Amit Goswami, Quantum Mechanics and Advaita - my personal experience

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin and all,

 

I do not usually manifest in this group although I read most of the

messages that get through here. I don't usually write because I think I have

little to share in the midst of such advanced minds such as you, Ananda Wood and

others here. Nevertheless, I happily realize that the discussions here are

mostly not out of my intellectual and intuitional reach, so I understand much of

what you and others here write.

I had a big boom in my mind when I decided to go deeper in my study of

consciousness some five years ago. I was already drawn to Buddhism and Advaita,

as a kind of natural propensity, some year or so before that.

Just by contemplating Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty one can see

that the world is a dream.

My teacher has told me once, "The micro is the same as the macro.

Individual consciousness is like particle-waves. Either everthing is real, and

then the individual consciousness sees solidity, structure and reality, and then

there is ignorance, or everything is unreal, and then the individual

consciousness contemplates voidness, non-structure, unreality of the world."

In my studies I have come to the following conclusions about the nature

of reality that I experience as a subject. This may sound strange but this is

the information I have found as a result of prolonged investigation. It may be

true only to me, or to all individual subjects (jivas), I don't know because I

only have my own subjective experience that I can tell of. But evidence seemed

to suggest to me that if it applies to me, it should apply equally to every

other individual self-conscious subject.

After experiencing that my apartment, my street, and in fact everything

was NOT OUTSIDE OF ME, BUT IN FACT INSIDE, in a practical manner which let me

wordless for hours after this first experience, I come up with the following

theory to explain, "THEN HOW DID THIS ARISE? BY "THIS" I MEAN ME EXPERIENCING A

SEEMINGLY OUTSIDE WORLD WITH SEEMINGLY OTHER PEOPLE IN IT. Then it struck me as

a lightning, and the result was that I formulated a model which seems to agree

with much of what I have known as Advaitin and Buddhist metaphysical thought.

I will try to explain it simply, in a logical order of reasoning, which I

assume is nevertheless only a rationalization of an actual experience, or,

better said, it is A THEORY FORMULATED TO EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF HUMAN REASON THAT

ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF UNITY, AND WHERE DID THE WORLD COME FROM, WHERE DID DUALITY

ARISE, IF IT IS NON-DUAL, WHENCE EXPERIENCE ARISES FROM? So the reasoning goes

like this.

 

1. All is One, which is essentially void in nature (unreal in fact). But

since it is seemingly real, that is, since there is a world and a subject

experiencing it, where did this come from?

2. Since it is all happening in Consciousness, we must assume that this

Consciousness (Atman) is in fact disguised as both subject and object. This

conclusion is the basis of this theory.

3. Then the question may be asked. Where then did this experience arise

from?

4. The answer is that both the world and the subject experiencing it (what

I call the mind-body complex, the subject, the experiencer, the jiva) are simply

what can be properly called karmic residues in this Consciousness. This theory

puzzled me for some time because the experience and everything I formulated

after lead me inevitably to what I want to avoid, i.e., the notion that there is

only one jiva, which is actually myself, dreaming the whole thing, and each new

life is simply a manifestation of those karmic residues or impressions that

remained from past lives. But then I was in bliss when I reasoned that these

impressions then cannot be the ultimate reality, because these impressions

themselves are karmic residues, what leads me to a paradox!

5. The only end I could reason for this paradox was GETTING OUT OF THE

NOTION THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE JIVA THAT CREATES THE WHOLE THING, BUT INSTEAD

THERE ARE MULTIPLE JIVAS AND WHEN EACH ONE LOOKS HE SEES THE THING AS A DREAM OF

HIMSELF!

6. If you are thinking, "well this is contradictory because if each one is

the sole creator, there is no sole creator!" , you are right.

7. When I got to this point it came to my mind in a block: ANATMAN. This

is what Anatman means. There are multiple sole creators, and from this point of

view, JIVA=ATMAN=BRAHMAN=MAYA, nevertheless this brings you to a paradox since

there cannot be multiple Supreme Creators of the Universe. Or can there be?

A-HA...THIS IS THE BIG DEAL.

