Mind and Matter—Their Mutual Dependence and Emptiness

Talk given at the Symposium on:

Mind & Matter - New Models of Reality

University of Vienna, May 26, 2012

Klaus-Dieter Mathes

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

presupposition that "mind alone" (cittamatra) exists. Western scientific models, on the other

hand, are inclined to privilege matter, to the extent that extreme proponents of scientific

materialism reject the existence of mind including all its mental factors on the grounds that

descriptions of such (epi)phenomena have no place in a naturalistic account of the world.

However, critics of scientific materialism have been quick to point out that the denial of first

personal accounts of conscious experience—of minds, which are capable of intentional

engagement, critical analysis and ethical behavior—seems to be as implausible and self­

undermining as the outright denial of physical reality.

Can we or should we dispense altogether with discourses about mind? The mere fact that we

ponder such a question presupposes first personal access to complex mental processes. In the

case of Buddhism, how could we otherwise give any credit 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

investigation and eventual understanding of the nature of mind. Buddhist practitioners

typically train extensively in such mental disciplines in order to realize for themselves what

has been discovered by many over the age. 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 better

understand the complex interactions between the two.

The acceptance of a view that mind and matter are neither reducible to nor derivable from one

another inevitably leads to the question of whether they are capable of mutual interaction. The

1

most eminent Buddhist philosopher of Madhyamaka Nagarjuna (fl. 200 CE) argues that if

things (such as mind and matter) really exist independently in their own right, they cannot

influence each other, which would contradict the Buddhist axiom of dependent origination.

While scientific materialists readily accept that consciousness is solely generated 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 considered 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 (2000, 142-43) concludes from this that in principle 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 systems1, for example, cannot be excluded. This calls into question our common

sense view of a universe built up from locally determined real entities. In this regard, Niels

Bohr (1961) came to the conclusion that "isolated material particles are abstractions, their

properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

Now if it is no longer deemed possible to isolate material particles from the nexus of their

interactions, can we then still isolate purely physical systems from observing systems, which

in my opinion include not only technical factors, such as the choice of a measurement tool,

but also cognitive processes and mental representations. In other words, does a clear-cut

distinction between separate systems not require an epistemic element, which is, in final

analysis, arbitrary? Of great interest in this respect, is a recent article, in which Caponigro and

Giannetto (2012, 1) argue that “there are not two classes of quantum states, entangled and

factorizable (i.e., non-entangled), but only a single class of states: the entangled states." In

other words, the nature of any underlying physical reality should be understood in terms of

entangled states. Factorizable states depend on the role of the observer who determines the

distinction between entangled and non-entangled states, and thus contain epistemic elements

(Ibid., 2-3). This means that entangled or non-entangled systems are linked to how we “cut” a

piece of world to single out for observation. This "cut" gives rise not only to incorrect

classifications of quantum systems (entangled or factorizable systems), but also the idea of the

existence of "independent" quantum systems. There are not two classes of quantum systems

but only one. The basic nature, the quantum systems, is all entangled. Moreover, Laur Jarv

(Univ. of Tartu, Estonia) argues, that in the case of different relativistic observers the extent

1 Particles which have interacted physically remain under certain conditions entangled (such that

they are mysteriously twisted together) even after they have become separated over large distances.

The shared state of polarization or spin, for example, remains indefinite until measurement.

2 Email communication with Michele Caponigro, dated Aug 9, 2012.

2

of entanglement is seen in different ways. A system which is seen as entangled by one

observer can be seen as non-entangled by another one with respect to the same set of

observables. This makes an even stronger case for the epistemic aspect of entanglement, but

puts Caponigro's and Giannetto's ontological conclusion, that all systems must be ultimately

entangled, into question.3 To conclude, given the obvious epistemic aspects of entanglement,

it is not completely out of 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. Reducing one to the other

makes it extremely difficult to account for a number of processes that can be observed

directly. In line with Nagarjuna, I suggest, though, not to subscribe to a substance dualism.

Mind and matter are rather 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 impulse conservation.

This suggests that the gamma ray displays its particle character in order to transmit impulse,

as well as its wave character in order to transmit energy by reducing its wave length.

