Education, Faculty of
Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Chu, Elise Linghui
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This study aims to articulate a conception of curriculum as play while envisioning a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum theorizing. It is motivated by concerns over the dominance of technoscience and persistent difficulties in communication between existential and scientific traditions within the curriculum field. Recognizing that these challenges possess both historical depth and contemporary relevance, this study demonstrates the indispensability of transdisciplinarity and spirituality for the further advancement of curriculum thinking, embodied in a conception of curriculum as play. My argument follows a threefold structure, progressing from transdisciplinarity to spirituality, and finally to play. Through an exploration of competing concepts of transdisciplinarity, I demonstrate the advantages and validity of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity, which accommodates both science and spirituality. Then, to illustrate how transdisciplinarity and spirituality align and enrich one another, I draw on MahÄyÄna Buddhism as a theoretical instance, examining the ontological, epistemological, and logical dimensions of Buddhist spirituality within Nicolescuâs methodological framework. On this basis, I undertake a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of key aspects of spirituality, including the primacy of consciousness over matter, the concept of complementarity, and an understanding of human existence as play, drawing on insights from quantum physics, new biology, cognitive science, and philosophical hermeneutics. I then explore concepts and theories of play, with a focus on Donald Winnicottâs theory and its resonances with transdisciplinarity and spirituality. Building on this foundation, I conclude by presenting an understanding of curriculum as play, serving as an initial theoretical instance of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculum, which enables the restoration of spirituality in education without compromising rationality.
UNDERSTANDING CURRICULUM AS PLAY: TRANSDISCIPLINARITY, SPIRITUALITY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS by Elise Linghui Chu B.Sc., Feng Chia University, Taiwan, 1989 M.Sc., Feng Chia University, Taiwan, 1994 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2016 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Curriculum Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2025 © Elise Linghui Chu, 2025 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Understanding Curriculum as Play: Transdisciplinarity, Spirituality, and Consciousness submitted by Elise Linghui Chu in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum Studies Examining Committee: Anne Phelan, Professor, Curriculum & Pedagogy, UBC Supervisor William Pinar, Professor, Curriculum & Pedagogy, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Claudia Eppert, Professor, Secondary Education, University of Alberta Supervisory Committee Member Samson Nashon, Head and Professor, Curriculum & Pedagogy, UBC University Examiner Samuel Rocha, Professor, Educational Studies, UBC University Examiner Molly Quinn, Professor, Curriculum Studies, Louisiana State University External Examiner iii Abstract This study aims to articulate a conception of curriculum as play while envisioning a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum theorizing. It is motivated by concerns over the dominance of technoscience and persistent difficulties in communication between existential and scientific traditions within the curriculum field. Recognizing that these challenges possess both historical depth and contemporary relevance, this study demonstrates the indispensability of transdisciplinarity and spirituality for the further advancement of curriculum thinking, embodied in a conception of curriculum as play. My argument follows a threefold structure, progressing from transdisciplinarity to spirituality, and finally to play. Through an exploration of competing concepts of transdisciplinarity, I demonstrate the advantages and validity of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity, which accommodates both science and spirituality. Then, to illustrate how transdisciplinarity and spirituality align and enrich one another, I draw on MahÄyÄna Buddhism as a theoretical instance, examining the ontological, epistemological, and logical dimensions of Buddhist spirituality within Nicolescuâs methodological framework. On this basis, I undertake a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of key aspects of spirituality, including the primacy of consciousness over matter, the concept of complementarity, and an understanding of human existence as play, drawing on insights from quantum physics, new biology, cognitive science, and philosophical hermeneutics. I then explore concepts and theories of play, with a focus on Donald Winnicottâs theory and its resonances with transdisciplinarity and spirituality. Building on this foundation, I conclude by presenting an understanding of curriculum as play, serving as an initial theoretical instance of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculum, which enables the restoration of spirituality in education without compromising rationality. iv Lay Summary This study presents a vision of curriculum as play, aiming to restore spirituality in education while honoring reason. It responds to concerns about the persistent divide between scientific and existential perspectives and the dominance of technoscience, which often neglect self-knowledge and the spiritual dimensions of human life. Arguing that these challenges are both historical and ongoing, the study proposes that spirituality and transdisciplinarityâsharing a set of core ideas about reality that bridge distinct worldviewsâare essential for advancing curriculum theory. Drawing on Basarab Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary approach and MahÄyÄna Buddhist thought, I illustrate how transdisciplinarity and spirituality support one another and set the ground for an understanding of curriculum as play, marked by creative and spiritual practice. v Preface This dissertation is an original, unpublished, and independent work by the author, Elise L. Chu. It is intended for publication in the form of a monograph, with the book proposal forthcoming. The use of generative AI in this dissertation was limited to employing ChatGPT and DeepL for checking sentences for grammatical accuracy and precision of meaning, translating from the authorâs native language, Traditional Chinese, to English, and serving as a replacement for Google Search. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................x Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiv Prologue: Religion and Spirituality in Education .......................................................................1 Chapter 1: Re-Envisioning Curriculum via Transdisciplinarity and Spirituality ..................8 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Concepts of Curriculum: A Brief Historical Review ...................................................... 9 1.3 A Tough Barrier to Cross-Discourse Communication.................................................. 16 1.4 The Rejection of Religion and the Division of Knowledge .......................................... 18 1.5 Divergent Worldviews and the Necessity of Transdisciplinarity ................................. 20 1.6 Worthiest Knowledge and the Indispensability of Spirituality ..................................... 26 1.7 The Educational Significance of Transdisciplinarity and Spirituality .......................... 34 1.8 The Educational Significance of Play ........................................................................... 40 1.9 Chapter Summaries ....................................................................................................... 43 Part One: Transdisciplinarity .....................................................................................................46 Chapter 2: Methodology of Transdisciplinarity: Toward a Strong Transdisciplinarity ......47 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 47 2.2 Clarification of Terminology ........................................................................................ 48 vii 2.3 The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity .......................................................................... 51 2.4 War of Definitions ........................................................................................................ 54 2.5 Toward a Strong Transdisciplinarity ............................................................................ 62 2.6 Methodology of Transdisciplinarity ............................................................................. 68 2.6.1 The Axiomatic Character of the Methodology of Transdisciplinarity .................. 68 2.6.2 The Ontological Axiom: Levels of Reality ........................................................... 73 2.6.3 The Logical Axiom: The Included Middle ........................................................... 77 2.6.4 The Epistemological Axiom: The Universal Interdependence ............................. 81 Chapter 3: The Hidden Third: The Undeniable Presence of the Divine ................................83 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 83 3.2 The Completeness Axioms for Reality ......................................................................... 84 3.3 The Undeniable Presence of the Hidden Third: An Objective Perspective .................. 90 3.4 The Undeniable Presence of the Hidden Third: A Subjective and Integrated Perspective ................................................................................................................................ 95 3.5 The Undeniable Presence of the Divine ...................................................................... 100 3.6 The Imperative of the Completeness Axioms for Reality .......................................... 102 3.7 Toward a Transdisciplinary Understanding of Spirituality ........................................ 104 Part Two: Spirituality................................................................................................................111 Chapter 4: Understanding Spirituality: A Buddhist Perspective..........................................112 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 112 4.2 The Contemporary Significance of MahÄyÄna Buddhism .......................................... 115 Interlude: Faith as the Entry .................................................................................................... 118 4.3 An Introduction to YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka ......................................................... 121 viii Interlude: Lived Experiences with MahÄyÄna Buddhism ....................................................... 128 4.4 Buddhist Ontology: Three Natures and Two Truths ................................................... 133 4.4.1 Three Natures ...................................................................................................... 133 4.4.2 Two Truths .......................................................................................................... 137 4.5 Buddhist Epistemology: Dependent Origination ........................................................ 140 4.6 Buddhist Logic: The Approach of Negation and the Logic of Not ............................ 143 4.7 The Primacy of Consciousness and ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka ............. 145 Chapter 5: Understanding Spirituality: A Transdisciplinary Hermeneutics ......................149 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 149 5.2 Understanding the Primacy of Consciousness Over Matter ....................................... 151 5.2.1 Where Does the âBitâ Come From? ................................................................... 151 5.2.2 Brain in a Vat vs. Body in a World ..................................................................... 157 5.2.3 Emergentism vs. Panpsychism............................................................................ 159 5.3 Understanding Complementarity ................................................................................ 167 5.3.1 Complementarity in Physics: The Principle of Complementarity ...................... 167 5.3.2 Complementarity in Biology: Biological Complementarity ............................... 169 5.4 Understanding Human Existence as Play ................................................................... 173 Part Three: Play .........................................................................................................................179 Chapter 6: Understanding Play: A Third Zone of Human Experience ................................180 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 180 6.2 An Autobiographical Reflection: Who Wants to Play? .............................................. 181 6.3 What is (not) Play?...................................................................................................... 184 6.4 Theories of Play: A Brief Review ............................................................................... 186 ix 6.5 Donald Winnicottâs Theory of Play ............................................................................ 190 6.5.1 Relevant Features of Winnicottâs Theory of Play ............................................... 190 6.5.2 Transitional Object and Transitional Phenomenon ............................................. 192 6.5.3 Potential Space, Playing, and Cultural Experience ............................................. 194 6.5.4 Two Paradoxes to be Accepted ........................................................................... 197 6.5.5 Paradoxical Logic and Ternary Thinking ........................................................... 201 Chapter 7: Understanding Curriculum as Play ......................................................................204 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 204 7.2 The Significance of Transdisciplinary Self-Knowledge for Education ...................... 206 7.3 Toward a Transdisciplinary Stage of Curriculum ....................................................... 211 7.4 Understanding Currere as Play ................................................................................... 218 7.5 The Necessity of Lived Curriculum: Creative Play vs. Annihilating Conformity ..... 223 7.6 The Being and Non-Being of the Planned and the Lived ........................................... 226 7.7 A Retrospective Conclusion: Understanding Curriculum as Play .............................. 231 Endnotes......................................................................................................................................235 References ...................................................................................................................................246 x Acknowledgements This study could not have been completed without the generous support of many individuals. My deepest gratitude, respect, and warmth go to Dr. Anne Phelan, my supervisor. Her very presence alone holds the transcendental power of leading out, which is education. I feel deeply blessed to work under her profound and artistic supervisionâa profundity I have come to admire ever more deeply through this study, though its full depth remains well beyond my reach. I cannot thank her enough for her thoughtful and perceptive mentorship, intellectual openness and playfulness, gracious and generous support, and unwavering confidence in my potential to achieve the aim of this studyâan aim that carries profound personal meaning beyond the pursuit of a degree. I would also like to express my profound gratitude and respect to Dr. William Pinar for his incisive insights and guidance, which have significantly enriched this study, as well as for his heartening encouragement and generous support, which have meant a great deal to me. His enduring commitment and immense contributions to the field of curriculum studies have been a wellspring of inspiration. My deep gratitude also goes to Dr. Claudia Eppert for her thought-provoking insights. Her feedback on my research proposalâespecially her reminders to ensure methodological rigor, avoid sacrificing depth for breadth, and incorporate more lived experienceâhas inspired me to push boundaries and overcome diverse intellectual barriers. I also wish to express my heartfelt thanks for her warm support, including her introduction to Dr. Marcus Bussey. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Bussey for his kind invitation to contribute to his edited books, as well as for his gracious guidance and encouragement. The conceptual breakthroughs that emerged through these writing processes have contributed meaningfully to xi this study. My deep gratitude extends to Dr. Rajdeep Gill, whose profound and vibrant teaching in Methodologies of Crossing significantly broadened my horizons and laid the foundation for my venture into the realm of transdisciplinarity. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. David Coulter, Drs. Samson Nashon and Samuel Rocha, and Dr. Molly Quinn for their gracious willingness to serve as chair, university examiners, and external examiner on my examining committee. The examining committeeâs penetrating questions and insights have greatly enriched my scholarly perspective. My heartfelt thanks also go to Mr. Alan Jay and Ms. Gina Hiu Lam Wong for their kind and thoughtful administrative support throughout this journey. With heartfelt gratitude and respect, I wish to thank Dharma Master Ru-You (å¦ä½æ³å¸«) and Ling-Yin (ç²ç) for their spiritual inspiration. To me, they each embody the Buddhist ideal of the monastic and lay practitioner. Ling-Yinâs considerate help has gently sustained my cherished connection to Huizhong Temple of Fo Guang Shan (ä½å å±±æ 中寺). I am also deeply grateful to Pa-Ling (ç¶è), who helps keep my bond with Sheng En Temple (èæ©å®®) warmly alive. The warm greetings and occasional photos and videos she shares always rekindle cherished memories of my time with Guanyin Bodhisattva and Miao-Zong Shifu (å¦å®å¸«ç¶), empowering me to move forward fearlessly and steadfastly. Enduring gratitude and deep appreciation go to I-Ching (æç¶) Master Mr. Jun-Hau Lai (è³´ä¿è¯èå¸«) for his compassionate wisdom and insightful guidance, which have supported both my family and me through diverse challenges over the decades. Special thanks and deep appreciation belong to the late Informatics Qigong Master Xue-Zhong Zhao (è¶å­¸å¿ 大師) of the Master Zhao Institute (MZI) for his invaluable teaching and healing, heartwarming encouragement, and prophetic insight, which continue to inspire me. Heartfelt gratitude likewise belongs to Master Sharon Zhao, his wife, whose caring, precise, and xii palpable remote Qigong healing, together with my subsequent participation in the Booster Class, has sustained me in overcoming lingering health challenges and regaining strength. The teachings and healings of both Masters have profoundly deepened my understanding of the mindâbody correlation and of Landauerâs principle, which reveals the physical nature of information. With deep appreciation, I wish to thank my family-like friend, Lina (éºå¨), for her heartwarming support over the years. My heartfelt gratitude also goes to my PhD cohort for their warm and uplifting friendshipâit has been a true privilege to be part of this wonderful group. I would also like to express my warmest gratitude to all friends who have watched over me, waited patiently, and looked forward to the completion of this âslow work, like excavationâ (Doll, 2016, p. 57)âa labour to excavate and crack open Platoâs cave, so that beams of light, however thin, may slip in and the imprisoned may begin to find their way out. Their caring concern, tender understanding, quiet support, and abiding patience during my semi-retreat are deeply appreciated. If, one day, we can all emerge from the caveâand the âmoviesâ on its wallsâand embrace the light, it would be truly wonderful. My infinite love and gratitude belong to my parents. I can never thank them enough for their unwavering love, tender care, steadfast faith, and profound wisdom, which have lovingly carried me through every challenge. Boundless affection and appreciation fill my heart for them. Immense gratitude and warmth also extend to my parents-in-law. I cannot thank them enough for their thoughtful concern and generous support, which have made this study possible. I also wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my siblings and siblings-in-law for their warm support. It is xiii thanks to their loving care for my parents and parents-in-law that I was able to focus on this study. My endless love and gratitude embrace my dearly adored late husband, who, together with my deeply beloved late father and the ever-compassionate Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, continues to safeguard and guide me. Their caring presence, revealed through diverse miraculous divine manifestations, has been a wellspring of awe, wonder, reverence, joy, and insight, gracefully shattering the illusions of naïve realism and scientific naturalism. Lastly, and above all, with deepest gratitude and reverence, I offer my profound homage to the ever-present Holy Ones for their abiding blessings and guidance. xiv Dedication To my dearly beloved mother, for her unwavering love and devout daily prayers. In loving memory of my father and husband, whose enduring love and wisdom continue to surround and guide me. To all courageous, authentic players, of the past, present, and future. 1 Prologue: Religion and Spirituality in Education Religion is a sensitive yet significant topic in educationâtoo sensitive to voice openly, yet too significant to disregard entirely. While serving as a graduate teaching assistant for a postgraduate teacher education course and learning to review teacher candidatesâ weekly responses to course readings, I observed that some students, even when simply wanting to express honestly the profound resonances between the readings and their deeply cherished religious beliefs, would carefully inquire if it was acceptable to discuss their faith. These sincere responses exemplify religion as a meaning system, illustrating its unique capacity to guide the quest for meaning grounded in the mutuality of care, love, reverence, duty, and the acknowledgement of the presence of the transcendent that signifies new possibilities (Huebner, 1985a/1999; Silberman, 2005). On the one hand, I was deeply moved by the profound depth of this course and the professorâs dedicated commitment to infusing the essence of spirituality into the curriculum and pedagogy of this course. This approach, devoid of religious language, gracefully fostered genuine education through heartfelt and heartening conversations. It was a great joy to witness the transformative power of this course, evident in the evolution of studentsâ writings from the beginning to the end of the semester. On the other hand, I also felt a sense of sadness about how religion has become a no-go area in most educational contexts, sometimes seen as a divisive rather than unifying force. Tensions exist not only among different religions and religious denominations but also between religion and science. Religion as a concept has been subject to diverse interpretations. In the academic study of religion, defining this term has been a major methodological concern (Manitoba Education and 2 Training, 2019). In the West, religion is sometimes equated with institutional or organized religion. William James, however, emphasized the distinction between institutional religion and religion in and of itself. He defined religion as âthe feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divineâ (James, 1917, p. 31). James explained that, since this relationship can be moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that theologies, philosophies, and religious institutions can subsequently emerge from this sense of religion. Nowadays, what James referred to as religion is often labeled spirituality. Additionally, religion is generally perceived differently in Eastern and Western cultures. Western religions typically emphasize belief in a personal God or Supreme Being who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (Smith, 1986). This perspective often underscores a personal relationship with God, adherence to divine commandments and revelations, and typically addresses concepts of salvation, sin, and the afterlife within a linear framework of time (Smith, 1986). In contrast, Eastern religions do not necessarily emphasize a personal God but instead tend to offer a more diverse and flexible understanding of deity and ultimate reality, each characterized by unique philosophies, beliefs, and practices. Many Eastern traditions prioritize inner transformation through ethical and meditative practices, incorporating beliefs in karma, reincarnation, and the potential for liberation from samsara (saá¹sÄra)âthe endless cycle of birth, aging, sickness, death, and rebirth across various realms of existence, driven by the accumulation of karma (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Smith, 1986). Some, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, emphasize the primacy of consciousness over matter. In Hinduism, consciousness is represented by concepts of Brahman or Atman, while in Buddhism, it is manifested in concepts 3 such as Storehouse Consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna) or Buddha Nature (TathÄgatagarbha), which serve as the hidden ontological matrix from which the experiential phenomena of self and world dependently co-emerge (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Mackenzie, 2018; Smith, 1986). Similarly, Indigenous religions worldwide exhibit a rich diversity of beliefs, practices, rituals, and cosmologies, shaped by their cultural, social, and environmental contexts. To avoid defining religion as either too exclusive or too inclusive, this study follows the definition provided in the resource document, Grade 12 World of Religions: A Canadian Perspective, published by the Government of Manitoba for an optional multidisciplinary humanities course. This document specifies: As a concept, religion allows us to group, analyze, and understand apparently disparate human phenomena. With this in mind, we may understand a religion as any system of thought, symbol, belief, and action, possessing explanatory power with respect to existential or meaning-making questions, which speak to the foundations of reality, both physical and metaphysical. (Manitoba Education and Training, 2019, p. 15) This understanding of religion highlights its existential significance and explanatory power regarding both the physical and metaphysical foundations of reality, which, in my view, are best comprehended from a transdisciplinary perspective. It also helps explain why some people might perceive science as if it were a religion and even blindly allow it to supplant religion, despite the inherent limitations of science, as will be discussed later in this study. Today, policies regarding religion in education vary widely worldwide due to differences in cultural, legal, and historical contexts. In most developed democracies, however, the separation 4 of religion and state, as well as freedom of religion, has become common (Crocker, 2022). These policies, generally regulated by law, imply state neutrality in religious matters and a secular approach to public education. