Fantasi är och har alltid varit verklighet. Det kan verka som det Mest är fantasi, men i själva verket så är allting redan gjort. Det finns ingenting människan kan komma på. Hon kan bara ändra och göra nya formler av det hela. För Moder Jord har redan tänkt ut det någonstans.
Allting handlar om spinn och rotation, därutöver så handlar det om vad som är mest….
Jag är mest här, beroende på vilken elektron du frågar. Skulle du träffa på en annan än den som säger att jag är här, skulle den kanske säga att jag är där. ”Men ingenting kan ju vara på två ställen samtidigt”. Förutom i kvantfysiken. Ju mer jag lär mig om den, ju tunnare blir gränserna. Eller snarare, ju mer förstår jag att det inte handlar om svart eller vitt, som sagt - utan vad det Mesta är eller blir.
One day a wanderer came into the village where the Buddha taught. His name was Vacchagotta. He asked the Enlightened One whether or not there was a soul (Atman). The following was their somewhat brief and one-sided conversation:
VACCHAGOTTA: Venerable Gotama, is there a Soul?
BUDDHA: (Silence.)
VACCHAGOTTA: Then Venerable One, is there no Soul?
BUDDHA: (Silence.)
VACCHAGOTTA: (Gets up and goes away.)
Later Ananda, a disciple of the Buddha, appeared and asked the Enlightened One to comment on his previous silence. The Buddha said,
Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer, “Is there a Soul?”, if I had answered: “There is a soul”, then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold to the eternalist theory. And when asked by the wanderer: “Is there no soul?” If I had answered: “There is no soul”, then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold to the annihilationist theory.
Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: “Is there a soul?”, if I had answered: “There is”, would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas [ways of inquiry, paths to enlightenment] are without soul? And when asked by the Wanderer, “Is there no soul?”, if I had answered, “There is no soul”, then that would have been a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta [who earlier had inquired into what happens after death and was confused by the Buddha’s answer]. For he would have thought: “Formerly indeed I had a soul, but now I haven’t got one.”
We can compare this legend with one well known from quantum physics. One day a student wandered into the chambers of Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who in the 1940s headed the scientific team that constructed the atomic bomb. As the story goes the student asked Oppenheimer about the existence and movement of the tiny subatomic electron within the confines of the atom, to which Oppenheimer answered,
If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say “no.” If we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say “no.” If we ask whether it is in motion, we must say “no.” If we ask whether it is standing still, we must say “no.”
Oppenheimer’s quote and the Buddha’s response to Ananda regarding the soul point to the same thing. For in both Buddhist logic and quantum physics, it is necessary not to hold any fixed opinion but to see things as they are without mental projections—especially when such answers require you to have such mental projections in order to answer them.
Källa: http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/2009/01/difficult-questions-in-troubling-times.html
Vardagen är verkligheten, men det är även de allra minsta partiklarna. Trots att jag inte kan se dem ur mitt naturliga spektrum, finns de alltid ur ett självfallet perspektiv.