Just for the sake of clarification, bhante, even if we admit there is no sound when a tree falls in a forest, there still is the tree itself, isn’t there?
From what (little) I understand about quantum mechanics (a very successful but poorly understood theory), there is only a possibility of there being a tree until there is an observer who experiences a tree.
I admit, my understanding of quantum mechanics is heavily mixed with Buddhism, so for example the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment seems not only cruel to me but also misses the point entirely by presupposing that a cat is not a concious being and only if a human opens the box, is the cat either dead or alive. But I still think it’s the best theory physics has to offer at the moment for a Buddhist 
3 Likes
Indeed. But from a Buddhist perspective, the crucial problem is not existence, but suffering. Existence is only relevant in as far as it affects suffering. If someone is utterly unknown and unknowable, not even as a concept, then it can’t affect consciousness in any way and hence is not part of the four noble truths.
7 Likes
Is it to say that only suffering (dukkha) and its cessation is real, Bhante?
No; it’s to say that as far as the Dhamma is concerned, the concept of “reality” only matters in so far as it helps us understand suffering and escape from it.
If we ask the question, “what is reality independent of suffering”, this is something I think the Dhamma is agnostic on. It’s certainly unknown and irrelevant, and in addition may well be unknowable (a more general application of the “beginning of samsara” problem).
5 Likes
Certainly works well if one’s native language is Australasian English 
May be lost on speakers of other dialects…
I’d suggest caution in trying to make too much of connections between quantum mechanics and Dhamma. The issues are subtle and my students only have the technical knowledge to start making sense of them after 3-4 years of University study. It certainly seems to be the case that, in contradiction to Einstein’s wishes, theoretical work by Bell Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, and subsequent experiments Bell test - Wikipedia, demonstrated that quantum systems don’t behave according to classical models under certain circumstances. One could, very roughly, say that “until there is a measurement, one can’t say what state the system is in”. However, it’s a large extra step to say that “measurement” requires consciousness. The high-speed machinery used in such experiments record the results (“collapse the wavefunction”) in fractions of a second. To paraphrase Feynman: one doesn’t need a person to look at the results, one could hook up the counters to an atomic bomb, and destroy the entire lab…
On one level one could say that there is a very vague parallel between QM and Dhamma, along the lines that “it’s what you observe that matters”, but one doesn’t need QM to come to that conclusion.
1 Like
But has the lab blown up or not if no concious being has observed it? 
There seem to be about as many interpretations of quantum mechanics as there are physicists in the field. And at the base of it, it all seems to come down to the their world view.
So as a placeholder and a possible bridge between physics and Dhamma, my theory is good enough for me…
in response to b.sujato’s views on sense restraint and the tortoise/jackal simile:
the samadhi “group” consists of, right effort (where sense restraint falls), right mindfulness, right concentration.
in reading the EBT passages related to those 3 samadhi factors, it’s often hard to tell where the lines are divided. for example, in some satipatthana suttas it uses key words in the samma samadhi definition 2nd jhana.
in first jhana, speech has ceased, but speech formations are not stilled until 2nd jhana. Also we are told that the 5 hindrances are close by, and the usual culprit for causing one to drop out of first jhana.
sense restraint is not just preliminary practice preceding jhana but is part of the standard right effort formula. and as right effort is part of the samadhi group, and sense restraint would keep 5 hindrances at bay in the first jhana through the skillful vitakka and vicara (unskillful vitakka and vicara supressed already with 5 hindrances), it’s active in first jhana. take another exercise given as part of samma padhana (AN 4.14), “uppannam bhaddakam samadhi-nimitta anurakkhati…” an arisen auspicious concentration-sign [such as] skeleton, worm-infested corpse, etc… now even vism. says you can enter jhana visualizing one of those 7 body corpse images, so here we definitely see why it’s hard to make the distinction between satipatthana, right effort, and right concentration, since all 3 have cases where “deep” jhana can happen.
and the sense restraint formula for the ear , body, mind “sotena saddam sutva, na nimittaghi hoti,…” etc, that’s perfectly fine to do in first jhana if you fall in the sutta jhana side of the jhana wars.
so in conclusion, that the simile is explicitly about sense restraint to me doesn’t preclude that from including first jhana.
My apologies for jumping into a dormant thread-- reading everything here takes a while. 
Thank you for that. You’ve put some incoherent observations rattling around in my brain into clear language, and it’s a relief. I’m reminded of Zen/Chan and the numerous scandals its big-name teachers have been involved with in recent decades. So much emphasis is put on emptiness and awakening that everything else seems to get left aside. There are a very few teachers for whom that’s not so, like the late Charlotte Joko Beck, but they are exceptions to the majority.
1 Like