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada âhas clearly held that the existence of a state-regulated system of education does not interfere with the ability of parents to convey their own religious beliefs to their children,â although the state âhas a right to include in the school curriculum a course that treats religion as an academic subject and presents religion in a comparative mannerâ (Crocker, 2022, p. 76). Likewise, in the United States, the Supreme Courtâs decisions about officially sponsored religious expression in schools consistently draw a distinction between religious activities such as worship or Bible reading, which are designed to inculcate religious sentiments and values, and âteaching about religion,â which is both constitutionally permissible and educationally appropriate. On several occasions, members of the court have suggested that public schools may teach âthe Bible as literature,â include lessons about the role of religion and religious institutions in history or offer courses on comparative religion. (Lupu et al., 2019, Religion in the Curriculum section) Law serves to prevent the dominance of a single religion and avoid the imposition of specific religious values on students. It protects the rights of parents and religious minorities, thereby ensuring freedom of religion and preventing religious discrimination (Crocker, 2022). These principles are especially important for countries that have welcomed large numbers of immigrants, leading to increased racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. However, the law-regulated secular approach does not necessarily eliminate controversy and tension surrounding religious issues in education. 5 In the United States, for example, there have been two opposing viewpoints on religion: one advocating for the restoration of God in the classroom, while the other, especially among certain advocates of science, laments the failure of schools to proclaim the death of God (Noddings, 2008). Beyond these extremes are religious moderates, such as deists, who identify as spiritual but not religious (Noddings, 2008). Such tensions are not uncommon in the Western world. In Canada, according to Crocker (2022), Charter decisions have, on the one hand, reinforced the right to individual religious expression, such as wearing religious symbols and engaging in personal prayer, to protect religious freedom. On the other hand, to prevent religious discrimination, state neutrality is upheld through court-imposed prohibitions on various forms of officially sanctioned religious expression in public institutions and schools. However, as Buckingham (2014) and Crocker (2022) both pointed out, while anti-discrimination legislation may protect religious minorities from overt discrimination and the courts can impose settlements, neither can resolve underlying tensions or quell discriminatory opinions. It is therefore unsurprising to encounter the language of religious tolerance or toleration in the literature. Often, religious toleration signifies âno more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are regarded with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmfulâ (Zagorin, 2003, p. 5). On the individual level, attitudes similar to religious tolerance are also found in the attitudes of certain proponents of science toward religion. The report Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation, authored by Bouchard and Taylor (2008) and published by the government of Quebec, thus âmade a plea to settle disputes through dialogue rather than litigation or 6 legislationâ and âargued for a shift in thinking from multiculturalism (tolerance or acceptance of cultural differences) to interculturalism (integration of cultures)â (Crocker, 2022, p. 16). This report highlights the limitations of legislation and underscores the importance of dialogue and interculturalism. The ideal of interculturalism that accommodates religious diversity in schools is unity through diversity, grounded in respect rather than mere tolerance or acceptance (Crocker, 2022). Clearly, we cannot truly respect something without first understanding it. However, official secularism often leads to a decreased understanding of religions within the population. For example, research has shown that the majority of American teenagers have very limited knowledge of religion, including their own (Noddings, 2008). A limited understanding of religionsâparticularly their commonalities and corresponding scientific foundationsâoften leads to misinterpretations of religious doctrines, both oneâs own and those of others, making interfaith conversations challenging, prejudices difficult to overcome, and unity through diversity an empty ideal. Despite shared doctrines of universal love and compassion, religions can paradoxically foster fragmentation within humanity, sometimes even leading to conflicts or wars. Furthermore, the omission or marginalization of religion in education has left significant existential questionsâsuch as the nature of human existence and reality, as well as the meaning and purpose of lifeâlargely unexplored and unaddressed. The hidden curriculum underlying the secular approach to education implies the incompatibility of religion and science, the irreconcilability of diverse religions, the incredibility of religious doctrines, and the dispensability of religionâas if science alone were sufficient to address profound existential inquiries and the various global crises 7 facing humanity. These assumptions, in my view, have been taken for granted at our peril. This study challenges these assumptions and argues for the indispensability of both transdisciplinarity and spirituality in addressing the aforementioned and other pressing educational issues. Building on an expanded exploration of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, I articulate an understanding of curriculum as play as intrinsic to a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum theorizing. My argument unfolds as follows. 8 Chapter 1: Re-Envisioning Curriculum via Transdisciplinarity and Spirituality 1.1 Introduction This study aims to articulate a conception of curriculum as play. It is motivated by concerns over the dominance of technoscience and the persistent difficulties in communication between existential and scientific traditions within the curriculum field. Recognizing that these challenges possess both historical depth and contemporary relevance, this introductory chapter traces their historical origins, argues for the indispensability of transdisciplinarityâa common axiomatic system that transcends narrow disciplinary worldviewsâand spirituality in addressing these persistent challenges, and, on this basis, envisions a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum theorizing, embodied in a conception of curriculum as play. The argument begins with a historical review of curriculum as a concept, showing how the dominance of technoscience has undermined the ancient meaning of curriculum and the long-standing dialogue between education and religion. I contextualize the predominance of technoscience more broadly within the paradigm warsâintense conflicts between scientific and humanistic approaches to educational research during the 1980sâand the lingering challenge of communication between the scientific and existential traditions. This is followed by a historical tracing of the origin of this challenge, which dates back to the secularization of Western society and the division of knowledge into science and the humanities in the 18th century. To address the break between science and the humanities, I turn to Basarab Nicolescuâs concept of transdisciplinarity. I then argue for the indispensability of a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spiritual wisdom for gaining insight into the nature of human existence and reality, which, in my view, is pivotal to interfaith 9 dialogue, cross-discourse conversation, and the continuous advancement of the curriculum field. Next, I illustrate the educational significance of both transdisciplinarity and spirituality, and envision a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum as a field of study. Lastly, through a concise transdisciplinary review, I demonstrate the educational significance of play and illuminate its transdisciplinary relevance and spiritual profundity. This trajectory shapes this studyâs threefold argumentative structure, progressing from transdisciplinarity to spirituality, and finally to play, as it moves toward an understanding of curriculum as play. 1.2 Concepts of Curriculum: A Brief Historical Review Curriculum as a contemporary field of study is often considered to have emerged in 1918 with the publication of The Curriculum by U.S. scholar Franklin Bobbitt, a book that grew out of the increasing interest in curriculum matters in the U.S. since the publication of the Yale Report in 1828 (Pinar et al., 1995; Hua & Gao, 2014). The concept of curriculum, nonetheless, has far earlier origins with diverse meanings in different regions of the world (Hamilton, 1989). For instance, in ancient China, ke-cheng (èª²ç¨, the Chinese term for curriculum) first appears as early as in the Tang Dynasty (618â907)1 in the prominent Confucian philosopher Kong Yingdaâs (å­ç©é) annotation of the Book of Songs, or Classic of Poetry (è©©ç¶, the oldest extant Chinese classic of poetry), originally related to the temple, signifying great cause, great contribution, cosmic order, and moral order, and encompassing all the great undertakings in society rather than merely the school curriculum (Hua & Gao, 2014). In association with the temple metaphor, the original meaning of curriculum in ancient China is of spiritual wisdom. It was not until the Song Dynasty (AD 960â1127) that the conception of ke-cheng (curriculum), as elaborated by the significant Confucian scholar Zhu Xi (æ±ç¹), was largely limited to school curriculum (Hua & 10 Gao, 2014). In Europe, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) locates the earliest source of âcurriculumâ in the records of the University of Glasgow for 1633 and, according to the 19th-century reprint of OED, this word was expressed in a form promulgated soon after the reform of this university by Protestants in 1577 (Hamilton, 1989). Besides, in the reprinted material related to other Scottish and North European universities, the word âcurriculumâ was found in the 1582 records of the University of Leiden. The connection between the two institutions is that both were heavily influenced by Calvinism (Reformed Protestantism, or Reformed Christianity); also, Leiden was founded in 1575 specifically for training Protestant preachers, and Glasgowâs reform in 1577 was intended to meet similar purposes (Hamilton, 1989). Hamilton (1989) indicated that the correlation between Protestantism, Calvinism, and curriculum âseems to relate to the spread of new assumptions about the efficiency of schooling in particular and the efficiency of society in generalâ (p. 44). While the European medieval curriculum simply referred to the entire multi-year course to be followed and completed by students and was relatively open to negotiation regarding the sequence, length, and completion, Hamilton (1989) remarked that the emergence of curriculum had already brought a great sense of control to both learning and teaching. In The Curriculum, Bobbitt discussed curriculum making, educational experiences, and occupational efficiency that reflected the tenets of efficiency and standardization of scientism and industrialism (Null, 2008). The tenor of that time was vividly illustrated in Herbert Spencerâs answers to the question of the worthiest knowledge, a question that would later be referred to as the key curriculum question: To the questionâ¦ What Knowledge is of most worth? âthe uniform reply isâScience. This is the verdict on all counts. 11 For direct self-preservation â¦ Science. For gaining a livelihood â¦ Science. For parental functions â¦ Science. For good citizenship â¦ Science. For the enjoyment of art â¦ Science. For the purposes of discipline â¦ Science. Science â¦ is the best preparation for all these orders of activity. (Spencer, 1859/1929, as cited in Doll, 1993, p. 1) The answers, âScience, Science, Science, ...â mirror the foundation of a paradigm on which American intellectual, social, and educational thought was built during the first seven or eight decades of the 20th century (Doll, 1993). Science, however, was born from a violent break with ancient spiritual traditions (Nicolescu, 2014b; Wallerstein, 1999). It rejected the unobservable spiritual truths and founded itself on the surprising ideaâfor that era when the Western metaphor of the world was Godâs creationâof a full separation between the knowing subject and reality, which was assumed to be completely independent of the knower (Nicolescu, 2014b; Thompson 2023; Van der Veken, 1999). The premise of the mutual independence of subject and object and the establishment of objectivity as the supreme criterion of truth have led to an inevitable consequence: the transformation of the subject into an objectâthe divine human-God becomes a human-objectâexploitable and manipulatable, in the name of effectiveness (Nicolescu, 1996/2002, 2014b). That is to say, the price we pay for objective knowledge and its effectivity is the death of the subject and its affectivity, the result of which can only be self-destructive (Nicolescu, 1996/2002, 2014b). Robert Musil2 (1880â1942) expressed a similar concern in 1914, noting that the First World War had become possible because the dominant 12 ideologies of his time no longer articulated inwardnessâthe unique lived experience of individuals (Pinar, 2015). With an exaggerated trust in science and the intentional efforts to distance the educational works from its origins in Christianity, primarily Protestantism, in the US, the place of religious traditions in education was gradually replaced by scientific and technical enterprises (Doll, 1993; Huebner, 1985b/1999). After World War II, the existential inquiries about the meaning and significance of life increasingly gave way to technical questions of objectives, behavior, and control (Huebner, 1985b/1999). Underlying scientific curriculum making since Bobbitt has been a technocratic worldview that sees the natural world and human beings as usable resources and a submerged ideology that upholds the high survival value and functional utility of knowledge to the neglect of spiritual wisdom and intellectual virtuesâcurriculum became a mere survival kit in the service of the economy and global competitiveness (Kliebard, 1975; Miller, 2002; Smith, 2000). Ironically, the upholding of scientific objectivity and survival value of knowledge to the neglect of subjectivity, affectivity, and spirituality, after all, only fuels the devastation rather than the survival of humankind on Earth. As the Canadian philosopher of technology Ursula Franklin remarked, âthe language of global competitiveness is the language of warâ (Smith, 2000, p. 18). According to The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, in World War II (1939â1945), the last global conflict, an estimated 30 million military personnel and 30 million civilians were killed; and âsince 1946, approximately 137 wars have been fought, with not a single day in which there was not a state of war somewhere. Over 85 nations have been involvedâ, and from 1946 to 2021, âover 17 million civilians have been killed, namely 50% of the World War II total, and as many as 30 million deaths in totalâ (âWar,â 2021, para. 4). The 13 world massacres of the last century, along with ongoing local conflictsâincluding the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas warsâmay be only a prelude to irreversible global self-destruction. Yet, mass killing is not limited to human beings. According to Roser (2023), approximately 900,000 cows are slaughtered dailyâenough to form a line 1,800 kilometers long if placed end to endâwhile an even more staggering 202 million chickens (about 140,000 per minute) and an estimated hundreds of millions of fish are killed each day. Numb to feeling, alienated from experience, and unaware of the divinity both within and without, human beings can become insane and inhuman in the absence of spiritual wisdom and self-knowledge. Indeed, nuclear war is far from inconceivable (Murillo & Pinar, 2019). Pinar (2019), echoing George Grant, appreciated that âfor humanityâs survivalâpolitical, cultural, ecologicalâreturning education to its sacred calling was, for Grant, urgentâ (p. x). Expressing concern about how the spiritual is denied in everything, Huebner (1985b/1999) noted that while âthe links of education with science and with the political-economic-social structures obviously are extremely necessary and vitalâ, it is vital that âthe long-standing dialogue between the traditions of education and religion is not â¦ replacedâ (p. 341). While the questions of values and ends could not be entirely suppressed, he observed that since the 1960s, when existential concerns about moral and spiritual values were articulated, they were often cloaked in scientific or developmental language or displaced by new and different questions. For instance, in the book Readings in Values Clarification (1973), Simon skillfully used the educatorsâ commitment to techno-scientific methods to raise concerns about the clarification of value (Huebner, 1985b/1999). Similarly, Doll (1993) drew on post-modern epistemology originating from new sciences, specifically chaos and complexity theories, to articulate a concept of 14 knowing as a process of becoming rather than a discovery of being. Huebner (1985b/1999) himself, inspired by the title of a chapter in a National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, explored the relationship between spirituality and knowing in place of religion and education. By contrasting inert or deadened knowledge, separated from the dynamism and vitality of life, with various modes of knowing in the eternal cycle of openness, love, hope, and co-creation of the world of self and others, he illustrated a hidden dimension of human existence that is more than the material, the sensory, and the quantitative, and is full of transcending possibilities and suffused with the spiritual. These cloaked existential concerns took on various guises and initiated decades of re-contemplation and re-articulation of answers to the curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth? These profound existential concerns, which challenge the dominance of scientific discourses, characterize a significant conceptual revolution in the contemporary curriculum field. Over the past one hundred years, the U.S. curriculum field has evolved through several historical moments: 1) the fieldâs inauguration and paradigmatic stabilization as curriculum development (1918â1969); 2) the fieldâs reconceptualization (1969â1980) from curriculum development to curriculum studies, an interdisciplinary academic field paradigmatically organized around understanding curriculum (1980â2001); and 3) most recently, the fieldâs internationalization (2001â). (Pinar, 2014, p. 521) In the meantime, since 1995, the U.S. field (and increasingly the Canadian field) is dominated by identity politics (Pinar, 2013, 2014). The move from curriculum development (scientific tradition) to understanding curriculum (existential tradition) is a collective attempt to âtake backâ 15 curriculum from its institutionalization and bureaucratization, to make the curriculum field itself both a conversation that is complicated and open-ended, and a site for ongoing conversation, where generations of people work to explore and understand themselves and the world (Pinar et al., 1995). The reconceived concept of curriculum as currereâthe running of the course, wherein curriculum as complicated conversation is enacted and experienced (Pinar, 2012, 2015)âfor Doll (2012), is vital, dynamic, and alive, and âis infused with, indeed is permeated with spiritâ (p. 167). The move from curriculum development to understanding curriculum thus can well be understood as a collaborative endeavour to inspirit or enliven the moribund curriculum field by putting it back into the eternal cycle of co-creation that is suffused with the spiritual and full of transcending possibilities (Doll, 2012; Huebner, 1976/1999). This move also reflects a shift of the concept of curriculum: âfrom curriculum as exclusively school materials to curriculum as symbolic representationâ (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 16). The latter ârefers to those institutional and discursive practices, structures, images, and experiences that can be identified and analyzed in various waysâ (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 16), including understanding curriculum âhistorically, politically, racially, autobiographically or biographically, aesthetically, theologically, institutionally and internationally, as well as in terms of gender, phenomenology, postmodernism, and poststructuralismâ (Pinar, 2008, p. 493). This move, therefore, is also a turn toward the ancient meaning of curriculum found in the Tang Dynasty of Chinaâa far-reaching hermeneutics of spiritual wisdom in relation to curriculum that encompasses all the great undertakings in society. 