8. It was here that I took my final stand (until further evidence suggests

a different conclusion) that REALITY IS INTERDEPENDENTLY CREATED. This is a

Buddhist axiom, which I had never thought of this way. I always thought that

Buddha was talking about everything being made of pieces and there being no last

piece and that was Anatman (and this applies too), but now I was seeing it from

the Advaitin point of view, that since reality is made of multiple creators,

EACH ONE SEEMS TO CREATE ALL THE OTHERS AND THE WORLD, in what can be called a

very humourous trick of God.

9. This ended my reasoning and my theory, with no conclusion, other than,

THE WORLD IS A KARMIC RESIDUE, THE JIVA IS A KARMIC RESIDUE. THE EXPERIENCE IS

LIKE A TAINT IN AN OTHERWISE PERFECT SURFACE, THE TAINT IS MAYA, THE SURFACE IS

BRAHMAN. YOU EITHER SEE THE TAINT, AND THEN EVERYTHING IS REAL, OR THE SURFACE.

BUT IF YOU SEE THE SURFACE, WHAT YOU THINK IS YOU ACTUALLY DISAPPEARS BECAUSE

THIS ENTITY WHICH YOU IDENTIFY AS YOURSELF IS A TAINT IN THE OTHERWISE VOID

(INFINITE) SURFACE. THE FARTHEST YOU CAN GO IS SEEING THAT YOU (STILL PART OF

THE TAINT) CREATES YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND THIS ELIMINATES SUBJECT-OBJECT BECAUSE

THEN EVERYTHING IS A PROJECTION OF THE ATMAN, INCLUDING OTHER PEOPLE, BODY AND

WORLD. BUT STILL, THERE IS A SOMETHING THERE EXPERIENCING NON-DUALITY, OR BETTER

SAID, EXPERIENCING THAT IT IS ALL MADE OF ONE SUBSTANCE, BUT THERE IS STILL AN

INQUIRER THERE, AN EXPERIENCER.

10. After I reached this conclusion, I came back to reading Maharshi again,

and seeked to see if my teacher had the same conclusions as me about reality. He

said his experience was similar, but the important thing was identifying with

the surface which everything truly is and not with the taint in it. And then it

hit me when he said: Maharshi saw it as the Self, Buddha saw it as the Void. It

depends on how the mind is conditioned to interpret this same experience, the

identification with the Inifinite pure surface and not with the taint in it,

which is the ego-complexity. And then I asked him what was this experience like.

He smiled and said. "It's deep sleep because all taints are gone, only the

background, limitless, boundless, void, remains." And he concluded to say that

this was real bliss, and any other thing was just the ego playing games, the

taint.

I wanted to share this with all in this list because this is my sincere

experience in words and it confirms what both Maharshi and Buddha say about

ultimate reality. I have not achieved deep sleep yet, (better said, I still

identify with the taints).

 

May all beings be freed from illusion and stop identifying with the taints!

Fred

 

-

Benjamin Root

advaitin

Monday, December 01, 2003 6:45 PM

Amit Goswami, Quantum Mechanics and Advaita

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

About a week ago, we Chinmayans in Washington D.C. were privileged to

hear a talk by Amit Goswami on Quantum Mechanics and Vedanta (of a

rather Advaitic flavor). Goswami is a Professor of Physics at the

University of Oregon, and that is enough credentials for me, as far

as the physics is concerned!

 

Sadanandaji of this list asked me to write something up, so I've been

trying to research it. Unfortunately, the articles on the web do not

give enough of the details I am looking for; I don't have time to

read his book; and my memory is poor. Nevertheless, I will write

something up to the best of my ability. Please read this with all

due caution!

 

 

Basically, Goswami believes that the 'paradoxes' of Quantum Mechanics

require the introduction of Consciousness as the primary reality, and

this consciousness is much like what the Vedas say it is. The

introduction of consciousness is not new. Physicists such as Wigner

and others spoke of that. But linking it up to the Vedas is new, and

it is in this area that I have unfortunately found little of use on

the web. Let me discuss what I can, anyway.

 

To understand the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics, consider a key

experiment, namely, diffraction through a double slit.

 

Suppose we take any sinusoidal wave, such as a water, sound or light

wave of a single frequency, and place a barrier in front of it that

has only two tiny closely-spaced holes (or slits). A wave will then

be emitted from each hole, and the two waves will 'interfere' on a

screen that is placed some distance beyond the barrier. The

interference will consist of dark and light stripes, in the case of

light. This does not happen if we shoot tiny particles through the

holes, so that interference is considered a clear indication of wave

propagation.

