Liberation through Realizing the Emptiness of Dependent Origination
A Modern Interpretation of the Buddhist “Beyond” in the Light of Quantum Physics
The Buddhist “beyond” is best expressed and defined by enlightenment (bodhi), or more literally “awakening.”1 This involves a non-conceptual realization of true reality beyond the duality of a perceived object and perceiving subject.2 In Yogacara Buddhism, the surrounding we usually perceive as reality is but a product of false imagination.3 That the things of the world do not appear as they truly are is also an essential point of Madhyamaka philosophy, so essen¬tial that our failure to perceive true reality simply as it is constitutes the root of all suffering in cyclic existence. This ignorance underlies the complex process of dependent origination or interconnectedness, which includes any form of interconnectedness, such as logical relationships. In its fully developed form, dependent origination suffuses the entire universe, which is thought of as con¬sisting of innumerable continua of momentary material and mental factors of existence (dharma).4 The most eminent Buddhist philosopher of Madhyamaka Nagarjuna (fl. 200 CE) equates dependent origination with emptiness5 and rules
1 This is most clear in the mantra of the Prajñaparamitahrdayasütra (i. e., the Heart Sfltra): “Om, gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, enlightenment, svaha” (translated in Donald S. Lopez Jr., Elaborations on Emptiness, 169).
2 See for example the detailed exposition of the Buddha's fundamental transformation on the basis of non-conceptual wisdom in the Dharmadharmatavibhaga (Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Unter-scheidung der Gegebenheiten, 133-146); and Candrakirti's Prasannapada on MMK XXV.16 (see further down).
3 MAVT 1323-25: “The past, future and present mind and mental factors, which are cause and result, which belong to (i. e., constitute) the beginningless threefold world, which end in nir¬vana and conform with samsara are precisely false imagination.” (alilanagalavarlamana he- tuphalabhütas traidhatuka anadikalika nirvanaparyavasanah [samsámnurüpñs cittacaitta avisesenabhutaparikalpah])
4 Cf. Erich Frauwaiiner, Philosophy of Buddhism, 50-51.
5 MMK XXIV 18ab (426,): “That which is dependent origination - that we call emptiness.” (yah pratityasamutpadah sünyatñm tam pracaksmahe I)
Note:
Improvements to my English by Philip H. Pierce (South Asia Institute, Kathmandu branch) are gratefully acknowledged.
out any true origination in terms of an “own-nature” (svabhava). This raises the question whether Nagarjuna reduces dependent origination to a mere nominal construct (metaphysical nihilism) or whether he merely negates the svabhava of the dharmas (substance nihilism). In the latter case, existence could be still thought of in terms of dynamic systems of interrelatedness, which precludes any clean separation between any individual component of the system - or any sub-system that is singled out for observation - and all the rest. This calls into ques¬tion our common-sense view of a universe built up from isolated entities. In this regard, Niels Bohr came to the conclusion that “isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being
definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.” David Bohm and Basil J. Hiley accept the exis-tence of the quantum world only under the provision that a locally determined existence is excluded. Following this position, Jan Walleczek and Gerhard Grossing propose a “quantum interconnectedness, e. g., in the form of non-local influences across the universe.” According to this theory, which goes under the name “emergent quantum mechanics”, the quantum is a particle in terms of an emergent resonance phenomenon, which is inseparably connected with its sur-rounding vacuum (i. e.
zero- point field). To be sure, such particles do not exist in an isolated way, i. e., independent of their surrounding vacuum. This inter-pretation is in opposition to orthodox quantum theory, in which any ontological reality on the level of the quantum is negated.
It is argued in this paper that if we take Nagarjuna to only deny the svabhava of dharmas, i. e., locally determined factors of existence, his philosophy can be brought in line with the position of emergent quantum mechanics. The common ground would be then a “physical reality” of dependent origination that
can be compared to quantum interconnectedness. What is left, the ‘beyond,' then is a dynamic reality that is possible because of its emptiness of svabhava (Bud¬dhism) or its absence of locally determined particles (physics). This beyond is realized by refraining from any form of reification, i.e., wrong denial and superimposition. Candrakïrti (ca. 600 - ca. 650 CE) and much later also Mai- trïpa (986-1063) refer to this as wisdom. The dharmas that still constitute in their interconnectedness true reality, then, are buddhadharmas (i.e., Buddha qualities).