16 1.3 A Tough Barrier to Cross-Discourse Communication The paradigm shift from curriculum development to understanding curriculum is also a move from âa paradigmatic unityâTylerian Rationaleâto particularismâthe various contemporary discoursesâ; and âthis proliferation of discourses can be traced to the vacuum created by the collapse of the Tyler Rationaleââin this vacuum, scholars turned to other fields as new sources of theories (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 849). The proliferation of discourses during and after reconceptualization has successfully contributed to the curriculum field by giving it a distinct and coherent character; this shift of paradigm, however, did not occur painlessly (Pinar et al., 1995). It involved what Gage (1989) described as the paradigm warsâintense conflicts between scientific (positivist) and humanistic (interpretivist, anti-naturalist, and critical-theoretical) approaches to educational research during the 1980s. On the one hand, as reflected in the themes and research interests of AERA conferences, it is evident that understanding curriculum has surpassed curriculum development globally, and over the course of reconceptualization, the research area of curriculum development has also been reconceptualized both thematically and functionally (Pinar et al., 1995; Pinar, 2014). Instead of focusing on âdevising schemes for improving the procedures of curriculum development, much contemporary scholarship labors to understand how curriculum is developed, from the domain of policy, to planning and implementation, to teaching, and to evaluation and supervisionâ, and thus the âscholarship in this area can now be characterized as laboring to understand curriculum as institutional textâ (Pinar et al., 1995, pp. 790â791). On the other hand, âdespite its intellectual fate, versions of Tylerâs protocol remain in wide circulation in U.S. public schoolâ (Pinar, 2014, p. 521). Moreover, there remain curriculum 17 scholars holding firm to systematic curriculum developmentâthey simply âsee no problem with extending Tylerâs paradigm, and they see no need for it to be reformulated or rejectedâ (Null, 2008, p. 488). Curriculum development also continues âto be used widely not only in mathematics and science education, but also within literature and the humanities generallyâ and âcontinues to play a prominent role in professional fields outside of education, especially nursing and medicineâ (Null, 2008, pp. 488â489). Null (2008) observed that âthere exists considerable unease about the foundations upon which curriculum development has been builtâ and âcurriculum development is consistently criticized, yet it thrivesâ (p. 489). Associating curriculum development with modern science, Null (2008) stated, âCurriculum development will be around as long as modern science is aroundâ (p. 489) and noted that âcritical discussions about modern science take place each day, but we continue to benefit from modern science in many ways. Curriculum development is part of this larger appreciation for scienceâ (p. 489). Acknowledging the value of both understanding curriculum and curriculum development (and other curriculum traditions), Null called for placing these traditions into proper perspective. More than two decades earlier, Pinar et al. (1995) observed that the reconceived curriculum field, as a hybrid interdisciplinary area of theories, research, and institutional practices, has exhibited itself as distinctive and coherent, although it remained balkanized and particularized and there were problems of cross-discourse communication. Fifteen years later, Malewski (2010), however, described the curriculum field as more discontinuous and fractured than continuous and coherent. While particularization, in my view, is not something to be overcome, the challenge of cross-discourse communication has weakened the intellectual strength and political significance of the curriculum field as a discipline and hindered its further advancementâ 18 especially given that the curriculum field is to be understood not only as a site for ongoing conversation but also as a conversation in itself (Pinar, 2007; Pinar et al., 1995). One of the toughest barriers to cross-discourse communication, as shown earlier, lies between the scientific and existential discoursesâa difficulty that is part of a global intellectual issue originating from the rejection of religion as both the good and the true, and the ensuing division of knowledge into science (the true) and philosophy (the good) (Wallerstein, 1999). 1.4 The Rejection of Religion and the Division of Knowledge Wallerstein (1999) traced the two-step process of this division back to the secularization of Western society in the 18th century. The first step, resulting from the rejection of theology as the dominant mode of knowledge, was the replacement of theology by philosophy, priests by rational men, and God by human beings as the source of knowledge. This replacement represents a shift in the locus of the authorities who could proclaim the validity of knowledge. Then, those who regarded philosophy as merely a variant of theology insisted on the requirement of evidence derived from the empirical study of reality, and such evidence became the basis of another form of knowledge, called science. The underlying logic of this division of knowledge is the separation of the true from the goodâscientists claimed, with some disdain, that they would only ascertain what was true, leaving the search for the good to philosophers and theologians (Wallerstein, 1999). In the 18th century, the âprotagonists of âscienceâ were openly rejecting âphilosophyâ as merely deductive speculation, and proclaiming that their form of knowledge was the only rational formâ (Wallerstein, 1999, p. 72). Philosophy has been relegated to the search for the good (and the beautiful), while science has held the monopoly on the search for the true (Wallerstein, 1999)âeven though later history has proven that scientific theories are not always 19 true. Adhering to the Newtonian view of world-as-machine and rejecting the possibility of knowledge of unobservable objectsâalthough Newton himself included the divine will in his theory, rejected the clockwork metaphor, and warned against seeing the universe as a mere machine; i.e., Newton himself rejected the so-called Newtonian worldviewâthis branch of thought, formally founded and named by Auguste Comte as positivism, developed into a distinctive movement in the 1830s (Davis, 1991; Nickle, 2005; Sullivan, 2009). According to Wallerstein (1999), the division between science and philosophy (or, more broadly, the humanities) created certain difficulties, especially in the development of social science in the 19th century. Those who leaned toward the humanities and adopted the idiographic epistemology âemphasized the particularity of all social phenomena, the limited utility of all generalizations, the need for empathetic understandingâ (p. 75). The others, leaning toward the natural sciences and embracing the nomothetic epistemology, âemphasized the logical parallel between human processes and all other material processesâ and âsought to join physics in the search for universal, simple laws that held across time and spaceâ (p. 75). Like being tied to two horses galloping in opposite directions, social sciences were torn apart. While this difficulty was kept in check for around 200 years, it was exacerbated by the overwhelming dominance of natural science and began to haunt us in the last few decades of the 20th century. It was only later, with the progress of science and the corresponding emergence of complexity studies (from the natural sciences) and cultural studies (from the humanities)âboth of which challenged the dominance of natural science based on Newtonian mechanics and seek to open up the closed system of knowledge to new possibilitiesâthat this tension was eventually alleviated (Wallerstein, 1999). This tension and its subsequent alleviation were also reflected in the field of curriculum. 20 Wallerstein (1999) saw in this trend the potential for reintegrating knowledge of the true and the good, and noted that resolving the challenges stemming from this division of knowledge constitutes the primary intellectual task of our time. 1.5 Divergent Worldviews and the Necessity of Transdisciplinarity The two-step process of the division of knowledge reveals how, at the core of numerous intellectual debates since the secularization of society, lies the controversy over the credibility of spiritual wisdom. The rejection of spiritual wisdom has led to the divergence of worldviews, both in society and in the intellectual fields of science and philosophy. In the field of curriculum, existential discourses often have their origins in philosophies. However, for those who are skeptical and insist that scientific evidence is the only criterion for the validity of knowledge in all fields, existential discourses may be seen as mere deductive speculations and not necessarily consistent with each other. For instance, molecular biologist and neuroscientist Francis Crick (the 1962 Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule), in reference to consciousness studies, once stated: âNo longer need one spend time attempting â¦ to endure the tedium of philosophers perpetually disagreeing with each other. Consciousness is now largely a scientific problemâ (as cited in Noë, 2010, p. 6). While Crick's assertion may reflect overconfidence in science, his reaction to philosophies and philosophers is not without foundation. In 2014, a survey of the philosophical views (on 30 central philosophical issues) of contemporary professional philosophers (931 philosophy faculty members from 99 different institutions, mostly in English-speaking countries) revealed that âthere is famously no consensus on the answers to most major philosophical questionsâ (Bourget & Chalmers, 2014, p. 492) and that âphilosophers as a whole have quite inaccurate beliefs about the distribution of philosophical 21 views in the professionâ (p. 465). Nonetheless, this does not mean that the views of scientists are always credible and uncontroversial. In the history of science, almost every branch of science has a long list of superseded theories, and due to the inherent limitations of the scientific method, there are still numerous phenomena that science cannot explain well, including consciousness. Noë (2010), an American philosopher whose research focuses on the theory of perception and consciousness, refuted Crickâs idea of âyou are your brainâ or âconsciousness is the phenomenon of the brainâ (p. 64), arguing that âCrick and other neuroscientists have simply taken a specific family of philosophical assumptions for granted, so much so that their own reliance on them has become all but invisible to themselvesâ (p. 6). He argued that while it is true that the problem of consciousness is now a problem for science, âthis does not mean that it is no longer a problem for philosophyâ (p. 6). After all, despite the methodological and philosophical differences, the goals of science and philosophy remain the same: âTo achieve understanding of the problems that matter to usâ (Noë, 2010, p. 6). Noëâs arguments make it clear that breaking the impasse in communication between the scientific and existential traditions requires a transdisciplinary conceptual framework. This framework must not only identify and accommodate the variousâsometimes hidden, vague, or contradictoryâphilosophical assumptions underlying both branches of thought but also facilitate intelligible and meaningful engagement between these contradictory discourses. The concept of transdisciplinarity, which has also been influenced by the dominance of technoscience, has remained diverse and controversial since its emergence in 1970. Here, transdisciplinarity is understood âas a common system of axioms that transcends the narrow scope of disciplinary worldviews through an overarching synthesisâ (Klein, 2010, p. 24). It âconcerns that which is at 22 once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledgeâ (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 39). As a conceptual tool, it is capable of producing interlanguages (Klein, 2010). In Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, Basarab Nicolescu (1996/2002), theoretical physicist and founder of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and Studies (CIRET), outlined three axioms of transdisciplinarity that determine the methodology of transdisciplinarity: 1. The ontological axiom: There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality of the Object and, correspondingly, different levels of Reality of the Subject. 2. The logical axiom: The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of the included middle. 3. The epistemological axiom: The structure of the totality of levels of Reality is a complex structure: every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time. (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 191) Nature, as defined by Nicolescu (1996/2002), has three aspects: Objective Nature, Subjective Nature, and Trans-Nature. Trans-Nature, also called the Hidden Third, is vital to transdisciplinarity as it plays an interactive role of a third between and beyond all levels of Reality of the Subject and the Object, allowing the open unification of multiple levels of Reality while preserving their differences (Nicolescu, 2010, 2014b). Nicolescu (2010) indicated that the Hidden Third corresponds to the domain of the sacred and appears as a source of new knowledge and experiences (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion). Among the three axioms, the ontological axiom that acknowledges the multidimensionality of Reality and the Hidden Third is 23 pivotal in that it makes the logic of the included middle a true and non-contradictory multivalent logic and renders the totality of levels of Reality a multi-referential complex structure. Unlike the binary subjectâobject dichotomy inherent in naïve realism3 and implicit in scientific realism4, and unlike scientific naturalism5, which excludes the hidden ontological background beyond the phenomenal and thus negates the domain of the sacred (see Section 1.6), the methodology of transdisciplinarity, by recovering the place of the Hidden Third, restores both the sacred and the interconnectedness of all levels of Reality (Nicolescu, 2010, 2014b). This ternary structure of reality requires a new logic. In contrast to classical binary logic, which confines itself to the same single level of reality and produces the appearance of antagonistic and mutually exclusive pairs (A and non-A), the logic of the included middle, by including a third state T (at another level of reality) that is at the same time A and non-Aâas seen in phenomena such as quantum superposition and whole-parts biological complementarity in complex systems (see Chapter 5 for details)âis capable of inducing an open and coherent structure of the unity of reality (Nicolescu, 2014b; Theise & Kafatos, 2016). This open unity is complemented by complex plurality. The coexistence of open unity and complex plurality gives rise to a new Principle of Relativity: there is no privileged level of reality from which all other levels of reality can be understood (Nicolescu, 2014b). The reduction of the spiritual level to the level of the psyche, the psyche to the biological, or the biological to the physical is therefore incompatible with transdisciplinarity (Nicolescu, 2014a). By replacing reduction with a non-hierarchical principle of relativity, and the classical conflict-laden binary logic with a non-contradictory ternary logic, a transdisciplinary framework allows for new interpretations of old knowledge and new ways of exploring knowledge about the self 24 and the world that create a new equilibrium. Transdisciplinarity, as formulated by Nicolescu, is therefore not only trans-disciplinary but also trans-rational, trans-personal, trans-religious, trans-cultural, trans-political, and trans-national. It is in this framework that new perspectives and knowledge in religion, education, science, technology, art, politics, and social life emerge. Transdisciplinarity is thus what makes interfaith dialogue and the intercultural ideal of unity through diversity possible. Moreover, since the interior and the exterior are, in Nicolescuâs (2014b) transdisciplinary vision, two facets of the same experiential phenomenon, openly unified by the Hidden Third, âwhen our perspective on the world changes, the world changesâ (p. 192). Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity is elaborated in Chapters 2 and 3. In the current curriculum field, the problem of communication between scientific and existential traditions seems to persist. For example, STEAM represents a well-known interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary alignment within the curriculum, encompassing Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics. Burnard et al. (2021), however, pointed out that it is built on the economic drivers that characterize STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), and adding the arts to STEM (as its handmaiden) is often seen as further diminishing the arts in the curriculum. In other areas of curriculum research, the importance of ternary thinkingâas reflected in concepts such as the in-between, third space, hybrid space, conversation, and playâhas been well recognized. However, the simultaneous antagonistic and complementary interplay between existential and curricular dyadsâsuch as duality vs. non-duality, self vs. non-self, certainty vs. uncertainty, scientific inquiry vs. existential inquiry, rational analysis vs. meditative insight, and the planned vs. the livedâremains not fully engaged 25 within a transdisciplinary framework, thereby undermining its rational intelligibility, existential profundity, and educational potentiality. The foregoing glimpse into transdisciplinarity reveals that lucid, non-contradictory, and fruitful ternary thinking requires the logic of the included middle, which, in turn, necessitates the recognition of the Hidden Third, the multidimensionality of Reality, and the coexistence of open unity and complex plurality of reality. As long as we continue to deny or ignore the Hidden Third, confine ourselves to a single level of reality, lose sight of the open unity in diversity, and adhere to classical binary logic, genuine ternary thinking will remain unattainable. Consequently, we will be mired in endless polemical or conflicting dyads and can, at best, reach only a frustrating compromise. As Nicolescu (1996/2002) elucidated: When we locate ourselves on one specific level of Reality, we are fatally caught within an endless chain of binary opposites: we are obliged to be for or against. The reconciliation on one and the same level of Reality between âforâ and âagainstâ is impossible: at most, one arrives at a compromise that takes into account only part of the arguments for and part of those against, thus leaving both sides frustrated. Compromise can only be unstable: it is always a more or less long-term situation and it inevitably engenders a new pair of âforâ and âagainstâ opposites. (p. 87) The recognitionâor, if preferred, rejectionâof the methodology of transdisciplinarity, particularly its inclusion of the Hidden Third, should nonetheless be grounded in a well-founded understanding of human nature and reality, supported by rigorous reasoning and robust evidence. Although Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity was proposed as early as 1996, it was, regrettably, outright rejected and marginalized by certain proponents of science at the Zurich 26 Conference in 2000 (see Chapter 2). Given that the inclusion of the Hidden Thirdâa domain corresponding to the sacredâis the key element that distinguishes transdisciplinary realism from the dominant scientific worldview, its undeniable presence and its correspondence with the Divine are demonstrated in Chapter 3. Only when science and the humanities reach a certain degree of consensus on the nature of human existence and realityâwith mutually agreeable ontological, logical, and epistemological axiomsâcan the methodology of transdisciplinarity be fully appreciated and applied, the difficulties caused by the division of knowledge be overcome, and coherent transdisciplinary knowledge systems be developed. 1.6 Worthiest Knowledge and the Indispensability of Spirituality The division of knowledge, as illustrated above, has significantly complicated the key curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth? This canonical question continually prompts us to identify threads of continuity over time and determine what is at stake in any given historical and biographical moment (Huebner, 1967/1999; Pinar, 2019). Our responses to this question not only shape our engagement in the complicated conversation that is the curriculum but also serve as a guide, directing us toward the next project we must undertake (Pinar, 2019). Pinar (2007, 2019) has emphasized that this question is both a call to contemplation and a call to arms; it is an ethical, political, and planetary inquiry that invites openness and demands sustainability. In my contemplation, this question is equivalent to asking what knowledge is of most worth for humans as beings-in-the-world.6 This expanded question highlights the need to investigate the nature of human existence and realityâparticularly their interrelationshipâbefore addressing curricular questions. Questions about human nature and reality, however, as will be discussed later, cannot be fully answered by science alone, due to the inherent limitations of the scientific method. If our 27 understanding of human nature and reality is, unfortunately, based on fundamentally misguided premises, we risk losing sight of the deeper meaning of human life and the essence and purpose of educationâand may consequently steer human civilization and the planet toward a regrettable situation, if not extinction. Transdisciplinary knowledge of the nature of human existence and realityâor more precisely, self-knowledge in its broadest sense, encompassing both the general (the nature of human existence and reality; existential self-understanding) and the specific (oneâs own mentality; introspective self-awareness) (Gertler, 2021)âis, therefore, in my view, knowledge that is of most worth. Although these two dimensions of self-knowledge are inseparable and continually inform and enrich one another, the general dimensionâbroadly speakingâidentifies the commonalities across diverse disciplinary and spiritual traditions, while the specific dimension calls for individuals to attend to differencesâboth among these traditions and within themselvesâin discerning the nuances of doctrines, methods, practices, and pathways that best correspond to their unique predispositions, areas of focus, and stage of progress in fostering meaningful and transformative self-knowing. Given that our understanding of human nature and reality profoundly influences our mentalityâand shapes how we interpret experience, cultivate self-awareness, engage in self-inquiry, construct meaning, and respond to the worldâthis study underscores the importance of the general dimension of self-knowledge in fostering meaningful self-knowing. Without an appreciation of this foundational dimension, self-knowing may not lead to genuine transformation, as it can remain entangled in ego-centered afflictions rooted in dualismâa danger Pinar and Grumet (in press) cautioned against.7 28 Throughout human history, rich and profound spiritual wisdom concerning the nature of human existence and reality has been carefully preserved within various religious traditions. Spiritual wisdom, however, as previously discussed, was gradually dismissed by proponents of science in the 18th and 19th centuries, as classical science gained prominence in Western society. Over the past 300 years, however, physics has progressed from classical to relativistic to quantum physics, and is now advancing toward a unified theory. This progress reveals how the everyday phenomenal world is a deft master of disguise (Greene, 2004). Unlike the classical Newtonian worldview, which declares space and time to be absolute and immutable entities that give the universe a rigid and unchangeable scaffold, Einstein depicted a relativistic reality where the structures of space and time are flexible and dynamic; quantum mechanics reveals a reality that remains in a state of ambiguity until measured, and in quantum reality, spatial separation does not necessarily imply physical independence; besides, all accepted and known physical laws show no asymmetry of the arrow of timeâall these laws treat each direction in time, forward or backward, without distinction; moreover, superstring theory claims that particles are not concrete dots but rather tiny vibrating filaments of energy with unique resonant frequencies, and for the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the unified reality requires a total of eleven spacetime dimensions; superstring theory also naturally incorporates the holographic principle, which proposes that everything we experience in the phenomenal world is nothing more than a holographic projection (Chu, 2019; Greene, 2004; Susskind, 2008). Furthermore, Landauerâs principle, which suggests the physical nature of information, has been experimentally confirmed in both classical and quantum systems, leading to the proposal of the mass-energy-information equivalence principle (Esposito, 2018; Landauer, 1961, 1996; Vopson, 2019, 2021, 29 2022, 2023b). In Greeneâs (2004) words, âthe explorations [of the cosmos] have far to go, but to many it feels as though our species is finally reaching childhoodâs endâ (p. 22). As humanity approaches the end of its intellectual childhood (Greene, 2004), a growing number of people, including scientists, have noticed that breakthroughs across various branches of science have uncovered hidden aspects of reality that strikingly resonate with spiritual wisdom. This includes Buddhist doctrines such as the emptiness or lack of intrinsic nature of all phenomena, the ontological non-duality of subject and object, and the primacy of consciousness over matter (Chu, 2019). For example, quantum mechanics reveals that âno phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenonâ (Wheeler, 1979, as cited in Kok, 2023, p. 8). The classical concept of intrinsic properties of physical phenomena is therefore no longer valid in quantum physics (Kok, 2023). It is âour act of making a measurementâasking a questionâ[that] brings physical properties into reality. We, as observers, are fundamentally instrumental in determining what reality looks likeâ (Kok, 2023, p. 264). The recent MIT experimentâa highly refined double-slit setup using single atoms as slits and weak laser beams to scatter individual photonsâeventually settled the debate between Einstein and Bohr and further confirmed that quantum entities acquire definite properties only upon measurement, thus undermining classical notions of intrinsic physical properties (Chu, 2025; Fedoseev et al., 2025). While the absence of intrinsic properties alone is sufficient to challenge the classical concept of matter, quantum field theories tend to go further and deprive particles of intrinsic existence (Bitbol, 2008). This raises the question of âin which sense matter can reasonably be taken as the basis of everything else including consciousnessâ (Bitbol, 2008, p. 67). Although interpretations of quantum physics are numerous, and many physicists downplay its philosophical implications, 30 preferring to follow David Merminâs advice to âjust shut up and calculate!