Yes it would - as you have posited it’s existence - backwards!
Guy Newland, working out from classic Buddhist debates, addresses the problem as follows; “For example, a thousand grams makes a kilo of butter. I may have a one-kilo stone by which, on a balance scale, I can ascertain that a particular lump of butter weighs one kilo. Even if the stone is not present, the measure [of the butter as one kilo] is still there. Analogously, even if the mind which is the positor of something is not present [at that time], the measure of positing it is still there, and it is sufficient that the measure of being posited is fulfilled. Thus, even if no one sees the production of a sprout [in a deserted forest] directly, it is still posited by the mind.-"Thus, being "posited by the mind" or "imputed by thought" clearly does not mean 🎉that a mind has to be specifically or simultaneously present with the object it posits. The "measure of being posited by the mind" is fulfilled even without a specifically identifiable positing mind.” Roveli therefore makes a classic mistake (one Nagarjuna refutes) when he asserts that he must reject the role of an observer as fundamental to establishing an existent because an unseen galaxy exists without being seen. Thus he fails to recognize that this unseen galaxy is nonetheless imputed by thought - and this thus fulfils Nagarjuna’s measure of putative conventional existence.
So there is a lingering ontological realism (and thus idealism) in Roveli’s position as he is assuming the opposite (indeed of Nagarjuna’s thought) which is that we can meaningfully talk of the existence of a galaxy that is not the object on any thought at any time I.e. one that need not fulfil any measure of dependence on terminological imputation - because it - already and always -exists independently of that.
@Ross Moore clever and true to my point ... unless we hypothesise (per impossibike I agree) that noone ever did posit it!
@Ross Moore I think I buy your "measure" idea... but only as long as u have a distinction between our positing a natural thing like a sprout or a galaxy and our creating of an artefact like a boring 747. We are only fully responsible for the existence of the latter.
NonDual . . .
FullEmpty
🙏
This reflection always has a problem, because we human beings continue to see perceived reality as something relational, but relational to what? Ultimate reality exists, although our cognitive sensory perception cannot access it, any more than it can access the ultimate nature of quantum fields and other phenomena related to 'immateriality', or something underlying, deeper and more "invisible". I believe that the human mind cannot perceive this subtlety because evolution has not programmed it for this transcendence. On the other hand, I believe that Nagarjuna is not being well interpreted, the same com Shamkaracharya in his exposition of Vedanta Advaita, that is, maya or illusion is not emptyness or shunyavada..., it is the cognitive impossibility of understanding the essential immateriality of the Cosmos.
Rovelli does not understand Nagarjuna at all. 1) Rovelli is a MATERIALIST - Buddhists are not materialists, unless they misunderstand their own philosophy. Nagarjuna was not a materialist! 2) Rovelli's book asserts that consciousness is not a primary aspect of the process of reality, it is an non-existent illusion created by relationships between material bits and pieces. There is no school of Buddhism which assets that consciousness is non-existent! Madhyamaka does not assert consciousness is non-existent. 3) Madhyamaka asserts all phenomena, including consciousness, are 'empty' of 'inherent existence'. Madhyamaka does not assert the non-existence of all phenomena. At the end of his chapter on Nagarjuna Rovelli assets Nagarjuna as a Nihilist - there is nothing at the ground of reality - even though a couple of pages earlier he asserts Nagarjuna is NOT a nihilist! Rovelli's book is mistaken and misguided on many levels! - ua-cam.com/video/zbt2Dkqsp34/v-deo.html
I think you haven't understood Carlo's book at all. Carlo does not say that consciousness is an illusion. Carlo says that consciousness exists to all sentient beings but is an emergent property.He also told it in this video too.And I don't think Carlo is a materialist, he writes also in his book, that materialism is an old philosophical view that claims that the word is made of matter, for example, stones and that this is an obsolete idea. Read Helgoland. Read it and understand it!