The Role of the Observer: Mind and Matter
A modern interpretation of dependent origination and emptiness in the light of quantum interconnectedness requires acknowledging that mind has some influence on matter, for example in its often-discussed role of the observer. In Mahayana Buddhism consciousness is not only influenced by the environment but also influences it. In the Yogacara work Madhyantavibhaga the dependent nature (which includes the whole universe) thus is explained as being entirely constituted by false imagination (abhutaparikalpa), and in his Mulamadhya- makakarika XXIV.18, Nagarjuna includes dependent designation in his equation of dependent origination and emptiness:
That which is dependent origination—
That we call emptiness.
The latter is dependent designation.
This is the right middle path.
This verse is taught in the chapter on the Four Noble Truths, and in this context, Nagarjuna defends his doctrine of emptiness against the charge of espousing nihilism. He turns the tables on his opponent by claiming that if dharmas existed in terms of an “own-nature” (svabhava), their arising and passing out of existence would be impossible. In other words, the dynamic process of dependent origina-tion presupposes the absence of a svabhava in any of the involved components. It is for this reason that Nagarjuna equates dependent origination with empti¬ness. To be sure, dependent origination is not negated here but declared possible because of its emptiness. That the dharmas of dependent origination are not only nominal for Nagarjuna follows from his Lokatitastava where a “physical reality” of fire is clearly distinguished from pure nominalism:
If a name and its object were not different
One's mouth would be burned by [the word] fire.
If they were different, there would be no comprehension of anything.
In other words, one does not bring something into existence by only saying it, but a mutual dependence between the perceived and the perceiver is a necessary con-dition for comprehension. This line of thought only holds water if the perceiver also has an influence on the perceived. In my opinion, this is what Nagarjuna's return from emptiness to dependent origination in its aspect of dependent desig-nation in MMK XXIV.18c means. It underlines the role the labeling and conceptu-alizing mind has as part of the process of a dependently arising world.
The discussion of possible mental components in this process leads to the mind/body problem, or rather the question how mind and matter co-exist and influence each other. Given the eminent role first person experience plays in systems that are mainly based on the concentrated observation and critical investigation of mind and its mental states, not a single Buddhist model of reality has attempted to reduce mind to matter. An idealist current of Buddhist
thought known as “Mind Only” even tried to reduce matter to mind on the presupposi¬tion that “mind alone” (cittamatra) exists. Western scientific models, on the other hand, are inclined to privilege matter to such an extent that extreme proponents of scientific materialism reject the existence of mind including all its mental factors because descriptions of such (epi)phenomena have no place in a natural¬istic account of the world.
Can we or should we dispense altogether with discourses about mind? The mere fact that we ponder such a question presupposes first person access to complex mental processes. In the case of Buddhism, how could we otherwise give any credence to the advanced stages of meditation, whose observation and investigation are held to be repeatable by anyone ready to apply the technique? A combination of reducing negative influences like hatred or desire, for
example, and cultivating calm abiding and insight provides the means for a deeper investi-gation and eventual understanding of the nature of mind. Buddhist practitioners train in such mental disciplines to realize for themselves what has been discov¬ered by many down through the ages. In short, the attempt to reduce mind with its discernible features and structures to physical and physiological processes would be as absurd for a Buddhist as the reduction of matter to mind would be for a physicist. What is needed then is a model of reality that accounts for both mind and matter, and that seeks to understand the complex interactions between the two better.
While scientific materialists readily accept that consciousness is solely gener-ated by the neuronal activity of the brain, even though no such causal mechanism has been found so far, an influence of mind on matter or the body is not consid-ered possible mainly because this would violate the principle of the conservation of mass and energy. The energy-time uncertainty principle in quantum physics, however, allows for a short violation of energy
conservation. Wallace concludes from this that it is possible for a nonphysical mind to engage with matter and raises the question whether individual quantum events are truly random since nonphysical causes, or even nonlocal interactions within entangled systems, for example, cannot be excluded. Given these obvious epistemic elements, it is not completely out of the question anymore, to think of models of reality in which the observing mind has an influence on the world we live in.