 

But with light, a complication arises, as was discovered earlier in

the last century. Light is emitted and received as discrete packets

of energy, which look very much like particles. For instance, if we

actually look closely at the screen (e.g. a photographic plate), we

do not see a smooth change to the screen as we would expect from a

smooth wave filling up space. Instead, we see first a tiny flash of

light here and then there, until gradually many tiny 'pixels' add up

to produce the striped interference pattern mentioned above. And

there are many other experiments indicating that energy is always

radiated and received as tiny packets of energy at discrete points of

space.

 

So we have a paradox. The light seems to consist of little

'particles' of energy called photons, but it seems to propagate as a

wave, which is a very different structure from a particle.

 

Indeed, the mystery only deepens if we emit *one photon at a time*.

You would think that this photon can only go through one hole or the

other. But then how could the interference pattern possibly happen,

since it needs both holes for the stripes to occur? The stripes

occur due to the interference or interaction of the waves emitted

from BOTH holes. Yet, if we emit only one photon at a time, the

interference pattern still builds up on the screen.

 

This profound mystery prompted some of the 'fathers' of Quantum

Mechanics to postulate the 'Probability Interpretation of the

Wavefunction'. As the photon (or electron or any other elementary

particle) propagates through space, there is only a probability wave

(or 'wavefunction'). Such a wave is similar to a light wave in terms

of its form and propagation, but it is not considered a 'real'

entity. Rather, it has a strange shadowy existence as the

'probability' of finding a particle at a given point in space. To be

more precise, the square of the 'amplitude' of the wave is the

probability of finding the particle. Where the wave is 'big', we are

more likely to find a particle, and where small we are less likely.

Notice that the particle also has a shadowy existence. It does not

really exist until *observed*. Until then, there is only the

*probability* of finding a particle anywhere. For example, the

screen is effectively an 'observer', according to this line of

thinking, but until the photon is actually 'observed' at a point on

the screen, it is considered not really to exist.

 

In this way, an 'explanation' is offered for how the photon can

propagate as a wave. It propagates as a wave of probability, which

behaves like a real wave as far as propagation is concerned. During

the propagation, the photon does not really exist, so that we need no

longer ask how the photon passing through one hole can be affected by

the other hole. If the photon really existed as a discrete entity at

the time it passes through one hole, then the influence of the other

hole would be almost impossible to explain. We would have to have

little gremlins running with messages from one hole to the other, and

this would have to be instantaneous. Such instantaneous signals are

ruled out by special relativity, which does not allow any message to

travel faster than light. (Special relativity is considered to be a

rock-solid theory.)

 

Hence, the observer becomes a key player in quantum mechanics. In

classical mechanics, the observer has a passive role, which has no

actual influence on reality. Reality is considered to be something

'real' and 'material', which is 'out there', i.e. outside of the

consciousness of the observer. The observer simply observes, but

this observation has no influence on the reality which is observed.

That reality exists in complete independence from the observer. This

is no longer the case in quantum mechanics. Now the observer is

necessary to 'collapse' the wavefunction into a real particle. Until

the observation takes place, the particle has only a shadowy virtual

existence. There is only the probability of finding it here or

there. Only an observation triggers the actual existence of the

particle, as the probability wave collapses into a real particle. So

the story goes.

 

Note that so far, the role of the 'observer' does not seem to require

*consciousness* itself. The observer can be a spot of light on a

photographic film. The physicist can go away before the experiment

and come back a week later and look at the film. It is not clear to

me at this point of the argument where the actual conscious observer

is necessary. (Of course, those familiar with my thinking know that

I believe that consciousness is everything, but this is at a much

higher level than any scientific experiment. Right now, I am trying

to understand the physicists on their own terms)

 

I think that most physicists would answer me by saying that the

conscious observer is necessary because *everything* is a

wavefunction until observed. The film itself is made of particles

which are wavefunctions, so that we cannot even speak of a real spot

on a real screen until THAT is observed. Until observation,

everything is made of shadowy probability waves. If this is the

correct argument, from the physicist's point of view, then I must say

that I am not entirely convinced.