â (Kok, 2023, p. 274), several eminent physicists, such as Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Arthur Eddington, and Julian Huxley, have argued for the primacy of consciousness over matter, asserting that consciousness is fundamental (Irwin et al., 2020). These resonances between new science and spiritual wisdom suggest that spiritual wisdom may not be merely deductive speculation, but instead reflects profound meditative insights and direct experiences of the ultimate nature of human existence and realityâinsights that transcend ordinary perception and the current scope of science (see Chapters 3 and 4). Consciousness, in the early 1990s, was still largely considered a taboo subject by most scientists (Goguen, 2003). By the early 2000s, however, it had come to be regarded by many as the most significant unsolved problem in science. Consciousness studies rapidly evolved into a highly interdisciplinary field, marked by the formation of professional societies, the launch of numerous journals and specialized conferences, and the introduction of advanced degree programs in consciousness studies at universities around the world (Goguen, 2003). Given the importance of consciousness in various religious traditionsâsuch as God Consciousness in the Protestant theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christ Consciousness in certain Christian sects, Cosmic Consciousness in Hinduism (particularly VedÄnta), Pure Consciousness in Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism, and Storehouse Consciousness in the YogÄcÄra (Consciousness-Only) tradition of Buddhismâconsciousness has been central to dialogues between science and religion (Chu, 2019; Goguen, 2003). To date, however, there remains no single dominant view or widely accepted theory of consciousness. 31 Currently, scientific naturalismâcomprising physicalism (a form of materialism that incorporates theories from physics) as its ontological component, and the scientific method as its methodological componentâhas remained the dominant force in science, philosophy, and literature, as well as at the core of dominant worldviews since the 1950s (Bourget & Chalmers, 2023; Kim, 2003; Pradhan, 2020; Prado, 2006; Thompson, 2023). In the 19th century, although non-physical forcesâsuch as mental, vital, supernatural forces, and those attributed to deitiesâremained widely accepted, the scientific discovery of the conservation of energy (later revised to the conservation of mass-energy following the discovery of mass-energy equivalence) and subsequent debates on its implications eventually led to doubts about these forces and calls for their scientific investigation (Papineau, 2023). In the 1950s, when the concept of causal closure of the natural world led to full-fledged physicalism, philosophers began to make arguments in favor of physicalism (Papineau, 2023). The metaphysical thesis of physicalism is âthat everything that exists, including the mind, is completely physical in its nature and constitutionâ (Thompson, 2023). Naturalistsâ stance is often aligned with scientific realism, which in general terms is the position that science aims to provide a literally true description of reality and that the reality it investigates has a mind-independent existence (Thompson, 2023). In contrast to supernaturalists and proponents of religious worldviews, hardcore naturalistsâwho adhere strictly to the principles of mass-energy conservation and causal closureâlargely deny transempirical substance and ultimate reality (e.g., Kantian noumena, Hegelian Absolute), refute the existence of divine and supernatural forces, reject all forms of idealism, uphold the existential and causal primacy of matter, equate mental states with brain states, and insist that the scientific method is the only valid means of acquiring knowledge in all domains, including consciousness (Kim, 2003; Papineau, 2023; Thompson, 2023). 32 The major problem with the naturalistic third-person approach to consciousness is that certain mental phenomena, such as subjectivity and qualia, elude objective scientific explanation due to their lack of intersubjective observability or confirmability (Kim, 2003; Pradhan, 2020). Additionally, naturalism cannot explain intentionality, which gives rise to meaning (Pradhan, 2020). Chalmers (1996) has famously referred to the problem of consciousness that takes into account subjectivity and phenomenal experience as the hard problem of consciousness, and the problem that can be solved objectively and scientifically as the easy problem. For Chalmers, the scientific third-person solution to consciousness is a flawed easy way out because it reduces consciousness to something that is not consciousness and will eventually confront the hard problem. He argued that consciousness, in its subjective and first-person character, cannot be reduced to anything else (Chalmers, 1996; Pradhan, 2020). The inherent limitations of naturalism underscore the indispensability of spiritual wisdomâarising from non-objectifying meditative insights and first-person direct experiences of the ultimate nature of realityâfor a comprehensive understanding of consciousness. The above exploration makes it clear that while scientific naturalists may expect that science alone will one day unravel the mysteries of consciousnessâmysteries closely related to the nature of human existence and realityâthat day may never come, particularly if science continues to ignore its own blind spot: experience. In their book The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (2024), astrophysicist Adam Frank, theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser, and philosopher Evan Thompson called attention to how we have neglected the place of human experience at our peril, and called for a revolution in scientific worldview in 33 which the subjective lived experience of humanity is an inescapable part of science in the pursuit of objective truth. As they observed, in attempting to understand reality solely from an objective perspective, we inevitably lose sight of the necessity of experienceâthis, they argued, is the blind spot that lies behind various scientific conundrums. Taking a scientific anti-realist stance, they proposed a new vision of scientific culture that invites us to see scientific knowledge not as absolute knowledge of a mind-independent reality, but as a highly refined self-correcting narrative that emerges from the co-evolving of the world and our experience of it. This fundamental circularity between the world and our experience of it, or between science and experience, as Thompson (2023) illuminated, is âthe (transcendental) fact that lived experience and our epistemic practices, including science, arise out of an inexhaustible and nonobjectifiable background, which scientific naturalism overlooks and cannot properly account forâ (p. 78). Here, like Nicolescu, Thompson pointed to a hidden ontological backgroundâa transcendental aspect of realityâwhich scientific naturalism and realism fail to recognize. The revolution of scientific worldview re-envisioned by Frank et al. (2024) is therefore in line with Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity. The re-envisioned scientific worldview is exemplified by enactivism, the enactive approach to cognitive science, which has been successfully developed over the past three decades across various fields, including philosophy, artificial life, computational biology, and psychology (McGann et al., 2013; Varela et al., 1991/2016). Although universal acceptance of this new scientific culture remains elusive, we must not delay our educational and curricular tasks until consensus is reached. This is particularly crucial given the current context of pandemic aftermaths, ongoing local conflicts, climate change, ecological issues, and other impending 34 global crises. Today, I believe humanity has reached a critical historical moment that demands a conscious and timely collective response to the urgent divine calling: to return to the temples, both within and without; to reconnect with and listen to our uncontaminated innate wisdom; to retrieve and reinterpret ancient sacred texts and knowledge; and to reflect upon the ancient maxim, know thyself. In answering this call, it is vital that we reconsider the essence and purpose of education and re-envision curriculum on the basis of a transdisciplinary and trans-religious understanding of spirituality, one that is not only scientifically and philosophically tenable but also practically feasible and existentially meaningful. 1.7 The Educational Significance of Transdisciplinarity and Spirituality The preceding sections demonstrate the indispensability of transdisciplinarity and spirituality in fostering an ever-renewing understanding of the nature of human existence and reality, which is vital to interfaith dialogue, cross-discourse conversation, and the continuous advancement of curriculum thinking. In current educational contexts, the lack of transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality has led to certain difficulties. For instance, Marin and Lindeman (2021) found that in Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, non-scientists tend to hold a conflict view of the scienceâreligion relationship rather than an integration view, and a large majority of those who hold a conflict view consider science more important than religion. In schools, the conflict view, or uncertainty, about the scienceâreligion relationship has generated anxiety among students and influenced their learning outcomes (Yasri et al., 2013; Yasri & Mancy, 2014). Given that 84% of the worldâs population belongs to a particular religion (as revealed by Pew Research Center in 2015), Marin and Lindeman (2021) suggested the need for more in-class conversations on specific topics in light of both scientific findings and studentsâ understanding of science and 35 religion in order to increase scientific literacy, decrease negative stereotypes, and lessen studentsâ anxiety caused by the conflict view. The conflict view, nevertheless, may also induce anxiety among teachers. As Noddings (2008) noted, due to concerns about potential controversies and the conventional organization of the curriculum into separate disciplines, some people have argued against teaching topics related to religion, such as the evolution-creation debate, in science classes, suggesting they should be classified as social issues. The anxiety surrounding the scienceâreligion relationship among students and teachers has epitomized a global anxiety, which, as previously discussed, is part of a global intellectual and existential issue that continues to impact human beingsâ ways of knowing, being, doing, and living together on Earth. Apart from concerns surrounding the scienceâreligion relationship, controversies over the interpretation of diverse religious texts and sacred values, as well as the potential appropriation of mundane sociopolitical preferences into sacred values, constitute another significant source of global unease. Given that sacred values can either perpetuate intractable human conflicts or offer remarkable opportunities for resolution, Atran and Ginges (2012) underscored the urgent need for collaborative scientific endeavours to comprehend religion and sacred values. As discussed earlier, achieving this goal necessitates a transdisciplinary framework grounded in commonly accepted ontological, logical, and epistemological axioms that transcend the inherent constraints of naturalistic worldviews. In addition to understanding religious texts and sacred values from a transdisciplinary perspective, it is equally essential to apply transdisciplinary hermeneutics to scientific theories and philosophies in order to avoid the extremes of nihilism, determinism, and reificationâpitfalls long cautioned against by spiritual traditions. 36 Nowadays, as science reveals more and more hidden aspects of reality, new philosophies, theories, and models of the universe are increasingly permeating our culture, as reflected in social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, X), traditional and new media, films, and science fiction, among others. However, the lack of in-depth transdisciplinary hermeneutics and conversations regarding these theories and models has led to a burgeoning conceptual proliferation fraught with latent risks. For example, the simulation hypothesis, proposed by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003, which suggests that there is a significant chance that we are currently living in an ancestor-simulation run by posthumans on a computer, has gained considerable popularity. However, to my surprise, it has been expanded in ways that involve a number of disturbing suppositions and speculations. These include replacing the divine concept of God with a posthuman gamer; shirking responsibilities and using âtheir willâ (posthuman gamersâ will) as a fancy excuse; perceiving oneself as a manipulated puppet devoid of free will, yet deceived into believing in the illusion of choice; regarding all other people as insentient chemical robots or non-player characters generated by a computer system; and diverse forms and degrees of determinism and nihilism (Gleiser, 2022; Johnson, 2021). Nihilism, as Varela et al. (1991/2016) indicated, is actually a subtle form of objectivism arising from the same grasping mind, which asserts âthe objective nonexistence of the selfâ (p. 238). In the documentary A Glitch in the Matrix (2021), filmmaker Rodney Ascher guides viewers to explore the simulation theory as well as its social-cultural impacts, including stories of people who have taken this theory as a worldview. The most disturbing one might be the story of a murderer (Joshua Cooke) who believed he was living in a simulation. This trial spawned the Matrix defense (a legal defense named after the film The Matrix), which claims that the criminals committed a crime because 37 they believed that they were in a simulated world rather than the real world (Johnson, 2021). This obviously reflects one extreme interpretation of simulation theory. As Rodney Ascher noted in an interview, there is actually ânothing inherently nihilistic [or deterministic] about simulation theory or people who believe in it. After all, there are many ways to think about simulation theory and its implications, just as there are many different ways to think about religionâ (Johnson, 2021, para. 10). These issues, however, highlight the urgent need for transdisciplinarity and spirituality in society and education. As shown earlier, the goal of science is to ascertain only what is true but not what is good. That is to say, science in itself is blind to value. This realization makes obvious the danger and insanity of the substitution of science for religion. However, since the secularization of society, we have, consciously or unconsciously, allowed the blind faith in science to crush long-standing human values and spiritual wisdom and erase the significance of inwardness, leaving human beings oblivious of oneâs divinity and disarmed in the face of various enticements. In a book chapter titled âCan Science be a Religion?â, Nicolescu (2014a) remarked that although a positive answer to this question would be intuitively and culturally considered to be absurd, modern science, nonetheless, has shattered and swept away faith and beliefs that guided peoplesâ lives for millennia. Despite the current trend toward the convergence of science and spiritual wisdom, many people remain unmoved, clinging to outdated scientific worldviews that objectify and reify the world as a mind-independent reality. As Nicolescu (2014a) observed, over the last century, while the quantum, biological, and information revolutions should have thoroughly changed our view of reality, the old viewpoint remained dominant. Max-Neef (2005) also observed similar conceptual stagnation and reification, noting that while new conceptsâincluding the existence of 38 different levels of reality, complexity and systems thinking, chaos, non-linear process, and non-linear logicâhave revolutionized many spheres of basic sciences, no significant breakthrough was to be found in disciplines related to social action, economics, and politics, and the concept of a unidimensional reality seemed as firmly entrenched as ever. This presents a challenge to the widespread adoption and application of transdisciplinary methodology. The concept of single-dimensionality of reality is closely associated with scientific naturalism and realism, which continue to dominate contemporary philosophy (Kim 2003; Pradhan 2020; Prado 2006; Thompson 2023). According to the 2020 PhilPapers survey conducted by Bourget and Chalmers (2023), 50.2% of the 1785 surveyed philosophers support naturalism in the category of metaphilosophy; in the category of science, 72.4% of the respondents accept or lean toward scientific realism; in regard to the external world, 79.5% of respondents accept or lean toward non-skeptical realism, which asserts the existence of a mind-independent external world. Nonetheless, the scientific underpinnings of the epistemological and ontological axioms of Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary methodology are gaining authoritative commendation and public attention. For instance, in 2021, the Nobel Prize in Physics honored three physicists for their ground-breaking contributions to our understanding of complex systems, and the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to another three physicists for their elegant experiments with entangled photons that experimentally, not just theoretically or philosophically, refuted local realismâi.e., proving that the universe is not locally realâand overthrew reality as we know it (Garisto, 2021, 2022; Rangwala, 2022). Here, ârealâ means that âobjects have definite properties independent of observationâan apple can be red even when no one is lookingâ, etc., and âlocalâ means that âobjects can only be influenced by their surroundings, and that any influence cannot 39 travel faster than lightâ (Garisto, 2022, para. 1). By unveiling profound mysteries of reality and thereby refuting locality and realism, these (and other) scientific breakthroughs remind us of the profundity of ancient spiritual wisdom and suggest that it is time, if not long overdue, to initiate a revolution in curriculum that embraces transdisciplinarity and spirituality. While physicists may choose to simply âshut up and calculate,â I question whether curriculum scholars, educational policymakers, and educators can ethically justify ignoring the existential implications of scientific breakthroughs and remaining silent. When Jean Piaget first introduced the word âtransdisciplinarityâ in 1970, he described it as a superior stage of interdisciplinary relations, which, as elaborated by Nicolescu (1996/2002, 2007, 2010, 2014a, 2014b), is not only between and across disciplines, but also goes beyond all disciplines and scienceâreligion debates, connoting the subject and the subjectâobject interplay, and signifying a new vision of reality and spirituality. Since the curriculum field itself is an interdisciplinary area of theory, research, and practice, Piagetâs and Nicolescuâs insights inspire us to re-envision curriculum toward a transdisciplinary stage through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spiritualityâan all-encompassing transdisciplinarity that embraces spirituality, and an ever-renewing understanding of spirituality, cultivated through, and in turn enriching, transdisciplinarity. While Piaget (1972) admitted that transdisciplinarity was still a dream in his time, I am persuaded that, over time, we have accumulated sufficient scientific evidence and hermeneutical tools to overcome various barriers to transdisciplinarity and to approach the true meaning of spiritual teachings. It is time to restore the place of spirituality in education and to revive the concepts of divinity, affectivity, subjectivity, and inwardness in school and university curricula, while simultaneously advancing the field of curriculum toward a 40 transdisciplinary stage that fosters a harmonious and sustainable shared future for all sentient beings on Earth. 1.8 The Educational Significance of Play In this study, the envisioned transdisciplinary stage of curriculum is embodied in the conception of curriculum as play, where play serves as a metaphor for human existence and reality. As previously discussed, the simulation hypothesis has gained considerable popularity in contemporary culture. In science, numerous theories and models of the universe associated with variations of the simulation hypothesis have also been burgeoning. These include ontic pancomputationalism, the increasingly popular view that the physical universe is fundamentally a computational system (Anderson & Piccinini, 2024); the holographic principle, which suggests that all the information in a volume of space can be encoded on its boundary, implying a projected or encoded nature of reality (Greene, 2004, 2011; Susskind, 1995; 't Hooft, 1993); the interface theory of perception, which likens the relationship between perception and reality to that between a desktop interface and a computer, supporting the view that we live in a simulation instantiated in consciousnessâan interface shaped by interactions among conscious agents (Hoffman, 2019; Hoffman et al., 2015; Prentner & Hoffman, 2024); and the self-simulation hypothesis, which proposes that the universe is not only simulated but also is simulating itself through recursive quantum information processing (Irwin et al., 2020). Other models include digital physics, which proposes that the universe is composed of bits, rendering all physical processes computational and the cosmos itself a giant computer (Beraldo-de-Araújo & Baravalle, 2017); the multiverse simulation model, which extends Bostromâs simulation argument to encompass layers of simulated realities (Bostrom, 2003; Tegmark, 2007); the It-from-Bit 41 paradigm, which holds that physical reality emerges from binary information (Wheeler, 1990/2018); the massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle, which posits that information is not only the building unit of the universe, but is also linked to energy and has mass (Vopson, 2019, 2022); and the quantum computational model, which posits that the universe is a giant quantum computerâreality unfolds as computation proceeds, and every interaction between particles transmits not only energy but also information (Lloyd, 2007), to name just a few. Together, these models, though differing in their specifics, offer conceptual frameworks that support the view of reality as a simulated construct emerging from a sophisticated cosmic quantum information systemâcharacterized by emergent phenomena and dynamic processes, much like a game of creation. These conceptions of reality exhibit remarkable resonances with spiritual insights from various religious traditions. These include the YogÄcÄra school of MahÄyÄna Buddhism, which understands the experiential phenomena of self and world as non-dual manifestations of consciousness, and posits that reality emerges from the dynamic interplay of karmic seeds (bīja) stored and processed within the Storehouse Consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014); Taoism, which presents reality as a dynamic flow of transformation governed by the Tao, a non-dual generative source underlying all phenomena (Yuan, 2010); Hindu Advaita (nondualist) VedÄnta, which views the phenomenal world as a manifestation of MÄyÄ (literally âillusionâ or âmagicâ)âa cosmic force that generates the illusion of the phenomenal world as inherently real, thereby obscuring the ultimate nature of reality and veiling knowledge of the Selfâand links this illusion to LÄ«lÄ, the divine play through which the universe unfolds as a playful and creative expression of the Absolute (Brahman) (Deutsch, 1980; Encyclopaedia 42 Britannica, 2024; Lipner, 2022; Morey, 2012; Radhakrishnan, 1914; Shastri, 1911); Kabbalistic Judaism, which conceives the universe as a cosmic process of emanations flowing from the divine source (Scholem, 1941); Sufi mysticism, which regards the cosmos as a mirror of divine self-disclosure (Chittick, 1989); Christian mysticism, exemplified by the thought of Meister Eckhart, who described the world as a living utterance of God (Eckhart, 2009); and panentheismâthe view that Godâs being permeates the entire universe, yet God also transcends the universe (unlike pantheism, which equates the universe with God)âa perspective that has gained popularity in recent years and is championed by contemporary panentheists such as Richard Rohr in The Universal Christ, among other books (Louth, 2022; Rohr, 2019). Though culturally distinct, these spiritual insights share a profound affinity with the idea that what appears to be an independent, objective reality is ultimately an emergent symbolic expression of a deeper, concealed, and often ineffable ontological backgroundâa hidden aspect of human existence and reality that transcends the phenomenal and parallels the cosmic quantum information system described in the aforementioned scientific models of the universe (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion). This consonance enables the use of play as an illuminating metaphor for human existence and reality, whereby we participate in a sacred game of creation (see Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion). Understanding the concept of play, therefore, holds the same existential and educational significance as understanding the nature of human existence and reality, as discussed in Section 1.6. The concept of play and its association with human existence and reality have also been extensively explored by philosophers such as Eugen Fink (1960/2016), who regarded play as a 43 symbol of the world; Hans-Georg Gadamer (1960/2004), who used play as a clue to ontological explanation; and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott (1971), who emphasized the role of play in the development of the self and in the transitional experience of reality. These resonances among science, religion, philosophy, and psychoanalytic theory not only invite a transdisciplinary reimagining and hermeneutic inquiry into human nature and reality but also imbue the concept of play with both transdisciplinary relevance and spiritual profundityâdimensions that cannot be fully grasped without an appreciation of both transdisciplinarity and spirituality. This perspective informs this studyâs threefold argumentative structure, unfolding from transdisciplinarity to spirituality, and finally to play, as it progresses toward an understanding of curriculum as play. 1.9 Chapter Summaries The following summaries provide a brief overview of this study, highlighting the key ideas that will unfold in each chapter. Chapter 1 Re-Envisioning Curriculum via Transdisciplinarity and Spirituality This introductory chapter examines the dominance of technoscience and the persistent difficulties in communication between existential and scientific traditions in curriculum; illustrates the indispensability of transdisciplinarity and spirituality to the further advancement of the curriculum field; envisions a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum theorizing, embodied in the conception of curriculum as play; and elucidates this dissertationâs threefold structureâtransdisciplinarity, spirituality, and playâeach focusing on a key element of the overall argument. 