Against this background, I propose to accept both, mind and matter. Reduc-ing one to the other makes it extremely difficult to account for a number of pro-cesses that can be observed directly. In line with Nagarjuna, I suggest, though, that one need not subscribe to a substance dualism. Mind and matter, rather, are relational or complementary. Such irreducibility need not be unscientific. In fact, a well-known form of irreducibility can be found within the
field of quantum physics, where a single entity such as a photon shows both wave and particle character. We need both to account for light-matter-interaction. When a gamma ray hits a gold atom, the energy and impulse of the involved ‘particles' before and after the impact conform to the calculations with the ordinary equations of energy and momentum conservation. This suggests that the gamma ray displays its particle character of transmitting momentum, as well as its wave character of transmitting energy by increasing its wavelength.
Different Concepts of Existence
While orthodox quantum physics refrains from ontological commitments on the level of quantum events, taking the latter to be genuinely random and inexplica¬ble without observation, modern followers of David Bohm see quantum events as realistic dynamic processes of interrelatedness, the participating particles not being independent, but emergent phenomena of resonance that interact with their surrounding zero point field. This leads to the question of
what we understand by the existence of something (x). Does it require x to be independent and locally determined, or in Buddhist language, to possess a svabhava? Anton Zeilinger's interpretation of the double slit experiment, which is based on the position that information and reality are the same, requires that we deny the existence of the photon on its trajectory between its source and the detector. Arthur Zajonc responded that the continued existence of the photon made good sense to him but that
[i]f you allow that the photon, or the electron, by nature has that continued existence, then its own intrinsic nature is very strange, and believing this has a big impact on the way you see the world. If you say that it has no continued existence - that only the source, the detector, and certain events exist, and there is nothing that one can say about the particle's intervening existence - that is an easy way to avoid the impact of quantum mechanics. The effects are interesting, but they have no ontological significance. They don't make a statement about reality. For me, I think these experiments make statements about the way the world is.
The reason why the intrinsic nature of the photon is strange for Zajonc, is that we usually expect from an existing (x) that is does so as something locally deter¬mined. It is interesting that Nagarjuna shares the same conventional view on existence. Still, he must have accepted Zajonc's ‘strange way' of interrelatedness, but preferred not to call this existence anymore. Mulamadhyamakakarika I.10 can be interpreted in this way:
Since the existence of entities devoid of a svabhava is not found,
The formula “when x exists, y comes to be” is not appropriate.
The causal clause in the first part of the verse clearly shows that for Nagarjuna the concept of existence presupposes an independent existence (svabhava). With such an understanding the traditional formula for dependent origination does not work. To say x exists means x exists independently (svabhavena), but an inde¬pendent x cannot have any causal relation to anything. Otherwise, it would not have a svabhava. If the building blocks of the universe consisted of completely isolated, independent entities, there could be no interaction at all. Or else any¬thing could arise from anything else - for instance, like
darkness from light - as Candrakirti explains in Madhyamakavatara VI.14. In other words, when one understands existence as an independent existence and attempts to reify the members of the traditional formula “when x exists, y comes to be”, the formula does not work anymore. It could be argued that Nagarjuna still accepts causality on a pragmatic level. After all, he endorses the principle of dependent origination in his introduction to the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But what is dependent orig¬ination without arising? Nagarjuna immediately gives an answer in the first verse of his Mulamadhyamakakarika:
Nowhere are things found anywhere that have arisen
From themselves, other, a combination of both, and without a cause.
