If his Holiness would listen before interrupting I think he would understand much more. On more than 3 occasions I have noticed him get way off topic but once the idea was completely delivered, he finally understood. I enjoy the idea of this exposition and it's importance but I find it quite difficult to get into.
With respect , I am still not convince with the relation about quantum mechanic , but I actually find it is important to learn like his holiness because he actually very open minded to learn . I don't understand quantum but the French guy is a good teacher , that is for sure .
Dont worry, its just the beginning, at this moment he is just co-relating the quantum explained here and the quantum explained in the texts of buddhist philosophy since thousands years! may they success in building this extraordinary relation between the buddhism and science! :)
Doesn't quantum mechanics describe the phenomenological and dialogic nature of relative truth? It doesn't rule out ultimacy but maintains its ineffability.
The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks started an argument. One said the flag moved, the other said the wind moved; they argued back and forth but could not reach a conclusion. The Sixth Ancestor, Hui-neng, said, “It is not the wind that moves, it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves.” The two monks were dumb-struck.
For in the process of dismantling all metaphysical and epistemological position one is led to the only viable conclusion for Nagarjuna [c. 150-c. 250], namely that all things, concepts and persons lack a fixed essence and this lack of fixed essence is precisely why and how they can be amenable to change transformation and evolution
Once upon a time not long ago when people were ignorant and life was slow, there came a bald headed man in his pocket he had a tool, he called it science, "it'll make life cool." There also came another little man, bald headed too, and this is what he said. " We understand reality applied, our science is to act as the counter force to the distortion of applied science.
I don't think there should be a limit to what a person can learn. And why shouldn't people of religion be interested in science? Take for example Gregor Mendel, a catholic monk from the 19th century. There you have a religious man who created the foundation of genetics through his experiments with peas. It certainly didn't make him a bad monk, and it also allowed him to contribute even more to humanity.
Dalai Lama is struggling to understand quantum physics. The scientist is having extraordinary patience in explaining. Is there a need to understand quantum physics for a buddhist? this is a futile attempt trying to bring science and religion closer. why this extraordinary effort? You can be a compassionate buddhist without knowing any science.