44 Part One: Transdisciplinarity Chapter 2 Methodology of Transdisciplinarity: Toward a Strong Transdisciplinarity The definitions of transdisciplinarity have been diverse and contentious. In this chapter, by exploring competing concepts of transdisciplinarity, I demonstrate the advantages of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity, argue for the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity, and examine its ontological, epistemological, and logical axioms. Chapter 3 The Hidden Third: The Undeniable Presence of the Divine In transdisciplinary methodology, the concept of the Hidden Third and its association with the sacred have been sources of controversy. To address this uncertainty, this chapter demonstrates the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third and its correspondence with the Divine from both objective and subjective perspectives, revealing how it manifests both as an omnipresent hidden cosmic information system and as an omniscient divine cosmic consciousness. Part Two: Spirituality Chapter 4 Understanding Spirituality: A Buddhist Perspective With enhanced confidence in the presence of the Divine and in Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity, this chapter draws on MahÄyÄna Buddhism and explores the ontological, epistemological, and logical dimensions of Buddhist spirituality within the methodological framework of transdisciplinarity as a theoretical instance, revealing significant properties of the Hidden Third and illustrating how transdisciplinarity and spirituality align with and enrich each other. 45 Chapter 5 Understanding Spirituality: A Transdisciplinary Hermeneutics To foster an ever-renewing transdisciplinary understanding of spirituality, this chapter engages in a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of key aspects of spirituality revealed in previous chapters, including the primacy of consciousness over matter, the concept of complementarity, and an understanding of human existence as play. It draws on insights from quantum physics, new biology, cognitive science, and philosophical hermeneutics. Part Three: Play Chapter 6 Understanding Play: A Third Zone of Human Experience Building on the understanding of human existence as play developed in previous chapters, this chapter examines the concepts and theories of play, with an emphasis on key aspects of Donald Winnicottâs theory of play, including the transitional object, transitional phenomena, potential space, two paradoxes to be accepted, paradoxical logic, and ternary thinking. Along the way, it illustrates how play can be understood as a third zone of human experience. Chapter 7 Understanding Curriculum as Play This chapter begins with a reflective recapitulation and a discussion of the paramount significance of self-knowledge in education. It is followed by an argument for the necessity of moving toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum, characterized by explicit and exoteric expositions of the Divine. Then, it presents an understanding of curriculum as play, including an understanding of currere as play, an argument for the necessity of lived curriculum, and an investigation into the interplay between the being and non-being of planned and lived curricula. It closes with a retrospective conclusion on understanding curriculum as play. 46 Part One: Transdisciplinarity 47 Chapter 2: Methodology of Transdisciplinarity: Toward a Strong Transdisciplinarity 2.1 Introduction In Chapter 1, I introduced the concept of transdisciplinarity and Nicolescuâs methodology as key to a new stage of curriculum theorizing, embodied in a conception of curriculum as play. This stage is enabled by the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality and is characterized by the play metaphor for human existence and reality. Through a concise review, I demonstrated the transdisciplinary relevance and spiritual depth of the concept of play, which informs this studyâs threefold argumentative structure as it moves toward an understanding of curriculum as play. As the first part of the argument, this chapter (Chapter 2) and the next (Chapter 3) aim to establish the advantages and validity of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity, which embraces both science and spirituality. In what follows, I explore the main concepts of transdisciplinarity and their corresponding approaches, and argue for the advantages of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic formulation of transdisciplinary methodology in facilitating curriculum conversation and advancement. Terminology, however, remains diverse and confounding. To prevent confusion and misuse, this chapter begins with a clarification of the definitions of the three most widely used terms: multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. This is followed by a historical review of the emergence of transdisciplinarity and the âwar of definitionsâ between the Nicolescuian school (a broad-based scientific and cultural approach) and the Zurich school (a third mode of doing and utilizing science for joint real-world problem-solving) of transdisciplinarity. I then proceed to explore the limitations of the Zurich approach, which dominates the current curricular and educational landscape, and reveal the difficulties 48 arising from these limitations. In doing so, I highlight the advantages of Nicolescuâs methodology and argue for the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity grounded in his axiomatic methodology. With this appreciation, I examine Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity, including its axiomatic character and its three axioms. 2.2 Clarification of Terminology In the Western intellectual tradition, knowledge was conventionally classified into a system of disciplinarity (Klein, 2017). In the latter half of the 20th century, however, this system was challenged and supplemented by a growing number of interdisciplinary activities with varying characteristics (Klein, 2017). For the purpose of paving the way for the consideration of new theories and models, the first major set of interdisciplinary terminologyâwhich classified these interactions into categories of multi-, pluri-, inter-, and trans-disciplinarityâwas created in 1970 by the OECD for an international seminar, titled Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, held in France by OECD (CERI) in cooperation with the University of Nice and the French Ministry of National Education (Apostel et al., 1972; Klein, 2017). Although a profusion of jargon soon followed, Klein (2017) identified multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity as the three most widely used terms in the OECD typology. Unlike disciplinarity, which is all about mono-discipline and implies specialization in isolation, multidisciplinarity concerns itself with investigating a research topic in several disciplines, although the perspectives enriched by multiple disciplines are in exclusive service of the home disciplineâwithout generative cooperation or integrated synthesis of inputs between the 49 disciplines (Max-Neef, 2005; Nicolescu, 2014b). Hence, while the multidisciplinary approach overflows disciplinary boundaries, its goal remains limited to the disciplinary framework (Nicolescu, 2014b). Key characteristics of multidisciplinarity are juxtaposing, sequencing, and coordination (without cooperation) (Klein, 2017). Interdisciplinarity, like multidisciplinarity, overflows disciplinary boundaries; however, it involves cooperation between researchers, transfer of methods, and the integration and synthesis of knowledge, and can generate new disciplines, e.g., quantum cosmology and chaos theory (Bernstein, 2015; Nicolescu, 2014b). The OECD definition of interdisciplinarity is broad, encompassing interactions ranging from âsimple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organizing concepts, methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data, and organization of research and educationâ (Apostel et al., 1972, p. 25). Key characteristics of interdisciplinarity include interacting, integrating, focusing, blending, and linking (Klein, 2017). Transdisciplinarity, as mentioned earlier, features a plurality of definitions. For some scholars, âtransdisciplinarity is a means to bridge between our western way of thinking and more holistic forms of knowing that do not separate scientific and spiritual thinkingâ (Pohl, n.d., para. 1). Others, however, focus exclusively on joint real-world problem solving among science, technology, and society. According to an understanding popular in the research field of sustainable development, transdisciplinarity is a reflexive research approach that addresses societal problems by means of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as the collaboration between researchers and extra-scientific actors; its aim is to enable mutual learning processes between science 50 and society; integration is the main cognitive challenge of the research process. (Jahn et al., 2012, p. 4) The majority of transdisciplinary scholars agree that transdisciplinarity and disciplinarity (including multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity) form a fertile complementarity, and regard transdisciplinarity as a means, rather than an end, that creates insights and solutions through cross-disciplinary endeavour (Jahn et al., 2012; Klein, 2001; Klein, 2017; Nicolescu, 2014b). Klein (2017) identified transcending, transgressing, and transforming as the key terms of transdisciplinarity, and indicated that the current ascendancy of transdisciplinarity is a prominent development in the history of interdisciplinarity. As we review and use these typologies, it is helpful to keep in mind Kleinâs (2017) reminder that âtypologies are neither neutral nor staticâ but âreflect political choices of representation by virtue of what is included or excludedâ (p. 21). These choices, taken together, âconstitute a form of boundary work in a semantic web that indexes differing purposes, contexts, degrees of integration and interaction, organizational structures, and epistemological frameworksâ (Klein, 2017, p. 21). She explained that the term âboundary workâ, coined in 1983 by sociologist Thomas Gieryn in a study of demarcating between science and non-science, was defined âas an ideological style that constructs boundaries rhetorically in three major ways: expanding authority or expertise into other domains, monopolizing authority and resources, and protecting autonomy over professional activitiesâ (p. 21), and interdisciplinary terminology performs all the above three functions. 51 2.3 The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity is a relatively young approach that emerged seven centuries later than disciplinarity, thanks to Swiss psychologist and philosopher Jean Piaget (1896-1980) (Nicolescu, 2007). It originates in a critique of the standard configuration of knowledge, challenges the division of academic labour into traditional disciplines, and represents a new way of engaging in inquiry, organizing knowledge, and thinking about research and education (Bernstein, 2015). The term itself first appeared in 1970 at the aforementioned OECD (CERI) international seminar, Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (Apostel et al., 1972; Klein, 2017). In that seminar, Jean Piaget, Erich Jantsch, and André Lichnerowicz introduced concepts of transdisciplinarity from different perspectives. In the beginning of his lecture, Piaget (1972) stated: Insofar as the field of these sciences is restricted, as with positivism, to the analysis of observable facts alone and therefore to the description, measurement and inter-relating of phenomena, we merely discover a set of more or less general or particular functional laws. But as we refuse to seek causes or even modes of existence which might characterise the various substrata underlying the phenomena, we end up having to divide reality into a number of more or less separate zones or superimposed stages corresponding to well-defined fields of the various scientific disciplines. (p. 127) Piagetâs anti-positivistic and structuralist/constructivist stance toward science was evident in his talk. Not only did he point out the insufficiency of the mere discovery of a set of functional laws, but he also underscored the significance of penetrating the surface of phenomena and searching out the hidden causes or modes of existence of the structuring substrata underlying the 52 phenomena. Over the course of his lecture, Piaget touched on a wide variety of topics, including how a structure could extend beyond the observable and lead to a profound change in our concept of reality; the possible sharing of epistemology between neighboring sciences; how the relationship between subject and object can be discovered; the circular flow of knowledge between the subject and the object; and the interdisciplinary relationship between natural sciences and human sciences. His developmental approach âcalls for the teaching of basic structures, fundamental patterns of thought, and more history of scienceâ (Apostel, 1972, p. 80). He concluded: Finally, we hope to see the stage of interdisciplinary relations succeed to a superior stage, which should be âtransdisciplinaryâ, i.e., it will not be limited to recognize the interactions and/or reciprocities between the specialized researches, but will locate these links inside a total system without stable boundaries between the disciplines. (Piaget, 1972, as cited in Nicolescu, 2007, p. 35) While Piagetâs introductory description of transdisciplinarity pointed to a new space of knowledge, Nicolescu (2007) argued that it remained vague and risked misinterpretation. For instance, as Nicolescu indicated, the idea of a âtotal systemâ could be easily misconceived as a closed system and thus transform transdisciplinarity into a super- or hyper-discipline, a kind of science of sciences. Besides, possibly due to constraints imposed by the OECD authoritiesâwho refused to use the word âtransdisciplinarityâ in the title of the seminarâPiaget retained only the meanings of âbetweenâ and âacrossâ but not âbeyondâ in the Latin prefix trans. It was not until 1985 that Nicolescu proposed the inclusion of the meaning âbeyond disciplinesâ into transdisciplinarity. The significance of this meaning, for Nicolescu (2014b), is that it points to the subjectâor more precisely, the subjectâobject interactionâwhich lies beyond and cannot be 53 grasped within a disciplinary camp. As he stressed, the transcendence, which is inherent in transdisciplinarity, is the transcendence of the subject. In the same seminar, Austrian-born American astrophysicist Erich Jantsch aimed to provide a view complementary to Piagetâs search for renewed concepts of reality. From an anthropocentric perspective, he sought to identify a value base and a purpose for the dynamic system of science. Reflecting the Cartesian ego rooted in Cartesian dualism (Aoki, 1993a/2004), he took the discordance between human purpose and Nature for granted, adopting the creation of an anthropomorphic worldâone designed solely to serve human purposesâas a framework for integrating values. For him, the purpose of education was to foster the self-renewal of society through an integrated science/education/innovation system. Transdisciplinarity, in his view, was âthe co-ordination of all disciplines and interdisciplines in the education/innovation system, based on a generalized axiomatics (introduced from the purposive/value level downward) and an emerging epistemological (âsynepistemicâ) patternâ (Jantsch, 1972, p. 106). Jantschâs emphasis on the necessity of an axiomatic approach to transdisciplinarity is an important contribution to the development of transdisciplinary methodology. However, by situating transdisciplinarity in a disciplinary framework, this perspective falls into the trap of defining transdisciplinarity as a mere hyper-discipline (Nicolescu, 2007). That is, it remains a science of sciencesâgrounded in scientific naturalism and realismâthat can hardly move beyond disciplines and give subjectivity and the subjectâobject interaction their due place. Despite his emphasis on the importance of incorporating values and meaning at the value level, rooted in philosophy, the arts, and religions, Jantschâs (1972) anthropomorphic framework and technoscientific view of social change and education directly contradict the core teachings of the wisdom traditions, thereby precluding the 54 possibility of genuine cross-discourse conversations. This view, however, later became the foundation of the Zurich school of transdisciplinarity, which continues to dominate the landscape of transdisciplinarity and education. The other contributor in this seminar was French mathematician André Lichnerowicz. He saw transdisciplinarity as a transversal play that reveals âthe homogeneity of the theoretical activity in different sciences and techniques, independently of the field where this activity is effectuatedâ and this theoretical activity, of course, can only be formulated in mathematical language (Lichnerowicz, 1972, as cited in Nicolescu, 2007, p. 36). He emphasized that in mathematics âthe Being is put between parentheses and it is precisely this non-ontological character which confers mathematics its power, its fidelity and its polyvalenceâ (Lichnerowicz, 1972, as cited in Nicolescu, 2007, p. 36). While Lichnerowiczâs participation in transdisciplinarity was accidental, Nicolescu (2007) remarked that his emphasis on the non-ontological character of mathematics should be remembered. The different intellectual positions of Piaget, Jantsch, and Lichnerowicz concerning transdisciplinarity are representative and can be found again later in the development of transdisciplinarity. 2.4 War of Definitions Early works of transdisciplinarity, as shown above, focused mainly on epistemological questions and the planning of future universities. In the 1990s, however, transdisciplinarity re-emerged âas an urgent issue relating to the solution of new, highly complex, global concerns, beginning with climate change and sustainability and extending into many areas concerning science, technology, social problems and policy, education, and the artsâ (Bernstein, 2015, p. 1). Klein (2001) 55 pinpointed the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as a watershed event of awareness of global environmental crisis and the need for action. Ever since, sustainability became a global catchword that drove the search for holistic approaches and expansion of methods, and moved the concept of transdisciplinarity to the forefront of debates in the academic and scientific communities (Bernstein, 2015; Klein, 2001). Shortly afterwards, in 1994, the First World Congress on Transdisciplinarity (held in Portugal) adopted the Charter of Transdisciplinarity produced by Romanian theoretical physicist Basarab Nicolescu, French transdisciplinarian Edgar Morin, and Portuguese artist Lima de Freitas (Nicolescu, 1996/2002). Nicolescu has taken the lead in developing a broad-based scientific and cultural approach to transdisciplinary work (Bernstein, 2015; Klein, 2010). In order to prevent the development of transdisciplinarity from the danger of perversions, such as commercialism, or the use of it as a new tool of domination or a mere fashionable slogan, in 1996, he published Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity (in French, and translated into English in 2002), which profoundly elaborated the previously mentioned three axioms of the methodology of transdisciplinarityâmultiple levels of Reality of the Subject and the Object (ontology), the logic of the included middle (logic), and the complex structure (i.e., universal interdependence) of the totality of levels of Reality (epistemology). Nature, according to Nicolescuâs (1996/2002) transdisciplinary model of reality, has three major aspects: 1. Objective Nature, which is subject to subjective objectivity. The degree of subjectivity in objectivity is inversely related to the extent to which the methodology of science is employed. 56 2. Subjective Nature, which is subject to objective subjectivity. The degree of objectivity in subjectivity is inversely proportional to the extent to which the methodology of the ancient science of being (drawn from the religious and spiritual traditions) is employed. 3. Trans-Nature, or the Hidden Third, which exists between and beyond the objective and the subjective. It concerns the domain of the sacred and cannot be approached without considering the subjective and objective aspects of Nature. Trans-Nature, or the Hidden Third, were used interchangeably with the Great Other, or Trans-Reality, in Nicolescuâs other works. The above three aspects of Nature constitute a ternary structure of living Nature. Nicolescu (1996/2002) explained: This Nature is living because it is there that life is present in all its degrees and because its study demands the integration of lived experience. The three aspects of Nature must be considered simultaneously, in terms of their interrelation and their conjunction within all the phenomena of living Nature. The study of living Nature asks for a new methodologyâtransdisciplinary methodologyâwhich is different from the methodology of modern science and from the methodology of the ancient science of being. It is the coevolution of the human being and of the universe which asks for a new methodology. The fullness of living Nature gives us a sense of something that could, sooner or later, become a transdisciplinary ecology. (pp. 64â65) Unlike Galileo, who, from a utilitarian perspective, likened Nature to a text written in the language of mathematics that we can read and decipher, Nicolescu (1996/2002), based on his understanding of quantum physics, maintained that âNature seems more like a book in the process of being written: the book of Nature is therefore not so much to be read as experienced, 57 as if we are participating in the writing of itâ (p. 65). Nicolescuâs insight that the study of Nature, which is a living entity, demands the integration of lived experience is in line with the perspective of Frank et al. (2024), who, as discussed in Chapter 1, argued that science cannot ignore human experience. Details of Nicolescuâs formulation of transdisciplinary methodology, intended for the study of living Nature, will be explored later in this chapter. Transdisciplinary research, however, has been developed in different contexts with different goals, fostering a plurality of definitions (Pohl, n.d.). In exactly the same year as the First World Congress on Transdisciplinarity took place, the book The New Production of Knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994) authored by Michael Gibbons (UK), Camille Limoges (Canada), Helga Nowotny (Austria), Simon Schwartzman (Brazil), Peter Scott (UK), and Martin Trow (USA), was published. With diverse professional backgrounds in the social and policy sciences, these authors presented a different vision of and approach to transdisciplinarity characterized by a new mode (Mode 2) of collaborative knowledge production between science and society (Bernstein, 2015; Klein, 2017; Rigolot, 2020). Their theory of Mode 2 knowledge production replaces the old discipline-based hierarchical and homogeneous mode with a new one characterized by complexity, hybridity, heterogeneity, non-linearity, reflexivity, and transdisciplinarity (Klein, 2004). Since multiple stakeholders, ranging from the academy, industry, and governments to non-governmental organizations, are involved from the beginning of problem formulation, contributing heterogeneous expertise and skills, a social distribution of knowledge occurs (Bernstein, 2015; Klein, 2004). Subsequently, Nowotny et al. (2001) extended the Mode 2 theory, arguing for the need to move the idea of contextualization from the realm of application to the agora of public debate, incorporating the notion of democracy (Klein, 2004). The 58 descriptive and analytic approach of Mode 2 knowledge production was deemed by some as more immediately applicable to tangible real-world problems than Nicolescuâs, and was at least as influential as Nicolescuâs theoretical framework, although it lacked Nicolescuâs bold visionary insights (Bernstein, 2015; Rigolot, 2020). While Nicolescuâs works are often seen as a significant expansion and elaboration of the approach initiated by Piaget, Gibbons et al.