Given the negation of an “own-nature” (svabhava) and “other-nature” (parabhava) in chapter fifteen of the Mulamadhyamakakarika this can only mean that in the absence of a locally determined existence, or own-nature, the borderline between “self” and “other” cannot be drawn anymore. It is not possible to say, for example, precisely where a cause stops being a cause and from which point on we have an effect since locally determined causes and conditions cannot be identified and singled out. This suggests to understand dependent origination as referring to a dynamic system of interrelatedness without concrete
building blocks resembling billiard balls. This applies not only to the spatial extension of the building blocks but also their temporal extension. Just as the members of an entangled system appear, upon measurement, to share the same quantum mechanical state - such parameters as position, momentum, spin or polarization - even over long dis¬tances in space, so the event of an intentional deed (karman) and its effect can be related over a long period of time. In Madhyamakavatara VI.39 we find a justifi¬cation of such a long-term relation, namely that nothing passes out of existence:
Since there is no passing out of existence in terms of an own-nature, you should know that the fruit [of deeds] will arise at some time, even if the termination of the deed [sometimes] lies back a long time. Because of its (i. e., the deed's) power, [this works] even without a ground [[[consciousness]]]. The idea here is that causes that take the form of intentional deeds are not bound by time constraints so that it is impossible to say when precisely they
end. Thus, they may link up with an event of maturation in the far future even without a chain of locally and temporally determined factors of existence stored in a ground con¬sciousness (as maintained in the Yogacara school). The fact that enlightenment, the Buddhist beyond, requires a complete extinction
of any ripening process of karman, does not necessarily pose a problem for our proposed comparison of this aspect of Buddhist philosophy with quantum interrelatedness, for entangled systems can also collapse. A structured order on a macroscopic level can thus emerge from locally indeterminate quantum states in top-down and bottom-up causal flows.
The Buddhist goal of analyzing and determining true reality as the empti¬ness of dependent origination is to undermine the process of constant reification or projection of an own-nature into true reality. According to the karman theory, this happens due to one's habitual tendencies, namely mental imprints (vasana) left by intentional deeds under the influence of ignorance, attachment, hatred and so forth. In other words, one's mind creates the environment. The common experience of external objects is explained by assuming the idea that a particular group of sentient beings shares common imprints which
influence each other so as to give rise to common appearances. Human beings thus share the common imprints for the manifestation of drinking water. For a fish, however, water must be what the troposphere is for land animals. In other words, there is no such thing as an ultimately existing body of water with inherent qualities. What one expe-riences depends on one's sense faculties, mental imprints, etc. In his Collected Works the Tibetan rNying ma master Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (1042-1136) uses the example of “wild herbivores possessing the purity of fire” (Tib. ri dwags me'i gtsang sbra can) which wash themselves with fire without burning themselves. The point here is that it is not enough to simply think “I am not burning in fire” but one needs to be such an animal with all the necessary mental imprints.
Within a certain range limited by one's rebirth as a human being and respec-tive set of sense faculties, one's mental imprints lead to this or that determined reality that is characterized by the duality of a perceived object and perceiving subject. Personally created reifications freeze into one's reality, which in turn for-tifies or creates fresh mental imprints. Since we share similar patterns of mental imprints with a large group of sentient beings, the resulting reifications are com-monly accepted by one's group as true reality. To express this in the words of emergent quantum mechanics, said patterns structure the quantum vacuum (i. e., zero point field) in such a way, that the respective events, which are typical of particular groups of sentient beings, emerge on the macroscopic level.
The Buddhist Beyond
Given these mostly unpleasant distortions of true reality, the question arises how to avoid them and reach the Buddhist beyond. But since any conceptual activ¬ity and labeling harbors the danger of reification, one cannot, strictly speaking, think or talk about it. This paradox has been nicely expressed in the Tattvarat- navali (TRA), where Maitripa says in his presentation of his favored Apratistha- na-Madhyamaka:
The wise know the true reality of things
As the non-abiding in anything.
Now, this is not just conceptual [analysis], for a [[[conceptualizing]]] mind
Does not know the nature of mind. (TRA 29)
All superimposition, whatever there is—
All this does not exist in any respect; The meaning of Madhyamaka is thus the absence of superimposition;
Where is, then, the denial or establishing [of anything]? (TRA 30)
This effortless wisdom
Is called inconceivable;
Something ‘inconceivable' that one has [been able to] conceive
Cannot truly be inconceivable. (TRA 31)
The verses 29 and 30 nicely summarize what has been elaborated so far in this paper. The realization of the true reality of things is only possible by “not abiding” (apratisthana) in anything. The Sanskrit word apratisthana also means “lacking foundation” which conveys the idea that there is no foundation to
anything what-soever by which the latter can be reified in any conceivable way. This is made clear in the Sekanirdesapanjika of Ramapala (one of the four main disciples of Mai- tripa), who glosses apratisthana as “not to become mentally engaged” and “not to superimpose.” In other words, one needs to
refrain from projecting wrong notions (such as a svabhava, independent existence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhatus or ayatanas. A mind, however, which is in a state of not superimposing cannot be achieved through analytical thought processes, which are always accompanied by distorting reifi-cations, but only by some inconceivable intellect, i. e., our effortless wisdom of verse 31. In fact, Maitripa anticipates the possible objection that thinking about the inconceivable is in itself an obstacle. An answer is not given in the Tattvarat- navali, but the same verse is also found in Maitripa's Sekanirdesa, and Ramapala explains in his commentary on this verse that
[t]his non-abiding is inconceivable wisdom. It does not come from investigation, but is effortless, occurring within its own sphere.
