Energy Dynamics

Energy Dynamics

January 2006

By B Alan Wallace

Like focusing two eyes on the same reality, the integration of Buddhism and western science may discover a deeper vision than either tradition has achieved on its own. This is especially true of the realm of energy and consciousness. Traditional theories of vital energies developed in the classical civilizations of China, India, and Greece are commonly viewed in contemporary scientific and philosophical circles as antiquated expressions of folklore physiology. All such notions appear to be variations of the school of ‘Vitalism’, which held that living organisms are endowed with a kind of energy unique to life. No such energy has been found by the physical or biological sciences. The downfall of Vitalism can be traced back to the establishment of the principle of the conservation of energy, for which Hermann von Helmholtz presented the first mathematical formulation in 1847. In a paper presented in that year, he treated mechanical phenomena, heat, light, electricity, and magnetism as different manifestations of energy, which he correctly foresaw would serve as a unifying principle in physics. The term ‘energy’ was first used as a general and fundamental concept by William Thompson two years later. In his view, energy is an objectively real, quantitatively immutable entity that is convertible and links all of nature in a web of energy transformations. Western ViewsHelmholtz saw his formulation of energy conservation as key to ‘the complete comprehensibility of nature,’ (P.M. Harman, Energy, Force and Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth Century Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1982), which could be understood thoroughly in terms of mechanisms. For light, electricity and magnetism, such a mechanical explanation required the existence of a luminiferous ether. But in 1887, the assertion of this mechanical medium for electromagnetic energy was disproved by the renowned Michelson-Morley experiment. Looking back, Albert Einstein and his colleague Leopold Infeld declared, ‘All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere!’ (Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, originally published in 1938). And this was a critical blow to the mechanistic view of nature as a whole. In 1905, Einstein revolutionized the scientific understanding of energy with his special theory of relativity. With his famous equation E = mc2, he demonstrated that matter is convertible with energy and in fact is nothing other than a form of energy. With the subsequent development of quantum electrodynamics, energy and matter came to be viewed as oscillations of abstract field quantities in space. A far cry from the mechanical explanation idealized in the mid-nineteenth century, particles and waves are not even oscillations of space proper, for nothing actually oscillates. In the words of physicist Henning Genz in Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space (Perseus Books, 1999), ‘Real systems are, in this sense, ‘excitations of the vacuum’-much as surface waves in a pond are excitations of the pond’s water…The vacuum in itself is shapeless, but it may assume specific shapes. In doing so, it becomes a physical reality, a ‘real world’.’ This vacuum contains an infinite supply of radiation energy even at zero temperature. The mechanical view of nature, in which the principle of energy conservation played a crucial role, has now been overthrown by physics itself. Richard Feynman concluded that the conservation of energy is a mathematical principle, not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete. Moreover, ‘It is important to realize that in physics today,’ he acknowledged, ‘we have no knowledge of what energy is.’ To relate this conclusion back to the origins of Western science and philosophy, Pythagoras was renowned for his claim that all things are numbers, and later Pythagoreans identified these numbers with geometrical forms. Inspired by the Pythagoreans, Plato developed his own theory that the world of appearances is derivative of an underlying realm of pure ideas. Democritus, on the other hand, claimed that the world ultimately consists of discrete atoms in motion in space and that all subjective experiences are derivative of configurations of atoms. In terms of the quantum mechanical understanding of the nature of energy, Werner Heisenberg commented in Physics and Philosophy (Penguin Books, 1989), ‘With regard to this question, modern physics takes a definite stand against the materialism of Democritus and for Plato and the Pythagoreans.’ Descartes has left science with a legacy of dividing the world into an absolutely objective realm of physical phenomena and an absolutely subjective realm of mental phenomena. In this context, classical physics came to regard energy as a primary attribute of the objective, physical world, and all subjective, mental phenomena were seen as secondary, derivative qualities of configurations of atoms. But in light of the above discussion of advances in modern physics, I would characterize the real physical world as nothing more than dynamical configurations of some kind of quantized background, about which there are a variety of mathematical ideas. These mathematical ideas serve to pick out possible regularities that may be of some predictive and explanatory value. Some believe these ideas are subjective creations of the human psyche, while others maintain they are objective entities existing independently of consciousness. But a third alternative, as Plato proposed, is that they may belong to a dimension of consciousness that transcends the ordinary human mind and that plays a key role in the formation of the universe as a whole. Buddhist InsightsUnder the influence of the mechanistic views of Democritus and Descartes, physics has probed the nature of space and energy in a world devoid of consciousness and subjective experience of any kind. But the real world – the only one we know exists – is the universe of which we are conscious. Many traditional cultures have viewed this world of experience as being filled with energy, conceived in various ways. The Greek pneuma, Indian prana, Tibetan loong, Chinese qi, Japanese ki, and Native American mana are all believed to be present in the human body and the surrounding environment. Mana, like the energy of the physicists, is thought to underlie, empower, and regulate all physical and mental phenomena. In Buddhism, the energies coursing through the human body are investigated from a first-person perspective by first honing the attention by means of sophisticated contemplative training. Many techniques have been devised to regulate these energies with the practice of physical exercises, controlled breathing, visualization, and mantra recitation. But another approach entails a passive mindfulness of the respiration, without trying to regulate or modify it in any way. Through such practice, the energies in the body naturally balance themselves, and in so doing, the mind is also calmed. This is a practice highly praised by the Buddha, who described its effects with these words: ‘Just as in the last month of the hot season, when a mass of dust and dirt has swirled up, a great rain cloud out of season disperses it and quells it on the spot, so too concentration by mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, is peaceful and sublime, an ambrosial dwelling, and it disperses and quells on the spot detrimental unwholesome states whenever they arise.’ (Saoyutta Nikãya, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Vol. II, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2000). The practice of mindfulness of breathing is one of many Buddhist techniques for developing the stability and vividness of attention, culminating in the highly refined state of meditative quiescence (samatha), in which the mind can remain perfectly focused for hours on end. The development of quiescence is closely linked to three kinds of ‘signs’ (nimitta) that are the objects of meditation. The first of these is the sign for preliminary practice, which in the case of the mindfulness of breathing consists of the tactile sensations of the respiration. The second is the acquired sign (udgraha-nimitta), which may appear to different people like a star, a cluster of gems or pearls, a wreath of flowers, a puff of smoke, a cobweb, a cloud, a lotus flower, a wheel, or a moon or sun disk. All these signs of the breath arise from the space of the mind, and their various appearances are related to the mental dispositions of individual meditators. The third is the counterpart sign (pratibhãga-nimitta), which is a subtle, emblematic representation of the whole quality of the breath, or air element, which it symbolizes. (Paravahera Vajirañãna, Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice, Buddhist Missionary Society, 1975) Higher StatesThe experience of the counterpart sign corresponds to the achievement of meditative quiescence, which entails a dramatic shift in the energies in the body. This is initially characterized by a sense of heaviness and numbness on the top of the head, which is correlated to the emergence of an exceptional degree of mental pliancy and fitness. Vital energies that result in unprecedented physical pliancy then pervasively course through the entire body, filling it with the power of this dynamic energy. A sense of bliss then saturates the body, which, in turn, triggers an experience of mental bliss. This gradually subsides, leaving both the body and mind balanced and supple. The achievement of quiescence marks the contemplative’s initial access to a higher realm, or dimension, of existence.