The double character of light has been nicely demonstrated in Anton Zeilinger's double slit

experiment. Even though only one single photon at a time is being sent through the two

parallel slits, an interference pattern is slowly building up as each photon hits the observation

plane in areas where the amplitudes of the superimposed wave fronts are maximal. The

precise location of observation is apparently random. Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger

(2002) state that the observer can decide which property of the photon becomes reality by

putting detectors into the interfering path or not. Without detectors one gets the interference

pattern and with detectors the beam path. Yet, when choosing to determine the path one has

no influence over the trajectory. Whether the photon goes through the left or right slit remains

completely random. According to this interpretation, the observer decides whether the particle

or wave character of the photon becomes reality. Feynman, on the other hand, claimed that

each electron4 makes it through both slits and even traverses every possible trajectory

simultaneously (Greene 2000, 110). Recently, Ralf Menzel, Dirk Puhlmann, Axel Heuer, and

Wolfgang P. Schleich succeeded in finding through which slit the photon went without losing

3 Email communication with Laur Jarv, dated Aug. 14, 2012.

4 The double slit experiment does not only work for photons, but also electrons, protons, or even

atoms and molecules.

3

the interference pattern. This was achieved by entangling the photon. Thus light’s wave- and

particle-like characteristics were demonstrated simultaneously (Francis 2012).

Anton Zeilinger's (2003, 229) interpretation, 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.5 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." (Ibid., 140).

Even though the existence of the photon on its way through the double slit experiment may be

denied, and the location of its detection on the observation screen is purely random, there is

still a causal relation between switching on the button and the stripes on the screen. In a

purely pragmatic way one has to admit dependent origination: if I had pulled the cable out of

the socket during the experiment, the stripes would have disappeared. Upon a careful analysis

of what is happening to the photon in between the source and the detector one either has to

admit a very strange way of existence of the photon (Zajonc) or its non-existence (Zeilinger).

In the following I am going to argue that both of these interpretations can be seen as valid

from the standpoint of Nagarj una's concept of emptiness, which is closely associated with

what I propose to call the relational existence of relative truth.

We may recall that Nagarjuna argues that if things (such as mind and matter) really exist

independently in their own right, they cannot influence each other, and this would contradict

the Buddhist axiom of dependent origination. In other words, his analysis supports the

viability of a model of reality that equally accepts both mental and material factors of

existence under the condition that they are correctly understood to be empty of an

independent existence and thus capable of mutual interaction. This allows one to understand

dependent origination as a dynamic system of interrelatedness which precludes any clean

separation between any individual component of the system—or any subsystem that is singled

out for observation—and all the rest. It is in this sense that dependent origination is equated

5 This is what Anton Zeilinger maintained at a Mind and Life Conference in October 1997 in Dharam-

sala (Zajonc 2004,139-40).

4

with emptiness in "Root Verses of the Middle Way" (Mulamadhyamakakarika, MMK

XXIV. 18).

It has been rightfully questioned whether the individual component of a complex system, that

lacks a locally determined reality still deserves the label ‘existent’. In his MMK 1.10,

Nagarjuna clearly negates such a possibility:

Since the existence of entities devoid of an own being is not found,

The formula when x exists, y comes to be is not appropriate.6

The causal clause in the first part of the verse clearly shows that for Nagarjuna the concept of

existence presupposes an own-being or inherent, independent existence. With such an

understanding the traditional formula for dependent origination does not work. To say x exists

means x exists independently, but an independent x cannot have any causal relation with

anything, otherwise it would not have an own-being. If the building blocks of the universe

consisted of completely isolated, independent entities, there could be no interaction at all. Or

anything could arise from anything, like darkness from light, as Candraklrti (ca. 600 - ca. 650

CE) explains in “Entrance to the Middle Way” (Madhyamakavatdra) VI. 14 (Seyfort Ruegg

2002, 71). In other words, when one understands existence as independent existence, and

reifies 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 Rootn

Verses of the Middle Way. But what is dependent origination without arising? Nagarjuna

immediately gives an answer in the first verse of his Root Verses:

Nowhere are things found anywhere that have ariseno

From themselves, other, a combination of both, and without a cause. MMK 1.1

Given the negation of an "own-being" (svabhava) and "other-being" (parabhava) in chapter

fifteen of the Root Verses9 this can only mean that in the absence of a locally determined

6 MMK 1.10 (Ye Shao Yong (2011, 18): bhavanam nihsvabhavanam no sattd vidyate yotah / satTdam

asmin bhavatTti etan naivopapadyate / /

7 Ye Shao Yong (2011, 12): anirodham anutpddom ... yah pratltyasamutpadam ... desaydmasa sam-

buddhas tam vande vadatam varam. My own translation: "I pay homage to him the fully awakened,

the best of all teachers who has proclaimed dependent origination as being without cessation and

arising,..."