The Buddhist beyond thus is not only negatively defined as the emptiness of superimposed svabhavas, but there is also an inconceivable wisdom behind everything. Still, how can Maitripa call it ineffable wisdom? This points to a fun-damental problem that the Buddha is said to have addressed immediately upon his enlightenment. In Lalitavistara XXV.1 we thus find:
I found a Dharma, profound, peaceful, pure, Luminous, nectar-like, and not conditioned.
Even if I taught it, nobody would understand it.
I better remain silent and go to the forest.
Even though the Buddha initially doubted whether he could communicate his realization, he spent his remaining life of about forty-five years teaching what he first considered ineffable. In other words, somebody who has an immediate realization of the “beyond” can teach it to an audience of disciples who are
aware of the limitations of language in this matter. Maitripa's inconceivable wisdom must be understood in this sense. In this context, it is interesting that in his Ama- nasikaradhara, Maitripa takes amanasikara not only as mental disengagement (i.e., Ramapala's synonym of non-abiding), but also the cultivation of realiza¬tion, or self-empowerment (svadhisthana), to use Maitripa's final interpretation of manasikara. The initial a- not only represents
the simple negation of a privative a, then, but also stands for a profound Madhyamaka type of negation, such as non-arising or emptiness, which Maitripa understands also in a positive sense as luminosity. The two levels of analysis - amanasikara as (1) the negation of con-ceptual engagement that results in duality and (2) luminous self-empowerment - skillfully combine a via negationis and a via eminentiae. The same combination is also found in Maitripa's Tattvadasaka.
To sum up, the deconstruction of conceptual duality that involves a perceived object and a perceiving subject does not result in a blank nothingness, but a “transcendent knowing” (jnana) of the ultimate. The latter statement can only be made, though, under the provision that this jnana and the ultimate are not taken as a perceived object and a perceiving subject. Candrakirti, who is otherwise well known for his radical deconstruction of everything, also claims that the Buddhas abide in objectless wisdom. In his commentary on Mulamadhyamakakarika XXV.16, Candrakirti explains:
[...] It is because consciousness has characteristic signs as support. But in nirvana, there is no characteristic sign whatsoever. Therefore it (i. e., nirvana) is indeed not to be apprehended by consciousness. Nor is it known by wisdom. Why is that? Because wisdom must have emptiness as support. It has the nature (lit. ‘form') of non-arising only. How then does one grasp through this [[[wisdom]]], whose own-nature does not exist, that nirvana is neither an existent nor non-existent? It is because of the wisdom's nature that transcends all mental fabrication.
In other words, Candrakirti expounds a form of wisdom beyond all mental fabri-cation and having emptiness as its object.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I suggest that the Buddhist beyond in terms of the emptiness of dependent origination does not necessarily entail a nihilistic position. In my opinion, emptiness should not be compared to the nothingness of a vacuum in classical physics, but rather to a quantum vacuum with infinite potentiality. This not only means that emptiness has the potential to manifest the manifold appear-ances of the world, but also that its realization discloses the primordial Buddha qualities, as explained in the Tathágatagarbhasütras. Depending on whether one's mind is in a mode of reifying or not, it is samsara and nirvana that emerge from emptiness.
Primary Sources (Indian)
TRÄMaitrTpa, TattvaratnävalL Edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. See Mathes, A Fine Blend, 341-69. PPCandrakTrti, Prasannapadä. Edited by Louis de la Vallèe Poussin (Bibliotheca Buddhica 4).