@@amaliaantonopoulou2644 - I understand Rovelli completely, you have been deceived by him. You are philosophically incompetent. So let me explain. Am 'emergent' phenomena, such as the fluidity of water for example, has a coherent chain of explanation from one end to the other. In the case of fluidity the conceptual/physical explanation lies in the nature of the intra-molecular and inter-molecular bonds of H20. We know why the molecules of H20 when they bond together at room temperature produce a fluid substance. This is a correct use of the term 'emergence'. In the case of 'consciousness' there is absolutely no explanation of this sort because the defined quantities of mind and matter are completely separately from each other. This is philosophically and conceptually correct. Rovelli is playing a con job and you are too philosophically uneducated, like just about all his readers, to see through it. He is using the term 'emergent' deceptively because he cannot explain the mechanism, how do 'relations' produce the inner faculty of clear luminous primary awareness? Yes Rovelli does say consciousness 'exists', but he is using the word 'exists' in a deceptive way - he means 'exists' in a derived manner - an illusion. He is being philosophically deceptive! Rovelli CLEARLY STATES HE IS A MATERIALIST in an interview I give a link to in one of my QB talks on Rovelli. Do you actually research a person's views and ideas beyond just the one book - in order to completely understand fully - you should do this before making misguided comments! I research everything I comment on fully, always a good idea! And as Rovelli is a materialist then he believes matter is primary - and this he clearly does, he says so - he gives a list of things in the book that 'exist' - have you really read the book? Or only skimmed the pages for dinner table conversation like most people do. I research thoroughly! As he is a self-professed materialist for him consciousness is an illusion precisely because its appearance as being primary, and it does appear to be primary and distinct from matter, is deceptive, according to him - its what a materialist thinks - the giveaway is in the word - 'materialist'!. According to Rovelli consciousness does not exist in its own right,, it derives from 'relations' between material bits and pieces. This is the central claim of Rovelli concerning consciousness, it is an illusion generated by relations between matter. Rovelli tries to be cool and tells us he has a new kind of materialism - i.e. he tries to redefine materialism but never gives us a clear indication of the full mature of the redefinition, except that he has a new notion of emergence - consciousness is relations between material bits and pieces- and consciousness is a derived phenomena - in essence this is no different to Dan Dannett (have you read much, have you studied philosophy much at all?) . Rovelli's claims to a new fluffy materialism are all a con trick - it is no different in its essence to non-relational materialism - its central claim - that a primary mindless world gives rise to an 'emergent' phenomena of mind. But without explaining the mechanism of emergence the derived phenomena must be an illusion (but we do not say the word - pretend its real - for the kiddies) Go back to school and learn about how language and concepts work amongst people who are philosophically competent, and stop being fooled by incompetent philosophical grifters like Rovelli. It will improve your mindless mind (according to Rovelli) immensely! - ua-cam.com/video/LmjfWD0EDEQ/v-deo.html
@@quantumbuddhism9993 You are overthinking but you are correct that Rovelli just a new age physics bullshitter.
It was an odd choice to have a Buddhist monk who is not enlightened.
But he was talking to a physicist who doesn't understand nature, either, so the two were equals. :-)
So he should have had a person on who says "I am enlightened"?
No one would say that. No one with a brain
@@MarvinMonroe They should have had a discussion between two truly intelligent people.
@@schmetterling4477 Why are you even here? There are so many videos on UA-cam.
@@drawitout The algorithm. :-)
Thinking you understand Nagarjuna, that’s cute.
Iam an enlightened man. I still dont see any god or spirituality in this 'Realization" of "Enlightenment" or Liberation or Awakening. Its pure science , that this thought (which is made if word, picture and meaning to every word and picture and also meaning to every movement of body) is manifesting this world. Once you understand this deeply and live with awareness, without identifying with thought and its meaning, you land up in suffering or pleasure. God is also an idea. You cannot call awareness/consciouness as God, it is again an idea of mind. So I dont see any reason behind Bhuddhists or Hindu monks wearing Red/safron/yellow/white robes with bald held. Body is just a matter.