8 Ye Shao Yong (2011, 12): na svato napi parato no dvabhyam ndpy ahetutah / utpanna jatu vidyonte

bhavah kvacana kecana / /

5

existence, or own-being, 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 borderline we have an effect, since locally determined causes and conditions cannot be

identified and singled out. In other words dependent origination must be understood as 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 as position, momentum, spin or polarization even

over long distances in space, so the event of an intentional deed (karman) and its effect can be

related over a long period in time. In Candraklrti's "Introduction to the Middle Path"

(Madhyamkâvatâra VI.39) we find a justification of such a long term relation on the grounds

that nothing passes out of existence:

Since there is no passing out of existence in terms of its 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].10

The idea here is that causes such as intentional deeds are not determined in time either, so that

it is impossible to say when precisely they end. Thus they can link up with the event of

retribution in the far future even without a chain of locally and temporally determined factors

of existence stored in a ground consciousness (as maintained in the Yogàcàra school).

Again, coming back to our double slit experiment, even though the precise mechanics of a

photon cannot be known, there is a causal relation between switching on the power and the

appearance of the stripes on the screen. If one still speaks of existence, then you end up

having Arthur Zajonc's ’strange way of existence’. Nàgàrjuna, however, prefers not to call

this existence anymore. Still, in the following verse from Nàgàrjuna's “Hymn to [the Buddha]

Transcending the World” (Lokâtïtastava), a physical reality that differs from pure nominalism

is maintained:

If a name and its object were not different

9 MMK XV.3ab (Ye Shao Yong 2011, 236): "Where, in the absence of an own-being, will there be an

other-being?" kutah svabhâvasyâbhâve parabhâvo bhavlsyatl

10 MA VI.39 (La Vallée Poussin 1992,126): / gang phyir rang bzhin gyis de mi 'gags p a / / de phyir kun

gzhi med kyang 'di (read 'di'i) nus phyir / / l a lar las 'gags yun ring Ion las kyang / / 'bras bu yang dag

'byung bar rig par gyis / (Cf. Li Xue Zhu 2012, 7) : yasmât svarüpena na tan niruddham ciram

nlruddhâd api karmano 'tab / kvacid vinaivâlayam asya sakteh phalam samutpadyata ity avaihi/ /

6

One's mouth would be burned by [the word] fire.

If they were different there would be no comprehension of anything.11 LS 7abc

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 condition for

comprehension. This line of thought only holds water if the perceiver also has an influence on

the perceived. To some extent this can be compared to the interpretation in which the observer

plays a role in letting the particle or wave character of the photon become reality.

Dharmaklrti, a famous epistemologist and logician of the 7th century CE, argues that based on

the principle of like causes like, the main cause of anything mental must be also mental, i.e.,

the preceding phase of the respective continuum of mental factors. In a sensory perception,

the senses and their cognitive objects are only auxiliary causes, whose presence can have a

causal influence on the properties of the resulting conscious moment (Steinkellner 2012, 365-

66). The fully developed form of Yogacara even goes so far to negate external, mind

independent matter. Vasubandhu the older (ca. 320 - ca. 380 CE, Frauwallner 1951) thus

replies in his "Proof in Twenty Verses that Everything is Only Mental Representation"

(Vimsatika Vijnaptimatratasiddhi) to a realist that if he takes material factors of existence to

arise from karman, i.e., the mental imprints of former deeds, why he does not then accept that

these material factors are, like their causes, mind as well. (Frauwallner 2010, 397).

In his “Reasoning in Sixty Verses” (Yuktisastikdkarika), Nagarjuna, too, claims that the

elements (i.e., earth, water, fire, air, and space) are nothing but mind and only falsely

imagined:12

What has been taught, the great elements and so forth,

Are contained in consciousness.

Once this is understood they dissolve.

They are falsely imagined, indeed.13 YS 34

In all fairness to idealist interpretation, it should here be explained that it is not simply the

human mind or imagination that creates the world, rather it is the product of all the individual,

11 LS 7abc (Lindtner 1990, 130): samjnarthayor ananyatve mukham dahyeta vahnina / anyatve

'dhigamabhavas.

12 This is, at least, what the 11th century master Ratnakarasanti understands. See Tripathi, R. Shankar

& Negi, Th. Sain 2001, 15.

13 YS 34 (Lindtner 1990, 110): mahabhutadi vijhane proktam samavarudhyate/ tajjnane vigamam

yati nanu mithya vikalpitam / /

7

cognitively inactive sub-consciousnesses of sentient beings, which contain numerous mental

seeds or imprints left from previous mental events responsible for activating the chains of

pairs of the perceived and a perceiver. The common experience of external objects is

explained by maintaining that a particular group of sentient beings shares common imprints

which influence each other when they give rise to common appearance. Human beings thus

share the common imprints for the manifestation of drinking water. For a fish, however, water

must be like space. 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) who wash themselves with fire without burning

themselves.14 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 necessary mental imprints.