Contained in Mulamadhyamakakarika. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1992.
MACandrakTrti, Madhyamakävatära. Edited by Xue Zhu Li, China Tibetology, No. 1, March 2012, 1-16. MAVTSthiramati, Madhyäntavibhägatikä. Edited by S. Yamaguchi. Nagoya, Librairie Hajinkaku, 1934. MMKNägärjuna, Mulamadhyamakakärikä. Edited by Ye Shaoyong. Beijing, Zhongxi Book Company, 2010. LVLalitavistarasutra Edited by P.L. Vaidya, Buddhist Sanskrit Series 1. Darbhanga, Mithila Institute, 1958.
LSNagarjuna, Lokatitastava. Edited by Christian Lindtner. See Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, 128-38. YSNagarjuna, Yuktisastikakarika. Edited by Li Xuezhu and Ye Shaoyong. Beijing, Zhongxi Book Company, 2014.
SNSSandhinirmocanasutra (Tibetan translation from the Kanjur) Edited by Étienne Lamotte. Louvain (Belgium), Bureaux du Recueil, 1935. SRSSamadhirajasutra Edited by P. L. Vaidya. Darbhanga, The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Learning, 1961.
SNPRamapala, Sekanirdesapanjika. Edited by Harunaga Isaacson and Francesco Sferra in: The Sekanirdesa of Maitreyanatha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdesapanjika of Ramapala. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproduc¬tions of the MSS (Manuscripta Buddhica 2). Naples, Università degli Studi Napoli “L'Orien¬tale”, 165-204.
Primary Sources (Tibetan)
Rong zom chos bzang, Rong zom chos bzang gigsung 'bum. 2 vols. Chengdu, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999.
Bohr, Niels, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. London, Cambridge University Press, 1934.
Bohm, David, and Basil J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. London, Routledge, 1993.
D'Amato, Mario, Maitreya's Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyäntavibhäga). New York, The American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2012.
Frauwallner, Erich, The Philosophy of Buddhism [first German in 1956], transl. by Lodrö Sangpo. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2010.
Grössing, Gerhard et al., “An Explanation of Interference Effects in the Double Slit Experiment: Classical Trajectories plus Ballistic Diffusion Caused by Zero-Point Fluctuations”, Annals of Physics 327.2, 2012, 421-37.
Lindtner, Christian, Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1990. Lopez, Donald S. Jr., Elaborations on Emptiness. Uses of the Heart Sutra. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996.
MacDonald, Anne, “Knowing Nothing: CandrakTrti and Yogic Perception”. In Yogic Perception, Meditation and Altered States of Consciousness (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 794), edited by Eli Franco and Dagmar Eigner. Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2009, 133-68. Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen (Dharma- dharmatävibhäga) (Indica et Tibetica, 26). Swisttal-Odendorf, Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1996.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, A Fine Blend of Mahamudra and Madhyamaka: Maitripa's Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikära) (Sitzungsberichte der philoso¬phisch-historischen Klasse, 869; Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 90). Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2015.
Roerich, George N., The Blue Annals, 2 vols. (Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Monograph Series, 7). Kolkata, Motilal Banarsidass, 1949-53. Seyfort Ruegg, David, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (A History of Indian Literature, 7, fasc. 1). Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981.
Seyfort Ruegg, David, Two Prolegomena to Madhyamaka Philosophy: Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought, part 2 (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismu-skunde, 54). Vienna, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, 2002.
Wallace, B. Alan, The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000. Walleczek, Jan, and Gerhard Grössing, “Is the World Local or Nonlocal? Towards an Emergent Quantum Mechanics in the 21st Century”, Journal of Physics. Conference Series 701, 2016. Accessed September 5, 2016. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.02862v1.pdf.
Westerhoff, Jan, “The Madhyamaka Concept of Svabhava: Ontological and Cognitive Aspects”, Asian Philosophy 17 (1), 2007, 17-45. Zajonc, Arthur, ed., The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004. Zeilinger, Anton, Einsteins Schleier: Die neue Welt der Quantenphysik. München, Verlag C.H. Beck, 2003