 

Anyhow, you now have some idea why many physicists think that an

actual conscious observer is an essential and integral part of the

quantum mechanical formulation of 'reality'. It is no longer

considered possible to 'detach' the observer from our 'model' of the

world. Nothing has a real existence until the observer comes in.

Observer and reality seem to be joined like Siamese twins.

 

Another manifestation of this are the well-known Heisenberg

Indeterminacy Relations, which say that the position and velocity of

a particle cannot both be measured with arbitrary precision at the

same time. This is quite contrary to the classical notion of a

particle, where the particle has an exact position and velocity at

each point of its trajectory. In quantum mechanics, the particle may

have either an exact position or an exact velocity but not both at

any given time. It is up to the observer and the experiment that he

performs. Again the role of the observer is essential. One cannot

speak of the 'real' properties of the particle *until* the

observation (i.e. experiment) is performed. These properties do not

really exist 'out there', and hence the particle does not really

exist 'out there', until the observation takes place.

 

Yet another crucial experiment is the family of so-called EPR

experiments (named after Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky), in which two

particles are 'entangled' in some way. For example, a particle may

'decay' or split into two particles, which go flying off in opposite

directions. The angular momentum must be conserved, so that if the

original particle had zero spin (a form of angular momentum), then

the two resulting particles must have opposite spins (to balance out

to zero). But as usual, these spins are not *real* until measured or

observed. As before, there is only a probability wavefunction giving

the probability of observing them in some state of spin. Again, the

role of the observer seems paramount.

 

However, once one particle is observed to have some spin, then the

other one must *immediately* assume the opposite spin, in order to

obey the rock-solid conservation of angular momentum. As with the

double-slit experiment, this immediate transmission of information

contradicts relativity, which suggests to some that there is some

kind of omnipresent consciousness overlooking the whole process,

which can instantly relay information. Note that this is something

new compared to the mere observer who causes the probability

wavefunction to 'collapse' into particles with definite properties,

since now there is a transmission of information as well. This

suggests a kind of all-knowing God-like consciousness, rather than

the relatively ignorant consciousness of the laboratory observer, who

may not even know the spin of the original particle.

 

In summary, you can see how the 'observer' has become a key player in

Quantum Mechanics. And to many, such as Goswami, this observer

becomes indistinguishable from a *conscious* observer. This latter

interpretation has been advocated by many different physicists, not

just physicists of Indian origin who may have some bias towards

Advaita. So Goswami is not necessarily out on a limb with his

interpretation in terms of a conscious observer. He is in highly

respectable company, including some of the actual fathers of Quantum

Mechanics. But there are also many eminent physicists who reject

consciousness as any kind of an underlying 'substratum' of quantum

phenomena (and ALL phenomena of physics are ultimately quantum

phenomena). They think of observation as mere measurement, which

could just as well be done with unconscious robots.

 

Goswami's contribution has been to extend this notion of the

essential role of the conscious observer to a sweeping philosophy in

which consciousness is the essential reality of all that is

happening. There is much more to Goswami's philosophy than what I

have presented here. I cannot provide the details, as they are not

really available to me until I buy his book. My purpose in writing

this article was to give you some idea of how modern physics has

reintroduced the role of the observer as a key player of reality

rather than a passive witness. (Actually, is not the witness in

Advaita often taken to be rather passive? Hmmmm.) Perhaps some of

the technical details of my explanation are flawed, but the general

idea has been given accurately enough. This may do for now.

 

As far as I am concerned, I believe in the Advaitic tenet that

'consciousness is everything' based on idealistic metaphysical

reasons which transcend any scientific experiment. As far as I am

concerned,the observations and experiments themselves, as well as

their interpretation, all take place within the arena of

consciousness. The results of any possible future scientific

experiments can easily be accommodated by my expansive worldview, and

consciousness will always remain the sole reality. This may sound

rather simplistic and dogmatic, but I am happy with it!!!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Frederico,

 

I read all of your well-written article. You seem to me to be at

least as wise as I am. And perhaps your actual experience is more

genuine; I am still too 'intellectual', which is a spiritual handicap.