âs (1994) text and its follow-up (Nowotny et al., 2001) have been an important update of Jantschâs approach (Bernstein, 2015; Rigolot, 2020). The nearly simultaneous appearance of two major statements on transdisciplinarity gained wide attention and formed two currents of definition that, akin to the scientific and existential discourses in the curriculum field, provoked a war of definitions, which has not yet ceased (Bernstein, 2015; Klein, 2017; Nicolescu, 2007). While the Mode 2 theory was intended to be a new mode of knowledge production, Weingart (2000), referring to a variety of new modes of knowledge production, including Mode 2, indicated that behind these proclamations of transdisciplinarity, however, is a specific model of knowledge tied to an outdated realist epistemology, presupposing an objective outer world independent of human perception and knowledge production, and the disconnectedness of everything. Besides, the âreal problemsâ are mainly formed by existing knowledge and its doorkeepers through the interacting mechanism of âscientificationâ in conjunction with professionalization. An underlying mechanism, as Weingart (2000) observed, is that âgovernments establish funding programs that involve the combination and rearrangement of the disciplinary landscape in order to achieve a tighter problem orientation and perhaps also a more convincing public image of their science policyâ (p. 37). The Mode 2 concept of transdisciplinarity, thus, remains confined to the phenomenal level of reality, representing only 59 organizational and institutional changes rather than a new ontology and epistemology (Klein, 2017; Max-Neef, 2005; Weingart, 2000). Crossing several levels of organization while remaining inside just one level of reality, for Nicolescu (2021), was only transversality rather than transdisciplinarity. The viewpoints of the Mode 2 transdisciplinary current, âcharacterized by the refusal of formulating any methodology and by its exclusive concentration on the joint problem-solving of problems pertaining to the science-technology-society triadâ (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 39), were largely expressed at the International Transdisciplinarity Conference held in Zurich, Switzerland, in 2000. Several Swiss federal science organizations and some international industries were the primary organizers of this conference (Augsburg, 2014; Klein et al., 2001). In the proceedings of this Zurich conference, Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society, the Chair of the conference, Rudolf Haberli, summed up the leading ideas and specified a short definition: âTransdisciplinary research takes up concrete problems of society and works out solutions through cooperation between actors and scientistsâ (Klein et al., 2001, p. 6). Based on the Zurich definition, Scholz and Steiner (2015) recapped (Mode 2) transdisciplinarity as âa third mode of doing and utilizing scienceâ and âa facilitated process of mutual learning between science and society that relates a targeted multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research process and a multi-stakeholder discourse for developing socially robust orientations about a specific real-world issue (either a problem or a case)â (p. 531). Nicolescu (2007) remarked on the Zurich conference, stating: It is difficult for us to understand why âjoint problem solvingâ must be the unique aim of transdisciplinarity. It is certainly one of the important aims but not the only aim. The use 60 of such a narrow characterization seems to us dangerous, as in religion, allowing unnecessary wars and unproductive dogmatism. Is transdisciplinarity concerning only society as a uniform whole, or, the human being who is (or has to be) in the center of any civilized society? Are we allowed to identify knowledge with production of knowledge? Why does the potential of transdisciplinarity have to be reduced to produce âbetter scienceâ? Why does transdisciplinarity have to be reduced to âhard scienceâ? In other words, the SubjectâObject interaction seems to us to be at the very core of transdisciplinarity and not the Object alone. (pp. 39â40) Not only Nicolescu, but also some other participants in the conference expressed similar concerns. For instance, PD Dr. Johann Steurer stated that he had expected to be given a comprehensible definition of transdisciplinarity; however, this conference seemed too strongly concentrated on environment-related problems (Klein et al., 2001, p. 129). Moreover, six participantsâJoseph E. Brenner (Switzerland), Paulius Kulikauskas (Denmark and Lithuania), Maria F. de Mello (Brazil), K.V. Raju (India), Americo Sommerman (Brazil), and Nils-Ooran Sundin (Sweden)âafter contemplating this conference, signed a manifesto âManifesto: a broader view of transdisciplinarityâ to call the attention of the conference participants and other audiences to their âfirm belief in the need to place the human being, in his/her different levels, at the center of concerns of Transdisciplinarity in science and societyâ (Klein et al., 2001, p. 132). They further emphasized two points: (i) the fundamental principles of transdisciplinarity encompass both the inner and the outer development of the individual, such as: competence in the field of the true vocation of the individual, ethics: commitment, responsibility and accountability, and spirituality 61 in the open sense, as laid out in the Charter of Transdisciplinarity adopted at the First World Congress of Transdisciplinarity in Arrabida, Portugal, November 2-7, 1994; (ii) fundamental statements on transdisciplinary education are: to open education toward an integral education of the human being which transmits the quest for meaning; to make the University evolve toward a study of the Universal in the context of an unprecedented acceleration of fragmentary knowledge; to revalue the role of deeply rooted intuitions, of the imaginary, of sensitivity, and of the body in the transmission of knowledge, as stated in the conclusion of the International Congress âWhat University for Tomorrow? Toward a Transdisciplinary Evolution of the Universityâ in Locarno in 1997. (p. 132) Klein (2001) described the scene of the Zurich conference as: âIndustrialists interested in more effective product innovation, through user feedback in competitive markets, sat alongside academics interested in critique of science and the market economyâ (pp. 43â44). She noted that âto speak of a shared discourse among the heterogeneous group of people who gathered in Zurich for the Transdisciplinarity Conference is not to demand conformity to a single definition but ... [to] acknowledge a âgeneral goalââ (p. 43). For Klein (2017), declaring that transdisciplinarity has only a single purposeâbe it holism or tangible real-world problem solvingâignores the fact that transdisciplinarity is a contested discourseâas a form of boundary work, interdisciplinary terminology filters and directs attention rather than reflecting reality. After all, âterms are rhetorical signposts of continuity and change, tradition and innovation. They reassert, extend, interrogate, and reformulate existing classifications to address both ongoing and unmet needsâ (Klein, 2017, p. 32). 62 In the current literature, scholars discern two major schools of transdisciplinarity: the Nicolescuian school and the Zurich school (named after the Zurich conference in 2000, sometimes referred to as Swiss school) (Augsburg, 2014; Bernstein, 2015; McGregor, 2015). Scholz and Steiner (2015) used the terms Mode 1 and Mode 2 transdisciplinarity to refer to the two schools respectively. Nicolescu (2007) himself suggested the need for making a distinction between three types of transdisciplinarityâtheoretical, phenomenological, and experimental transdisciplinarity. For him, the word theorical implies not only a general definition but also a well-defined methodology; phenomenological involves building models that connect theoretical principles with observed experimental data in order to predict further; experimental implies performing experiments by following well-defined procedures, which allow researchers to get the same results whenever performing the same experiments. He classified his own works as well as the ones done by Piaget and Morin as theoretical transdisciplinarity, while he saw the works (Mode 2) done by Gibbons and Nowotny as phenomenological. He emphasized that our formulation of transdisciplinarity must be both (openly) unified and (complexly) diverseâunity in diversity and diversity through unityâwhich, for Nicolescu (2007), are inherent to transdisciplinarity. 2.5 Toward a Strong Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity in the current curricular and educational landscape, however, is far from diverse. On the contrary, the Zurich approach has overwhelmingly dominated transdisciplinary policy, curriculum, research, and practice, as embodied in STEM, STEAM, and other transdisciplinary education (Daneshpour & Kwegyir-Afful, 2022; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019), whereas the Nicolescuian school of transdisciplinarity is largely unknown, 63 downplayed, or ignored. Max-Neef (2005), however, saw the Zurich approach as weak transdisciplinarity and identified the Nicolescuian school as strong transdisciplinarity. Max-Neef (2005) explained that âthe former can be applied following traditional methods and logic, and is essentially practicalâ (p. 5), while the latter âgoes much deeper into the realms of realityâ (p. 10) and ârepresents an epistemological challenge that introduces a kind of quantum logic, as a substitute for linear [binary] logic, and breaks with the assumption of a single realityâ (p. 5). By illustrating the four-level hierarchical pyramid of Zurich transdisciplinarity inherited from Jantschâfrom the value level downâMax-Neef (2005) pointed out the danger of failing to connect with the top level. The value level, for him, âgoes beyond the present and the immediate. It aims at generations yet to come, at the planet as a whole, at an economy âas if people matterââ (p. 8) and makes âexplicit a global concern for the human species and life in generalâ (p. 8). The value level also transcends the material and the objective, making explicit ontological concerns for the subject and the subjectâobject dialecticsâa non-objectifying caring mode of being-in-the-world, from which new insights, values, and possibilities emerge. While the present, the immediate, the tangible, and the objective are undoubtedly important and must be addressed in a timely manner, it is equally important to go beyond and confront their underlying causes at the value level of reality. Focusing merely on the lower levels of the pyramid with the organizing language of logic, cybernetics, and planning, Max-Neef cautioned that we risk doing things simply because we can (pragmatic level) or because we want to (normative level). Unfortunately, as he observed, our transdisciplinary actions of problem-solving rarely extend beyond the combinations of inferior levels. This makes the weak transdisciplinarity even weaker. He warned that unless we restore this beheaded transdisciplinary pyramid, we will not succeed in resolving 64 global issues and their long-term impactsâbe they wars, terrorism, violence, ecological crises, climate change, poverty, forced migrations, or the destruction of social fabric. The weakness of the Zurich approach, rooted in a partial vision of reality, however, is not easy to overcome on its own. Due to its restrictive underlying ontological, logical, and epistemological assumptions (such as local realism, binary logic, and subjectâobject dichotomy), the Zurich approach has inherent limitations that hinder transdisciplinary hermeneutics and genuine conversation between the value level and other levelsâespecially between existential and scientific discourses, or religion and science. For instance, scientific naturalism may have given rise to the myth that technoscience will sooner or later succeed in solving ecological and various global problemsâa myth that justifies the Zurich schoolâs exclusive focus on doing and utilizing science for joint real-world problem solving. Nevertheless, Nicolescu (1996/2002) reminded us that the growing external efficacy of technoscience alone, in the absence of a concomitant internal development of affectivity that ensures our connection to the Whole, has been proven to be extremely dangerousâfor the first time in history, human beings are facing the threat of the annihilation of the entire human civilization and living species on Earth. He argued that âthe contempt for affectivity is none other than the contempt for human beingsâ (p. 84) and âwhere there is a death of affectivity, there is necessarily a âdeath of manââ (p. 84). Attempting to address issues attributable to the disequilibrium between outer effectivity and inner affectivity with a single approach that features the same disequilibrium, indeed, does not seem rational or wise. 65 Moreover, as previously mentioned, Nobel-Prize-winning evidence has convincingly overturned local realism and demonstrated that âobjects are not influenced solely by their surroundings and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurementâ (Garisto, 2022, para. 1). The demise of local realism underscores the significance of subjectivity and subjectâobject interaction, urging us to pause and rethink what is meant by ârealâ when we speak of real-world problem solving. It calls for a transdisciplinary reconsideration of the nature of human existence and reality, as well as the essence of spirituality. It also calls for a strong transdisciplinarity that accommodates expanded ontological, logical, and epistemological assumptions, allows for intelligible and meaningful engagement between conflicting discourses, and embraces not only the societal, environmental, and economic dimensions but also the individual, spiritual, and cosmic dimensions of realityâfor a bright shared future on Earth. As the Charter of Transdisciplinarity specified: âOnly a form of intelligence capable of grasping the cosmic dimension of the present conflicts is able to confront the complexity of our world and the present challenge of the spiritual and material self-destruction of the human speciesâ (Nicolescu, 1996/2002, p. 147). Nicolescu (2015a) also underscored that âit is not the technology which will save our species but a radical change of our vision of Realityââa deep realization that âwe are part of the ordered movement of Realityâ and that âfor a sustainable future, we have to consider simultaneously all levels of Reality and also the Hidden Thirdâ (p. 77). Due to the neglect of the Charter of Transdisciplinarity and the downright rejection of Nicolescuâs formulation of transdisciplinary methodology, the Zurich school has confined itself to merely the phenomenal aspect of reality. Such confinement is not unlike the shackled prisoners in Platoâs allegory of the cave, grasping at the projected shadows on the wall as the one 66 and only one reality, thereby depriving itself of a potent hermeneutical tool. As Nicolescu (2015b) indicated, his methodology of transdisciplinarity is a methodology of dialogue, of which transdisciplinary hermeneutics is a natural outcome. In the absence of an overarching axiomatic ground, it is not surprising that the Zurich approach has encountered difficulties in resolving conflicts within transdisciplinary teams, which, as Augsburg (2014) indicated, are heterogeneous in nature due to differences in disciplinary methodologies, preconceptions, predispositions, and worldviews among team members. As a result, heterogeneity, which was originally supposed to be a fountain of new insights and possibilities, according to Hollaender et al. (2008), has been seen as the biggest threat to the success of transdisciplinary projects. Since heterogeneity is also a fundamental characteristic of transdisciplinarity, it has become a âtransdisciplinary paradoxâ (Hollaender et al., 2008, p. 386), and consequently necessitates âcareful project design, coordination, and managementâ (Augsburg, 2014, p. 237). Coordination and management, however, do not guarantee the success of transdisciplinarity. As Max-Neef (2005) pointed out, with the mechanism of teaming-up specialists from different areas, âone can only hope to achieve an accumulation of visions emerging from each of the participating disciplines. An integrating synthesis is not achieved through the accumulation of different brains. It must occur inside each of the brainsâ (p. 5). That is, as mentioned earlier, the transcendence intrinsic to transdisciplinarity is the transcendence of the subject (Nicolescu, 2014b). Without the transcendence of the subject on the individual level in the first place, the outcome of coordination and management on the group level might be only a result of power struggle or frustrating compromise in the name of democracy rather than genuine transdisciplinarity. 67 The limitations of the Zurich approach also led to certain difficulties in STEAM education. For example, in an integrative literature review of 44 articles (18 empirical, 14 descriptive, 12 pedagogical framework) on STEAM research and practice, Perignat and Katz-Buonincontro (2019) found that in STEAM, âthe arts often take secondary priority to STEM disciplinesâ (p. 40). One of the underlying reasons, as they observed, might be that many STEAM practitioners have been struggling with methods for integrating the arts into STEM. Another reason is that âin its inception, the arts were suggested as an addition to STEM in order to enhance student learning and interest in STEM fields. This description implicitly places the arts as a subservient discipline to STEM disciplinesâ (p. 40). They thus suggested the need for a shift in language to describe STEAM as a pedagogical approach that integrates five disciplines equally. In my view, this desired shift in language can hardly be achieved without a shift in methodology toward strong transdisciplinarity and a shift in paradigm based on a new vision of reality. As shown earlier, underlying the Zurich approach to transdisciplinarity is an outdated fragmentary worldview that does not accommodate expanded ontological, logical, and epistemological assumptions, nor does it leave room for subjectivity, subjectâobject interaction, scienceâreligion conversation, and ternary logic and thinking. This makes transdisciplinary hermeneutics and cross-discourse conversation, especially between the existential and scientific traditions of curriculum, extremely difficult, not to mention the challenge of placing the two traditions into proper perspective with appropriate scopes of validity and intelligible interrelationships. This realization underscores the necessity of moving toward strong transdisciplinarity for the advancement of the curriculum. Moving toward strong transdisciplinarity, however, does not mean rejecting or excluding weak transdisciplinarity. 68 Rather, as Max-Neef (2005) suggested, it is an endeavour to refine transdisciplinarity âas a world vision, until the weak is absorbed and consolidated in the strongâ (p. 16). It is also a move toward the ideal of unity in diversity and diversity through unity, which, as Nicolescu (2014b) argued, is intrinsic to transdisciplinarity. In the above exploration, I argue for the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity. In the next section, I proceed to explore Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity and illustrate its advantages for facilitating curriculum conversation and advancement. 2.6 Methodology of Transdisciplinarity 2.6.1 The Axiomatic Character of the Methodology of Transdisciplinarity The methodology of transdisciplinarity formulated by Nicolescu, as briefly explored in Chapter 1, is determined by three axioms: 1. The ontological axiom: There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality of the Object and, correspondingly, different levels of Reality of the Subject. 2. The logical axiom: The passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of the included middle. 3. The epistemological axiom: The structure of the totality of levels of Reality is a complex structure: every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time. (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 191) The three axioms give a rigorous and precise definition of transdisciplinarity that is in line with the one sketched by Jean Piaget (Nicolescu, 2014b). Nicolescu (2007) noted that these axioms 69 have their roots in contemporary cutting-edge sciences, particularly quantum physics, quantum cosmology, and molecular biology, and have emerged from his long-term practice as a theoretical physicist. His transition in research from quantum theory and subatomic particle physics to transdisciplinarity has been significantly influenced by grand founders of quantum physics, including Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and Niels Bohr, whose works bring metaphysics and physics together, and by Kurt Gödel, a logician, mathematician, and philosopher famous for his incompleteness theorems in mathematical logic (Volckmann, 2007). Among the philosophers who influenced Nicolescu are Jacob Bohme, an influential contemporary of Galileo Galilei who took a different direction of thinking from Galileiâs; Edmund Husserl, both a philosopher and a mathematician who elaborated transcendental phenomenology; and Stephan Lupasco, who, with the aim of renewing philosophy through quantum physics, took seriously the paradoxical features of quantum physics regarding reality and invented a new logicâthe logic of the included middle (Nicolescu, 1991; Volckmann, 2007). In modern logic and mathematics, an axiom is a proposition that is either self-evidently true or accepted as true without proof, serving as a foundational premise from which other truths are deduced within a system of knowledge (Copi et al., 2016). Axioms are logically necessary because requiring proof for every premise would lead to an infinite regress, with each proof relying on further unproven assumptions. Therefore, an axiom cannot be provenâif it could, it would be called a theorem. Nor can it be disprovenâif it could, it would no longer qualify as an axiom. The number of axioms that determine a knowledge system is thus kept to a minimum. Moreover, axioms are not arbitrarily constructed. They should meet our needs for problem 70 solving, relate to our intuitive concepts, empirical evidence, and established knowledge, maintain self-consistency, and avoid contradictory deductions (Kay, 2022). Modern science, for example, is founded on three axioms formulated by Galileo Galilei in 1632 in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: 1. There are universal laws, of a mathematical character. 2. These laws can be discovered by scientific experiment. 3. Such experiments can be perfectly replicated. (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 191) These axioms were revolutionary when they were formulated three centuries ago. To this day, the three methodological axioms of modern science remain unshakable and have engendered innumerable theories, methods, and models throughout the history of scientific disciplines. For Nicolescu, however, Galileiâs three axioms do not exhaust the realm of reality since subjectivity is not included, and this is exactly the point of transdisciplinarity (Volckmann, 2007). Given the non-ontological character of mathematics and the irreducible presence of the subject, subjectivity cannot be described by universal laws of a mathematical character and mathematically formalized. Galilei himself, as Nicolescu (2014b) indicated, also made a distinction between human mathematics and divine mathematics which âis connected with the direct perception of the totality of all existing laws and phenomenaâ (p. 191). The bridge between science and ontology therefore can only be built by taking into account the totality of human knowledge and experiences (Nicolescu, 2014b). In an interview by Volckmann (2007), Nicolescu insisted that transdisciplinarity, intended to be a new scientific and cultural approach, is a field larger than scienceââwe clearly put on the table the value of subjectivity, of feelings, of intelligence in feelingsâ (p. 84). The value of 71 subjectivity, he stressed, has been well demonstrated by neuroscientists such as Antonio Damasio, who showed that the human body, feelings, and emotions play a central role in cognition and decision-making. Transdisciplinarity, as formulated by Nicolescu, is therefore a new type of intelligence that connects the analytical mind with feelings, the body, and personal experiences in accordance with the three axioms of transdisciplinarity (Volckmann, 2007). Although initially, the three axioms of transdisciplinarity may appear revolutionary, even oracular, abstruse, esoteric, or mathematically abstract, as described by some scholars (Bernstein, 2015; Rigolot, 2020), Nicolescu (2014b) envisioned positively that these axioms, serving as a parallel to Galileiâs methodological axioms of modern science, will ultimately prove true and, like Galileiâs axioms, will generate a wide array of theories, methods, and models. The axiomatic character is a distinctive feature of the methodology of transdisciplinarity that underpins significant concepts of transdisciplinarity. In particular, since transdisciplinarity is determined by three axioms that parallel the three axioms of the methodology of modern science, we define transdisciplinarity through a new methodology and identify it with a new knowledgeâknowledge about what is in-between, across, and beyond all disciplines grounded on the three axioms of transdisciplinarityârather than a new discipline, hyper-discipline, or science of sciences (Nicolescu, 2007, 2014b; Volckmann, 2007). Likewise, transdisciplinary and trans-religious hermeneutics of spirituality should not be identified with a new religion, hyper-religion, or religion of religions. The axiomatic character of the methodology of transdisciplinarity also enables us to recognize varying degrees of transdisciplinarity, depending on the extent to which the three methodological axioms of transdisciplinarity are incorporated (Nicolescu, 2010). Moreover, while Nicolescu emphasized that transdisciplinarity encompasses values, particularly 72 humanistic values, he pointed out that these values are generated from the interactions among the three axioms of transdisciplinarity. Therefore, there is no necessity to introduce values as a fourth axiom (axiological axiom) (McGregor, 2023; Nicolescu, 2014b; Volckmann, 2007). The above juxtaposition of Galileiâs disciplinary methodology for science and Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary methodology for science and the humanities reveals the methodological advantages of Nicolescuâs methodology for transdisciplinary hermeneutics, cross-discourse conversations, interfaith dialogues, and new knowledge production. It is noteworthy that Nicolescuâs methodology does not negate Galileiâs methodology; rather, it accommodates it on certain levels of Reality of the Object and provides it with a proper perspective with pertinent scopes of validity and intelligible interrelationships with the Subject. Nicolescuâs approach, therefore, not only accommodates the Zurich approach but also enlivens it through ongoing conversations between subject and object, as well as between science and the humanities. Today, we have reached a historical point where confrontation and conversation between science and the humanities are inevitable and indispensable. On the one hand, as shown earlier, new theories and models of the universe have been popularized in culture and led to the proliferation of unfounded and dangerous speculations and suppositions. To address these issues would force humanists to confront scientific matters. On the other hand, as physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser (2023) pointed out, the weirdness of quantum mechanics has led physicists to strange places and forced scientists to confront philosophical matters. This makes clear the insufficiency of Galileiâs disciplinary methodology of science and the necessity of an all-embracing transdisciplinary methodology, such as Nicolescuâs, for new knowledge production that is essential for the 73 resolution of pressing global issues. With this appreciation of Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology in mind, in the following, I go on to explore the details of the three axioms. 2.6.2 The Ontological Axiom: Levels of Reality The ontological axiom of the methodology of transdisciplinarity postulates the existence of multiple levels of Reality of the Object and the Subject in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature. Nature, as defined earlier, includes three aspects: Objective Nature, Subjective Nature, and the Hidden Third. The concepts of multiple levels of Reality and the Hidden Third in the ontological axiom are crucial to Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary approach. By Reality, Nicolescu (2014b) means âthat which resists our experiences, representations, descriptions, images, or even mathematical formulationsâ (p. 192). Nicolescu explained in an interview that resistance is a common term used in science to refer to something inside and outside of us that resists our sense organs and extensions of sense organs, such as measuring instruments (Volckmann, 2007). It is against the resistance to our experiences that we discover new things and attain new understanding; âwithout resistance, we wouldnât discover things. Nature looks like an infinite reservoir of resistanceâ (Volckmann, 2007, pp. 82â83). This meaning of Reality, for Nicolescu, is simultaneously pragmatic and ontological. He made a distinction between Reality and the Real. While Reality is connected to resistance in human experience and is accessible to our knowledge, the Real designates that which truly is, and is, by definition, veiled or hidden forever. The distinction between Reality and the Real, therefore, may be roughly understood as similar to the distinction between phenomena and noumena in Kantâs philosophy (Weed, 2002). By level of Reality, Nicolescu (2014b) designated âa set of systems that are invariant under certain general laws (in the case of natural systems) and under certain general rules and norms (in the case of 74 social systems)â (p. 192). Two levels of Reality are considered to be different if there exists a break in the applicable laws, rules, norms, or fundamental concepts (e.g., causality) while passing from one to the other. Discontinuity is therefore an intrinsic feature of the structure of levels of Reality (Nicolescu, 2014b). Nicolescu (2014b) also emphasized the discontinuity between different disciplines, which are considered to be on different levels of Reality. In this research, the capitalized âRealityâ will be used to refer to the phenomenal aspect of reality as defined by Nicolescu. Nicolescuâs formulation of the transdisciplinary methodology has its origin in quantum physics. This makes it a good starting point for understanding the three axioms. As Nicolescu explained in an interview, âthe laws of quantum physics correspond to a new level of reality in total discontinuity with the laws of nature we knew at the level of our own scale, where Newtonian [classical] physics is validâ (Volckmann, 2007, p. 80). Thus, it is certain that in any context there exist at least two different levels of Reality. Moreover, since classical binary logic (invented by Aristotle) is not valid in the quantum worldâwhere, in plain language, we can say yes and no at the same time (quantum superposition)âa new logic is required to navigate between quantum and classical macroscopic worlds, and the logic of the included middle is the best candidate. That is, while yes and no (A and non-A) are mutually exclusive pairs on the classical everyday level of Reality, the logic of the included middle, by including a third state T on the quantum level of Reality that is at the same time yes and no (A and non-A), is able to induce an open and coherent (non-contradictory) structure of the unity of levels of Realityââa simple solution to all these puzzles of paradoxes [on the classical level of Reality]â, said Nicolescu (Volckmann, 2007, p. 81). Besides, since each level (classical, quantum, or other level) of Reality is what it is because 75 of the coexistence of all levels of Reality, the totality of levels of Reality features a complex structure. This elucidates the epistemological axiom. Given the universal interdependence of all levels of Reality, each level is characterized by its incompleteness: âthe laws governing this level are just a part of the totality of laws governing all levels. And even the totality of laws does not exhaust the entire Realityâ because we also need to consider the subject and the subjectâobject interaction (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 192). The unity of levels of Reality therefore has an open structure. This open structure of the unity of levels of Reality, according to Nicolescu (2010), is in line âwith one of the most important scientific results of the twentieth century concerning arithmetic, the theorem of Kurt Gödel, which states that a sufficiently rich system of axioms inevitably leads to results that are either undecidable or contradictoryâ (p. 26). Gödelâs incompleteness theorem has important implications for all modern theories of knowledge because it concerns all branches of mathematics that involve arithmetic (Nicolescu, 2010). This Gödelian structure of levels of Reality suggests the impossibility of a complete and self-enclosed theoryâknowledge is always open (Nicolescu, 2010, p. 26). The open unity of the totality of levels of Reality is complemented by its complex plurality (the epistemological axiom). The coexistence of open unity and complex plurality gives rise to a new Principle of Relativity: âno level of Reality constitutes a privileged place from which one is able to understand all the other levels of Realityâ (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 192). This principle provides a coherent yet non-hierarchical perspective on diverse domains of knowledge and is what allows STEAM to be expanded as a transdisciplinary approach that integrates five disciplines equally. 76 The zone between different levels and beyond all levels of Reality, as Nicolescu (2014b) described, is a zone of non-resistance, which, due to the limitations of our sense organs and measurement instruments, does not resist our experiences, descriptions, and mathematical formulationsâlike a zone of transparency. The unity of levels of Reality of the Object and its complementary zone of non-resistance constitutes the transdisciplinary Object. Similarly, the unity of levels Reality of the Subject and its complementary zone of non-resistance constitutes the transdisciplinary Subject. Following Edmund Husserl, Nicolescu (2014b) asserted that knowledge of levels of Reality of the Object are accessible thanks to levels of Reality of the Subject that are potentially present in our being. Moreover, for the communication between transdisciplinary Subject and transdisciplinary Object to be possible, the two zones of non-resistance of transdisciplinary Object and Subject must be identical. This shared zone of non-resistance ensures that the flow of consciousness which streams across transdisciplinary Subject and the flow of information which moves through transdisciplinary Object are interrelated (Nicolescu, 2014b). Transdisciplinary knowledge, therefore, âis simultaneously exterior and interior. Exterior refers to the study of the universe and interior refers to the study of the human being; knowledge of each sustains the other because they are interconnectedâ (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 195). This shared zone of non-resistance is called the Hidden Third because it plays an interactive and unifying role as a third between the Subject and the Object (Nicolescu, 2014b). The transdisciplinary Subject, transdisciplinary Object, and the Hidden Third define transdisciplinary realism (Nicolescu, 2014b). Through the inclusion of the Hidden Third, transdisciplinary realism restores the place of the sacred (Nicolescu, 2010, 2014b). This ternary structure can be applied to 77 the analysis of concrete situations and engenders various ternary structures of different levels, such as levels of objectivityâsubjectivityâcomplexity, knowledgeâunderstandingâbeing, languageâconfusionâinterpretation, materialityâspiritualityânonâduality, physicalâbiologicalâpsychical, and so on (Nicolescu, 2014b). 2.6.3 The Logical Axiom: The Included Middle As mentioned earlier, Gödelâs theorem of incompleteness shows that due to the incompleteness of the general laws governing one single level of Reality, on any level of Reality, a sufficiently complex system of axioms inevitably yields outcomes that are either undecidable or contradictory (Nicolescu, 2010). This means that eventually, contradictions will arise in theories describing this level of Reality, where one must assert both A and non-A simultaneously (Nicolescu, 2014b). This Gödelian feature of Reality is well verified by âthe history of science: a theory leads to contradictions and one has to invent a new theory solving these contradictions. It is precisely the way in which we went from classical physics to quantum physicsâ (Nicolescu, 2010, p. 29). Classical logic, however, does not tolerate contradictions (Nicolescu, 2014b). In classical logic, there exists the Principle of Explosion: âfrom a contradiction, anything logically followsâ (Carnielli & Coniglio, 2016, p. 2). That is, once a contradiction is asserted, any proposition can be logically inferred from it; this is also known as deductive explosion (BaÅkent, 2013, p. 4023). Classical logic is founded on three axioms: 1. The axiom of identity: A is A. 2. The axiom of non-contradiction: A is not non-A. 78 3. The axiom of the excluded middle: There exists no third term T (âTâ from âthirdâ) which is at the same time A and non-A. (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 194) The coexistence of knowledge of the quantum world and the macroscopic world, however, has generated diverse âmutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and non-separability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, and so forthâ (Nicolescu, 2010, p. 29). These contradictory dyads provoked by quantum mechanics, however, are contradictory only when analyzed through the interpretive lens of classical binary logic. A simple solution to this logical predicament is to replace the axiom of the excluded middle in classical logic with the axiom of the included middleâto include a third state T that is at the same time A and non-A (Nicolescu, 2014b). The logic of the included middle was developed by philosopher Stéphane Lupasco (1900â1988). He showed âthat the logic of the included middle is a true logic, mathematically formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictoryâ (Nicolescu, 2014b, p. 194). Nicolescu (2007) noted that Lupascoâs philosophy goes beyond formal logic, and âis a true philosophy of the included middleâ (p. 49). However, it does not incorporate the notion of multiple levels of Reality. Once incorporated, as Nicolescu (2014b) noted, our understanding of the axiom of the included middle becomes fully clarified. The notion of multiple levels of Reality allows us to shift the T-state, which is simultaneously A and non-A, to operate on a different level of Reality. The appearance of antagonistic and mutually exclusive pairs (A and non-A) at one level of Reality is therefore merely the projection of an inclusive T-state (A and non-A) from another level of Reality (Nicolescu, 2014b). This is how the logic of the included 79 middle ensures the passage from one level of Reality to another. This ternary logic makes clear that confining ourselves to a single level of reality, as the Zurich approach did, only creates and perpetuates antagonistic dyadsâthe consequences can only be self-destructive. The logic of the included middle, however, does not abolish classical binary logicâit only constrains its scope of validity. Although the logic of the excluded middle is undoubtedly valid for relatively simple cases (e.g., driving a car), its flaws emerge within the social, cultural, religious, political, or economic spheres when situations become complex and problems become wicked (Nicolescu, 2007). As Rittel and Webber (1973) indicated, almost all public issues are âwicked problemsâ that are bound to confront diverse theoretical dilemmas and wicked situations where both A and non-A should happen at the same time. These are problems that are beyond intractable, defy complete definition, and have no final solutions since any resolution would generate further issues (Bernstein, 2015). Although there has been a conventional assumption that scientific-technical approaches would provide the most reliable guidance for researchers and practitioners addressing wicked problems, Rittel and Webber (1973) argued that âthe search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are âwickedâ problems, whereas science has developed to deal with âtameâ problemsâ (p. 155). Rittel and Webberâs provocative claim has engaged many academic researchers, policy analysts, and planning practitioners since 1973, and wicked problems, such as conflicts and sustainability, have become a focal concern in transdisciplinary literature (Bernstein, 2015; Head, 2019). Head (2019) observed that the first generation of âwicked problemâ scholars often ârecommended the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in exploring the relevant issues, interests, value differences and policy responsesâ (p. 180), a 80 principle evident in the Zurich approach. More than four decades later, strong arguments have emerged for the development of a broader second-generation approach to addressing wicked problems (Head, 2019). However, no matter how âbroadâ an approach may be, according to Gödelâs theorem of incompleteness, as long as we continue to ignore subjectivity, subjectâobject interaction, and the Hidden Third, and reject the logic of the included middle, we risk perpetuating the wickedness of wicked problems. This poses a moral concern. As Rittel and Webber (1973) said, âit becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problemsâ (p. 161). This moral concern undoubtedly extends to curriculum and education. Moreover, in reality, there exist almost infinite shades between right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, black and white, right and left, rich and poor, and so forth. Unaware use of the binary either-or logic of the excluded middle, however, has effectively erased other possibilities and resulted in genuine exclusion. As Nicolescu (2007) suggested, âit would be revealing to undertake an analysis of xenophobia, racism, apartheid, anti-Semitism, or nationalism in the light of the logic of the excluded middleâ (p. 51). On the contrary, the logic of the included middle serves as a potent conceptual tool for integrative processes. According to Nicolescu (2007), âit allows us to cross two different levels of Reality and to effectively integrate, not only in thinking, but also in our own being, the coherence of the Universeâ (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 51). When the logic of the included middle transcends its role as an abstract logical tool, it becomes an inclusive third that unites contradictory pairs and enables us to perceive the world as a living whole, as âa 81 living reality touching all the dimensions of our beingâ (Nicolescu, 2007, p. 51). Its implications for curriculum and education are profound and will be further explored in Chapter 7. 2.6.4 The Epistemological Axiom: The Universal Interdependence The epistemological axiom postulates a complex structure of the totality of levels of Reality, meaning that each level is what it is because of the coexistence of all levels of Reality (Nicolescu, 2014b). Complexity, in this sense, is nothing other than the ancient principle of universal interdependence, which maintains the interdependence and interconnectedness of everythingânothing is separate (Nicolescu, 2014b). This complex structure, as posited by the ontological axiom, is grounded in the Hidden Third, or the shared zone of non-resistance, which serves as a hidden backdrop and plays a unifying and interactive role between discontinuous levels of Reality (Nicolescu, 2014b). This complex unity is open, not only because of Gödelâs incompleteness theorem, which characterizes each level by its incompleteness, but also because we must take into account the subject and the subjectâobject dialectic, from which the new emerges. The coexistence of open unity and complex plurality gives rise to the aforementioned new Principle of Relativity. Currently, there exist several theories of complexity, but none of them includes the concepts of levels of Reality and the shared zone of non-resistance, although some, such as Edgar Morinâs, are compatible with these concepts (Nicolescu, 2014b). It is therefore necessary to make a distinction between horizontal complexity, which involves only a single level of Reality, and vertical complexity, which involves multiple levels of Reality and zones of non-resistance 82 (Nicolescu, 2014b). The hermeneutical power of vertical complexity will be illustrated in Chapter 5 through an exploration of Neil Theiseâs works on complexity. The above exploration of diverse aspects of transdisciplinarity underscores the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity based on Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology. Among the three axioms, the ontological axiom is pivotal. It posits a ternary structure of transdisciplinary realism, namely {Subject, Object, Hidden Third}, and emphasizes the critical role of the Hidden Third, which distinguishes it from the binary structure {Subject, Object} of dominant scientific worldviews. However, the existence of the Hidden Third and its connection to the sacred remains controversial. To address the uncertainties surrounding the Hidden Third, the following chapter demonstrates its undeniable presence, as well as its association with the Divine, from both objective and subjective perspectives. 83 Chapter 3: The Hidden Third: The Undeniable Presence of the Divine 3.1 Introduction In the preceding chapter, I explored the concept of transdisciplinarity, covering its historical background, key aspects, and diverse approaches, and investigated Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity. While many may recognize the advantages of Nicolescuâs methodology, the concept of the Hidden Third and its association with the sacred have impeded its widespread adoption. In this chapter, I address the uncertainties surrounding the Hidden Third by demonstrating its undeniable8 presence and association with the Divine from both objective and subjective perspectives, thereby affirming the rationality of Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology. My arguments begin with an illustration of the significance of the Hidden Third in ensuring the completeness (continuum) of reality by filling the âontological gapsâ between and beyond the discontinuous levels of Reality. By understanding Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity as the Completeness Axioms for Reality and drawing a parallel between it and the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers, I illustrate its critical role in transcending the limitations of existing knowledge for the resolution of intractable challenges. To verify the existence of the Hidden Third as a valid ontological axiom, we must demonstrate that it can neither be proven nor disproven. Due to its non-dualistic and non-conceptual nature, as will be shown later, the existence of the Hidden Third cannot be directly proven by scientific methods. To ascertain that it can neither be disproven, I demonstrate the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third from both objective and subjective perspectives, thereby affirming its validity as an ontological axiom. Then, based on the integrated objective and subjective understanding of the Hidden Third, which manifests both as a hidden cosmic information system and as a divine, 84 all-knowing cosmic consciousness, I demonstrate the undeniable presence of the Divine. This is followed by an argument on the imperative of the Completeness Axioms for Reality, i.e., the methodology of transdisciplinarity. Lastly, I illustrate the hermeneutical power of transdisciplinary dialectics between religion and science, concluding that the assumptions underlying the secular approach to education are untenable within a strong transdisciplinary framework. I also argue that the educational significance of religion extends beyond merely uncovering the hidden aspect of human existence and reality. Therefore, there is a need to delve deeper into the spiritual wisdom of long-standing religious traditions to gain insights that may contribute to the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems for educational and curricular purposes. 