Against the background of these notable parallels between quantum physics and the Buddhist

philosophy of dependent origination and emptiness the question arises, how the issue of

objective randomness fits into this picture. First of all, it could be argued that there is an

equally valid alternative, namely David Bohm's theory of non-local causality. The trajectory

of the photon in the double slit experiment could be calculated, if the initial state of the

photon was known. But an initial state or its causes can never be provided, so that in Bohm's

model, too, one still has the randomness observed in experiment (Zajonc 2004, 27). A

Buddhist would have no problem with that since a beginning from a primary cause such as a

Big Bang would be rejected. Secondly, a Buddhist philosopher could also follow mainstream

physics and accept objective randomness as something beyond the reach of relative truth,

which is characterized by dependent origination. It would then relate to the level of ultimate

truth, which is defined, among other things, by non-arising. In a similar vein, objective

randomness could be compared to spontaneous Buddha activity which unfolds

unintentionally, even though most Buddhist traditions (the rNying ma pas being a prominent

exception) agree that Buddhahood and its activity are produced through the accumulation of

merit and wisdom over a long period of time. In the rNying ma tradition of “Great Perfection”

(Tib. rdzogs chen) primordial wisdom is taken to be unproduced and yet spontaneously

present in its luminosity and compassionate responsiveness. (Mathes 2008, 98-110).

One may admit that these parallels between Madhyamaka and quantum physics are

interesting, but still question their relevance within the macroscopic scale of daily life. It

should be considered, however, that everything is made up of subatomic particles. A lot of

quantum effects may cancel themselves out on macroscopic or even mesoscopic levels, but

14 Rong zom chos bzang 1999, vol. 1, 426.

8

there is no reason why entangled systems should not be found also on larger scales. In a

dialogue with the astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan the French Buddhist monk Matthieu

Ricard reckons with regard to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Effect (i.e., entanglement), that

since all ‘particles’ in the universe were closely bound together in the singularity of Big Bang,

they could still be so now.15 Such a universal entanglement could be, in fact, an intelligent

way of interpreting the strange behavior of Foucault's pendulum. Foucault hung a pendulum

from the roof of the Panthéon in Paris in order to prove that the Earth rotates on its axis. It

slowly seemed to change the direction in which it was swinging. But it always swung in the

same direction; it was only the Earth that turned. But what is motionless? After a few weeks

even the sun has moved slightly from the direction of the pendulum's swing. Only the most

distant galaxies did not drift away from the initial plane of its swing. Trinh Xuan Thuan draws

the conclusion that the pendulum's behavior depends on the entire universe including the

most distant galaxies.16 In support of this conclusion one could refer to the Austrian

philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach, who declared that the amount of resistance to

movement comes from the influence of the whole universe (Mach's principle). But such

interactions cannot be based on the exchange of energy, resembling as they do to the one

between entangled photons or electrons. Trinh Xuan Thuan concludes that “each part contains

the whole, and each part depends on all the other parts”.17

In yet another domain of inquiry well beyond the microscopic scale, neuroscience, the

amazing synchronization of widely distributed assemblies of cortical neurons correlates with

conscious processing. The neuroscientist Wolf Singer made the noteworthy prediction at the

end of his presentation at our symposium that “we shall have to make the same transition as

physics did when extending classical physics to quantum physics.” This involves thinking in

terms of “self-organizing systems with non-linear dynamics and very high dimensionality, in18which relationships in phase space have the status of objects!’ Such a dynamic system of

interrelatedness reminds one of the above-mentioned quantum states of entangled systems

whose components do not exist in a locally determined way.

This calls for the introduction a new concept of existence, one that does not require a locally

determined entity with an "own-being", but a dynamic system of mutual interrelationship and

interconnectedness. It is this absence of own-being and other-being from the standpoint of

15 Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan 2001, 73.

16 Ibid., 69-70.

17 Ibid., 70.

18 I.e., a space in which all possible states of a system are represented.

9

dependent origination that is called emptiness. In keeping with Nagarjuna’s philosophy,

entities with an own-being would then be viewed as reified constructions of the mind, which

simplify phenomena at the cost of misrepresenting their irreducibly complex interconnected­

ness. There is no reason why such dynamic systems should not include mind with its complex

structures on equal footing with matter. The flaws of substantial dualism are avoided by

maintaining the mutual dependence of mind and matter and their emptiness of an own-being.

In conclusion I suggest, as a primary frame of reference, a type of existence or rather "co­

existence" characterized by a dynamic system of mutual interrelationship called "mind-matter-

field" whose aspects, including mental events, cannot be separated. This perspective would

not only conform to the Madhyamaka definition of the object of negation as "own-being" but

also provide a model which can more readily accommodate the strange observations of

quantum physics, and the anticipated transition or paradigm shift in neuroscience.