 

You put your finger on a key problem when you ask whether

consciousness is one or many. I once had a big discussion on this

list about that. As I just said to Era, my intuition tells me that

consciousness is one, but my honesty compels me to say that I don't

quite SEE that yet. Undoubtedly, I am still under some bondage of

the mind. Our liberation always comes at the proper time, no sooner

and no later. We should just relax and enjoy the ride. There is no

doer, so why struggle?

 

There is surely only one creator, but 'creator' is itself a dualistic

notion and therefore illusory. Sadanandaji is excellent at

explaining this. Please check the archives.

 

By the way, I am in favor of drawing wisdom from both the Advaitin

and Buddhist traditions, but as the moderators will tell you, this

can lead to confusion for students and should perhaps be avoided on

this list. Maybe not all the time, but most of the time.

 

Self and Void are the same, in my opinion, but since this is such a

vast and controversial topic, I will say no more.

 

One thing Advaitins and Buddhists surely agree on is that the ego is

the source of all illusions. Eliminate that and the truth will

manifest. Then there will be no need to discuss it and no

possibility of contradictions and arguments.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Shree Frederico,

 

My salutations to you. Your experience and the retionalization of that

experience is in tune with the Krishna's statement - sarvabhuutastam

aatmaanam sarva bhuutanicha aatmani - all beings are in me and I am in

all beings - and also runs parallel to Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi's own

experience. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Hari OM!

 

Sadananda

 

 

--- "Frederico S. Gonzales" <fsg wrote:

> 1. All is One, which is essentially void in nature (unreal in

> fact). But since it is seemingly real, that is, since there is a world

> and a subject experiencing it, where did this come from?

> 2. Since it is all happening in Consciousness, we must assume

> that this Consciousness (Atman) is in fact disguised as both subject

> and object. This conclusion is the basis of this theory.

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

http://companion./

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin,

 

Thanks for the compliments. I don't know if there are degrees of

wisdom, I don't feel like I am much wiser than anyone, and I am probably not

wiser than you. Or, let me put it in a way I find better, we have very similar

viewpoints.

I read most of your messages usually and I find that we agree on a

large number of points of issues. I think the experiences of non-duality always

lead to the same conclusions, some differences due to personality conditioning

may occur, but I really think that I'm not presenting anything new when I wrote

my experience: it's the same thing the Vedic sages knew so well (and perhaps

guarded this knowledge so well too) and the same thing Buddha Shakyamuni and

many Buddhists know. The world is a dream, there is one wise thing to do and

that is, get your consciousness to the Transcendental state and see who or what

you REALLY are.

I've read a passage from a book called Talks with Ramana Maharshi

that my brother bought and he said to one person one day: Realize the Self. This

is the only reason of life. There is nothing else. You are here to realize the

Self and this is the only thing that really matters.

Om !

Fred

 

 

 

 

 

-

Benjamin Root

advaitin

Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:32 PM

Re: Amit Goswami, Quantum Mechanics and Advaita - my

personal experience

 

 

 

Namaste Frederico,

 

I read all of your well-written article. You seem to me to be at

least as wise as I am. And perhaps your actual experience is more

genuine; I am still too 'intellectual', which is a spiritual handicap.

 

You put your finger on a key problem when you ask whether

consciousness is one or many. I once had a big discussion on this

list about that. As I just said to Era, my intuition tells me that

consciousness is one, but my honesty compels me to say that I don't

quite SEE that yet. Undoubtedly, I am still under some bondage of

the mind. Our liberation always comes at the proper time, no sooner

and no later. We should just relax and enjoy the ride. There is no

doer, so why struggle?

 

There is surely only one creator, but 'creator' is itself a dualistic

notion and therefore illusory. Sadanandaji is excellent at

explaining this. Please check the archives.

 

By the way, I am in favor of drawing wisdom from both the Advaitin

and Buddhist traditions, but as the moderators will tell you, this

can lead to confusion for students and should perhaps be avoided on

this list. Maybe not all the time, but most of the time.

 

Self and Void are the same, in my opinion, but since this is such a

vast and controversial topic, I will say no more.

 

One thing Advaitins and Buddhists surely agree on is that the ego is

the source of all illusions. Eliminate that and the truth will

manifest. Then there will be no need to discuss it and no

possibility of contradictions and arguments.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages