Buddha and the Atom: Everything Is Infinitely Divisible

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/02/09/Robert_Thurman_at_City_Arts__Lectures

Buddhist author Robert Thurman uses the atom to explain the Buddhist belief that nothing in the universe is indivisible. He says while scientists strive to "bump up against something hard," their quest is futile because all matter is "infinitely divisible."

-----

When author, translator, and scholar Robert Thurman was first introduced to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 1964, he was described as "a crazy American boy, very intelligent and with a good heart (though a little proud), who spoke Tibetan well and had learned something about Buddhism [and] wanted to become a monk."

Thurman became the first Westerner to be ordained as a Buddhist monk, though he gave up his robes after several years for an American academic career.

His many books, including Essential Tibetan Buddhism, Inner Revolution, The Jewel Tree of Tibet, and Why the Dalai Lama Matters, reflect a deep reverence for Tibet combined with a flair for making Buddhism accessible to the West.

A champion of the preservation of Tibet's culture, Thurman co-founded New York City's Tibet House with actor Richard Gere and works closely with the Dalai Lama to educate the world about Tibet's political struggles against China.

Well-known for his enthusiasm and depth on the page and in person, Thurman is currently Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, holding the first endowed chair in the field in the United States.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• buddhism
• buddhists
• philosophy
• explained
• examples
• dependent
• origination
• theology
• principle
• ideas
• atoms
• physics
• metaphysics
• metaphysical
• science
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[SuperSymmetricS]

@SunnyDays94 well as he said, it's not that you have "nothing" it is that everything dissolves under analysis. i've seen this conversation lead to talk of quarks, the mass of the gluon particle field, string theory, etc etc which is essentially pointless to debate because not enough is known.. :S

[9493760]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ATTAIN NOTHING . BUT IT COULD STILL BE ALL YOU HAVE .

GIANFRANCO FRONZI . JULY /21/2011

[egodrive]

@DonnyDeutschisBigBro People who think they understand quantum physics also know nothing about quantum physics.

[happytenzin]

Bob... you're a very wise compassionate person :D

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@SunnyDays94 i agree, I think he was slightly mistaken to say that the way he did

[SunnyDays94]

We can't just get nothing from something! None of the things in the universe gets lost. If we divide a particle infinitely then it may become so small that it loses it's characteristics and become "nothing". But there is no "nothing" if we are not looking for something specific, but as a whole. Who knows whether that "nothing" we get won't be "something" in different conditions? Different than the ones we know on the Earth?

[kingofaikido]

hi wanchoopark, i thought Thurman was saying the opposite...'manipulation' as a word has negative connotations of interference from above or outside... a 'system' could mean that we are too interconnected for anyone to dictate the whole show or even to try and manipulate key parts... still confused though.... who gets to arrange things? well, it seems we just need to replace the CCP with Tibetan lamas? something doesn't sound right there though...

[wanchoopark]

@kingofaikido we can manipulate a system and we can arrange things which are independent of each other. in a system things are related

[kingofaikido]

what is the difference between 'manipulating' and 'arranging'?

[lookatmepleasesir]

@DonnyDeutschisBigBro what do you understand about quantum physics?