Understanding oneself and the things and beings around us—not only in natural science but

also society, ecology or economy—as dynamic systems of mutual interrelationship would

draw attention to our responsibilies as engaged, embedded agents. This is what the (tantric)

Nagarjuna claims in his “Exposition of the Enlightened Attitude” (Bodhicittavivarana, verse

73):

When yogins have cultivated this emptiness in such a way,

Their mind will no doubt be devoted to the welfare of others.19

Once the Buddhist has realized that her or his existence is in one way or the other interwoven

in open dynamic systems, it becomes clear that one's own and everybody's goal of attaining

enduring happiness is best served by helping others and not by singling out, and clinging to, a

self, which is wrongly conceived of as existing independent of the rest of the world. That also

applies to the erroneous perceptions that clans, ethnic groups, nation states, economies and

other subsystems can be separated from their complex nexus of interrelations and regarded as

autonomous entities with their own independent agendas and modi operandi.

19 BV (Lindtner 1990, 206): / de Itar stong pa nyid 'di ni / / rnal 'byor pa yis bsgom byas na / / gzhan

gyl don la chags p a '/ bio / / 'byung bar 'gyur ba the tshom med /

10

References

Bohr, Niels 1961

Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature. London: Cambridge University Press

Brukner, Caslav & Zeilinger, Anton 2002

Young’s experiment and the finiteness of information. Cornell University Library

(arXiv :quant-ph/0201026v2, last visited on July 22, 2012)

Caponigro, Michele & Enrico Giannetto

Epistemic vs Ontic Classification of quantum entangled states? Cornell University

Library (arXiv.org/abs/1206.2916, last visited on August 10, 2012)

Francis, Matthew 2012

Disentangling the wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment. Ars Technica

(http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/disentangling-the-wave-particle-duality-in-

the-double-slit-experiment/, last visited on July 22, 2012)

Frauwallner, Erich

1951 On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu. Serie Orientale Roma.

Rome

2010 The Philosophy of Buddhism (Die Philosophie des Buddhismus). Translated from the

German by Gelong Lodrô Sangpo. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Greene, Brian 2000

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the

Ultimate Theory. New York: Vintage Books.

La Vallée Poussin, Louis 1992

Madhyamakâvatâra par CandrakTrti. Traduction Tibétaine. Bibliotheca Buddhica 9.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Li, XueZhu 2012

“Madhyamakâvatàra-kàrikâ.” In: China Tibetology. No. 1, March 2012, 1-16.

Lindtner, Christian 1990

Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Ndgdrjuna. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass.

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter 2008

A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Go Lotsâwa s Mahàmudrà Interpretation of the

Ratnagotravibhâga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom

Publications

Ricard, Matthieu & Trinh Xuan Thuan 2001

The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers where Science and Buddhism

Meet. Translated from the French by Ian Monk. New York: Crown Publishers.

Rong zom chos bzang 1999

Rong zom chos bzang gig sung 'bum. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun

khang.

Seyfort Ruegg 2002

11

Two Prolegomena to Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan

Madhyamaka Thought, part 2. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde

54. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien.

Steinkellner, Ernst 2012

’’Sensory perception, body and mind in Indian Buddhist philosophy.” In: Sensory

Perception: Mind and Matter. Edited by Friedrich G. Barth, Patrizia Giampieri-

Deutsch, and Hans-Dieter Klein. Wien: Springer Verlag, 357-68.

Tripathi, R. Shankar & Negi, Th. Sain (eds.) 2001

Hevajratantram with Muktävallpanjikä of Mahäpanditäcärya Ratnäkarasänti.

Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 38. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan

Studies.

Torre 2010 = A. C. de la Torre et al.

Entanglement for all quantum states. Eur. J. Phys. 31 325-332, doi: 10.1088/0143-

0807/31/2/010, 2010 (iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/31/2/010, last visited on Aug. 10,

2012)

Wallace, B. Alan 2000

The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Y eShaoYong 2012

Mülamadhyamakakärikä. Beijing: Research Institute of Sanskrit Manuscripts &

Buddhist Literature

Zajonc, Arthur 2004

The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. Edited by Arthur

Zajonc. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zanardi, Paolo 2001

Virtual Quantum Subsystems. Phys. Rev. Lett.87:077901, 2001

(http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e077901, last visited on Aug. 10, 2012).

Zeilinger, Anton 2003

Einsteins Schleier. Die neue Welt der Quantenphysik, München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

12