3.2 The Completeness Axioms for Reality In my previous career teaching Calculus, introducing the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers to freshmen was a foundational task during the first week of the course. The Completeness Axiom states that every nonempty subset of real numbers that is bounded above (below) has a least upper bound (greatest lower bound) (Burn, 1992; Kay, 2022). Depending on the approach taken to construct the real number system, the Completeness Axiom, which began to take shape in the mid-19th century, can be expressed in several mathematically equivalent statements, such as that each Dedekind cut is made by a real number, or that any Cauchy sequence is convergent, among others (Kay, 2022). All statements serve to describe the completeness, or more precisely, continuum, of the real number system, â. Completeness here retains a sense of openness in the real number system, meaning that there are no âgapsâ or âholesâ in the real number line. This contrasts with the rational number system, â, whose 85 number line contains gaps. Any rational number x can be expressed in the form x = n/m, where both n and m are integers and m â 0. While the rational number system is sufficient for certain everyday tasks, its incompleteness severely restricts mathematical analysis. For instance, it is provable that the equation x2 = 2 has no solution in â. In fact, the majority of roots, logarithms of rational numbers, and all infinite decimals without repeating patterns do not belong to â (Kay, 2022). Therefore, there is a need to construct a complete real number system by filling in the gaps in â with irrational numbers. The Completeness Axiom is considered a cornerstone of Calculus because it enables the replacement of vague notions of âinfinitely largeâ or âinfinitesimally smallâ with precise definitions, thereby allowing for the rigorous treatment of limits, continuity, and the convergence of sequences and series. Moreover, many fundamental theorems in Calculus rely on the Completeness Axiom. As mentioned in the previous chapter, axioms cannot be proven or disproven; they are either self-evidently true or accepted to be true. They serve as the ârules of the gameâ that everyone accepts (Kay, 2022). How far we can progress in playing the game depends on how we uncover, construct, and accept its rules: axioms. Axioms, therefore, are not arbitrarily constructed. As discussed in Section 2.6, they should meet our needs for problem solving, relate to our intuitive concepts, empirical evidence, and established knowledge, maintain self-consistency, and avoid contradictory deductions (Kay, 2022). In mathematics, since the real number system â was found insufficient to provide solutions to certain well-formed polynomial equations, it was extendedâby definitionâto the complex number system â through the incorporation of the imaginary unit ð¦ð¦ = ââ1 . Each complex numberâan imaginary constructâis expressed as a + bi, or an ordered pair (a, b), where a and b are real numbers. This extension 86 ensures that all polynomial equations have solutions within â. Subsequently, hypercomplex number systems ân, where n= 4, 8, 16, ..., were constructed as sets of ordered pairs of ordered pairs, and so on (Kay, 2022). The construction of â, â, and ân represents crucial conceptual advances in number systems and has significantly contributed to the development of Analysis in mathematics. This foundation has enabled rigorous studies in Calculus and expanded into the analysis of multidimensional spaces, supporting a wide range of real-world applications in fields such as physics, engineering, cryptography, neural networks, computer graphics and animation, machine learning, and more (Kay, 2022)âdespite the fact that complex numbers are logically non-existent and physically unobservable. For instance, the Fourier Transformârooted in complex number theoryâis fundamental to holography, where it enables the capture and reconstruction of 3D images by encoding and decoding light patterns (Goodman, 2005; Kreis, 2005). Despite the extraordinary power of Calculus in solving real-world problems, the realization that it is founded on an unprovable axiom somehow troubled some students. Therefore, every year I had to address this potential âcrisis of faithâ in Calculus. Such perplexity often stems from the myth that knowledge in mathematics must have been proven through logical reasoning. While it is true that new rigorous knowledge typically builds on prior knowledge through reason, we must ask: What is this prior knowledge founded on? Obviously, as noted in Section 2.6, there must be a starting point that stops the infinite regress of justification. After all, âall mathematical reasoning must ultimately be founded on axiomsâ (Kay, 2022, p. 1). Moreover, while axioms may involve the irrational and the imaginary, this does not necessarily undermine the rationality, rigor, and problem-solving power of mathematics. On the contrary, the history of mathematics 87 has demonstrated that the proper incorporation of the irrational and the imaginary into axioms of number systems has greatly empowered mathematics in fields such as Number Theory, Analysis, and Abstract Algebra, enabling the resolution of previously unsolvable problems. These instances illustrate that in the face of intractable conundrums, it can be more rational and realistic to embrace the irrational and the imaginary than to reject them outright. While real numbers are often considered more ârealâ than imaginary numbers, for Richard Dedekind (1831â1916), the German mathematician who defined real numbers through the Dedekind cut, ânumbers are free creations of the human mindâ (as cited in Kay, 2022, p. 3). From this perspective, all kinds of numbers are considered imaginary and rely on axioms devised by human thinkers to exist, serving the purposes of describing the natural world and facilitating human thinking and activities (Kay, 2022). After all, if people insist on labeling propositions that are not provable, such as axioms, as mere faith, then it is fair to say that the entire knowledge system of mathematics and the sciences built upon it is founded on faith. Since mathematics and science are symbiotic knowledge systems, the foregoing exploration gives us insights into the significance of the axioms of Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary methodology, which is intended to parallel or expand Galileoâs methodological axioms of modern science, while bridging science and ontology. As mentioned in Chapter 1, today's dominant worldviews are underpinned by scientific naturalism, which comprises physicalism as its ontological component and the scientific method as its methodological component. Scientific naturalism has been immensely powerful in advancing our understanding of the natural world, leading to significant technological advancements and medical breakthroughs. Nonetheless, the dominant naturalistic worldview, particularly its ontological assumptions, including the subjectâ 88 object dichotomy, the presumption of a mind-independent outer world, the single-dimensionality of reality, and the separateness and mutual independence of all things, have been seen as contributing to various local and global crises. For example, drawing on a variety of research, Koltko-Rivera (2004) has demonstrated a close connection between worldviews and the survival of humanity, suggesting that perilous situations, such as the potential for thermonuclear war, high-stakes terrorism, and the global environmental crisis, can be attributed to the worldviews of those who exacerbate such crises. Moreover, its reductionist, third-person approach is incapable of addressing fundamental inquiries concerning consciousness, notably the hard problem of consciousness, which is central to existential inquiries and the dialogue between science and religion. To address these insurmountable challenges, which evade resolution within a fragmented worldview, it appears both rational and realistic to expand naturalistic assumptions about human nature and reality. Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology precisely meets this need. In a sense, akin to the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers, which attains the completeness of the number system â by filling the âgapsâ in â with irrational numbers, Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary methodology achieves the continuum or completeness of reality through the acknowledgement of the Hidden Third, which fills the âontological gapsâ between and beyond the discontinuous levels of Reality of the Subject and the Object, coupled with the recognition of its complexity and the introduction of a new ternary logic, in the form of axioms. As shown earlier, Gödelâs incompleteness theorem suggests that each level of Reality of the Subject and Object is characteristic of its incompleteness. The Hidden Third is what bridges all incomplete levels of Reality and ensures the open unity of the totality of levels of Reality. The axioms of Nicolescuâs transdisciplinary methodology can therefore be regarded as the 89 Completeness Axioms for Reality. The Completeness Axioms for Reality not only fill up âontological gapsâ of reality but also allow the replacement of hidden or vague underlying philosophical assumptions with explicit and precise axioms, thereby facilitating rigorous, intelligible, meaningful, and fruitful engagement between conflicting or contradictory discourses. Similar to the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers, which lays the foundation for rigorous studies of Calculus and enables further conceptual leaps into the consideration of multidimensional spaces, thereby revitalizing mathematical knowledge systems, the Completeness Axioms for Reality open possibilities for new worldviews, lay the foundation for the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems, and enable both intellectual and ontological leaps into the exploration of the Hidden Third and the multidimensionality of Reality, thereby enlivening, integrating, and enriching the corpus of human knowledge systems. The Hidden Third, as the shared zone of non-resistance, has played a critical role in securing the continuum or completeness of reality. By allowing the interplay between flows of consciousness of the Subject and flows of information of the Object, the Hidden Third is able to transform knowledge into understanding through the fusion of knowledge and being, thereby achieving the unification of the Subject and the Object, from which the new emerges (Nicolescu, 2014b). The Hidden Third therefore appears as a source of new knowledge, creativity, and experience. It is therefore essential not only for a new vision of reality, but also for a new vision of humanityâthe erasure of it undermines the very foundation of human integrity, potentiality, and sacredness, relegating humans to one-dimensional beings composed merely of aggregations of physical components (Nicolescu, 2014b). 90 Since the Hidden Third concerns the domain of the sacred, it is also a key element that enables continuing and meaningful dialogue between science and religion. While many agree that the scope of transdisciplinary dialogue and inquiry depends on how its foundational premises, namely axioms, are defined, some are hesitant to adopt Nicolescuâs methodology due to the controversies surrounding the Hidden Third. This uncertainty highlights the need to verify the presence of the Hidden Third as a valid ontological axiom. As will be shown below, owing to the non-dualistic nature of the Hidden Third, its existence cannot be directly proven by scientific methods but can only be indirectly inferred or reflexively experienced in altered states of consciousness, which Pinar (1974) referred to as âheightened consciousnessâ (p. 5). This limitation, however, does not diminish its validity as an ontological axiom. As noted in Section 2.6, a proposition becomes a valid axiom precisely because it is not provableâyet it should not be disprovable either. Therefore, for the existence of the Hidden Third to be considered a valid axiom, we must establish its undeniable presence. To this end, the following two sections will demonstrate the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third from objective, subjective, and integrated perspectives. 3.3 The Undeniable Presence of the Hidden Third: An Objective Perspective The Hidden Third, as mentioned earlier, refers to the shared zone of non-resistance of the transdisciplinary Object and Subject. Akin to a zone of transparency, it does not resist our experiences, descriptions, and mathematical formulations due to the limitations of our sense organs and measurement instruments. From an objective perspective, the existence of the Hidden Third as a zone of non-resistance is supported by the scientific discoveries of dark matter and dark energy. These mysterious forms of matter and energy, though invisible, have dominated the 91 structure and evolution of the universe. Current astrophysical and astronomical research reveals that the universe is comprised of roughly 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter, while all ordinary matterâthe type of matter that we can see or interact with, including everything on Earth and everything ever observed with all kinds of instruments (e.g., atoms, molecules, sun, moon, planets, gas clouds, galaxies, black holes)âadds up to less than 5% of the universe (Center for Astrophysics, n.d.; NASA Science, n.d.). Therefore, dark matter alone accounts for around 85% of the total mass in the universe. Dark energy is the term used to describe the enigmatic repulsive force driving the accelerated expansion of the universe, a phenomenon first noticed in the 1920s and later confirmed, as a big surprise, in 1998 by two independent groups of researchers (Center for Astrophysics, n.d.; Gohd, 2024). Currently, what dark energy is and how it works remain among the foremost challenges confronting modern astronomers. Some scientists believe that dark energy is an intrinsic, omnipresent background energy in space, referred to as vacuum energy (Gohd, 2024). Based on Einsteinâs discovery of the properties of space and a version of his gravity theory incorporating a cosmological constant, it is possible for more space to come into existence, and empty space can possess its own energy that does not dilute as space expands (Gohd, 2024). This means that as space expands, more intrinsic energy of space emerges, causing the universe to expand faster and faster. However, it remains a mystery as to why the cosmological constant should be there and be this value (Gohd, 2024). While there are a few other explanations for dark energy, none of them are universally accepted as convincing, so the mystery of dark energy remains (Gohd, 2024). Presently, with the combined efforts of several missions worldwide, scientists are expecting to collect more detailed information about dark energy in the near future (Gohd, 2024). What is 92 certain for now is that a perfect vacuum is not nothing but contains intrinsic energy. The first direct observation of gravitational waves in 2015, signifying ripples in the structure of space-time, further confirmed that space-time is, or is full of, âsomethingâ that transports energy and generates ripples (Kembhavi & Khare, 2020). This observation, along with the discovery of dark energy, not only supports the axiom of the continuum or completeness of reality, but also affirms the existence of something hidden that fills the âgapsâ in the seemingly fragmentary universe. In contrast to dark energy, which speeds up the expansion of the universe, dark matter functions like invisible glue that holds galaxies together. Its existence was first proposed by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1933. While observing the motion of galaxies in the Coma Cluster, Zwicky noticed that in order to keep the galaxies moving without flying apart, it would require a lot more mass than we can see to hold them together (Perry, 2020). He therefore speculated on the existence of some kind of dark matter that provides cohesion. In 1968, astronomer Vera Rubin made a similar discovery. While studying the rotation curve and velocity of the Andromeda Galaxy, she noticed that the rate of motion of stars at the outer edges was the same as that of those at the center, violating Newton's laws of motion (Perry, 2020). This implied that there must be more mass in the galaxies than could be detected, and her punch card readouts became the first evidence for the existence of dark matter (Perry, 2020). Based on the gravitational effects that dark matter appears to have on galaxies and clusters of galaxies, scientists are confident that it exists and has mass. However, dark matter has never been directly observedâit does not interact with normal matter, and all types of light and electromagnetic radiation seem to pass through it as if it were completely transparent, making it undetectable by current measuring instruments (Center for Astrophysics, n.d.; National Geographic, n.d.). In 93 Nicolescuâs words, it belongs to the zone of non-resistance, or zone of transparency. For this reason, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (2017) has suggested that âdark matterâ may not be what we should be calling it, because the term implies that it is matter and that we know something about it, while we actually donât. A more accurate label, he suggested, would be âdark gravity.â Currently, there are many theories about dark matter, but none are supported by experimental evidence. One significant candidate theory that may overturn physicalism (materialism) is the massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle, proposed by physicist Melvin Vopson in 2019. This principle posits that information is not only the building unit of the universe but also linked to energy and has mass, and that all the missing dark matter is actually information mass, thereby negating the dark matter hypothesis entirely (Perry, 2020; Vopson, 2019, 2022). Vopsonâs massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle is well established by integrating Einsteinâs special relativity, the massâenergy equivalence described by E=mc2, and Landauerâs principle, which demonstrated the physical nature of information (Landauer, 1961, 1996; Perry, 2020; Vopson, 2019). Proposed by Rolf Landauer in 1961, Landauerâs principle predicts that any irreversible change of information within a computational system, even the erasure of a single bit of information, necessarily dissipates a minimum amount of energy, known as the Landauer bound, as heat into its surroundings (Landauer, 1961, 1996). This is because, as this principle suggests, the erasure of information leads to a loss of order, or increased entropy (a measure of disorder and uncertainty) in a system, which, according to the second law of thermodynamics, must be accompanied by energy dissipation (Esposito, 2018). This indicates that information is not merely an abstract concept, nor is information processing solely a logical or mathematical 94 operation. Instead, it involves physical changes with thermodynamic consequences, revealing the inherent physical nature of information and linking information to energy (Landauer, 1961, 1996). Notably, Landauerâs principle has been experimentally confirmed in both classical and quantum systems in 2012 and 2018, respectively (Esposito, 2018). In addition to Landauerâs principle, other research fields, such as digital physics and the physics of information and computation, also reveal the close relationship between information, matter, and energy at the atomic level (Lokanga, 2020). Vopson (2019, 2021) also calculated the mass of a bit of information and the amount of information in each particle, concluding that there are approximately 6 Ã 1080 bits of information in the observable universe. Currently, an experimental protocol has been proposed for the verification of this calculation and the mass-energy-information equivalence principle. If confirmed, it would establish information as the fifth state of matter (Vopson, 2022). In another paper, based on the second law of infodynamics (information dynamics) discovered in 2022 and its necessity to fulfill the second law of thermodynamics, Vopson (2023b) concluded that information is indeed physical and equivalent to massâenergy.9 This deduction offers additional evidence for the existence of a hidden cosmic information system that continuously interacts with the observable physical world. The mass-energy-information equivalence may account for the phenomenon of quantum foamâa phenomenon conclusively demonstrated through the Casimir effect in 2001âwhere flurries of invisible subatomic particles appear and disappear in a perfect vacuum at the quantum level (Bressi et al., 2002). Since mental activities inherently involve information processing, the physical nature of information underscores the significance of subjectivity and the dynamic relationship between subject and object in shaping the physical world. It also challenges the 95 current understanding of physical causal closure, which, as discussed in Section 1.6, is based on the law of conservation of mass-energy and has contributed to full-fledged physicalism, leading naturalists to reject outright all non-physical forces, including mental, vital, supernatural forces, and those attributed to deities (Papineau, 2023). From an objective perspective, the above exploration of dark energy and dark matter establishes the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third, which accounts for 95% of the massâenergy of the entire universe. Since it permeates the whole universe and possesses intrinsic energy, it connects everything, ensures the continuum or completeness of reality, and appears as a potent energy-laden backdrop from which all phenomena emerge. Furthermore, since it functions as a cosmic information system, it allows the flows of information to stream across levels of transdisciplinary Object. Presently, investigating how flows of quantum information travel through spacetime has become an important research topic related to the study of black holes (IAS, 2018; Musser, 2020). Based on this objective understanding of the Hidden Third, including its undeniable presence and characteristics, I will proceed below to explore its undeniable presence and other characteristics from a subjective perspective. 3.4 The Undeniable Presence of the Hidden Third: A Subjective and Integrated Perspective As mentioned above, the Hidden Third is like a zone of transparency that eludes our experiences, descriptions, and mathematical formulations. Nonetheless, records of transcendental experiences across diverse religious traditions show that a hidden aspect of human existence and reality does indeed exist and can be accessed in certain states of consciousness. The intriguing direct 96 experience of the zone of non-resistance is vividly illustrated in neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylorâs 2006 book, My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientistâs Personal Journey. In this book, Taylor (2006) reflected on her experience of having a stroke, which led to a blood clot in the left hemisphere of her brain and necessitated surgery. She sketched in a paper that for the 2.5 weeks before the surgery and 2.5 weeks after the surgery, I existed inside a completely silent mind that was totally absent of all language. I was aware of the present moment, but I was no longer capable of tracking thoughts and ideas across time. I experienced a sense of gratitude and euphoria. As my left parietal region was swimming in a pool of blood, and I could not distinguish the boundaries between where I began and where I ended, I viewed myself as a ball of energy that was as big as the universe. Although I could not use any of the skill sets of my left brain, my right brain remained completely functional, and I could easily read the facial and body language of those around me. I could tell if you were comfortable in your skin, or if you wanted to be here with me. I could tell if you were a kind person, or an impatient one. (Taylor, 2019, p. 72) Taylor (2006) explained her experience from a neuroanatomical perspective, drawing primarily on the brain research performed by Andrew Newberg and Eugene DâAquili. They invited Tibetan meditators and Franciscan nuns to meditate or pray inside the SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) machine in order to identify the brain regions involved in transcendental spiritual experiencesâa shift in consciousness âaway from being an individual to feeling that we are at one with the universe (God, Nirvana, euphoria)â (Taylor, 2006, p. 135). This research found that when the meditators and nuns attained either meditative climax or a feeling of being united with God, activity in the language centers and the orientation association area located in the left hemisphere decreased. The inhibition of the language centers led to a 97 silencing of brain chatter that defines the self. When the orientation association areas, which help us identify our physical boundaries, space, and time, are suppressed or show decreased inputs from sensory systems, we lose sight of where our body begins and ends relative to the surrounding space (Taylor, 2006). This research provides a neurological foundation for explaining Taylorâs (2006) transcendental experiences. Her experiences include the silence of inner voices, loss of memory of the emotional self, and the decrease of the ego or small self while a universal or authentic self takes over; the inability to perceive temperature, pain, vibration, and the position of oneâs limbs, along with shifts in physical boundaries; a boundless expansion of personal energy, from feeling like a solid entity separate from everything else to a boundless fluid energy that is at one with the universe; a soaring, all-knowing state of consciousness; the perception that everything, including oneself, radiates pure energy; the disappearance of time, except for the vivid and abundant present moment; and a sense of deep inner peace, glorious bliss, grace, and tranquil euphoriaââfiner than the finest of pleasures we can experience as physical beingsâ (Taylor, 2006, p. 67). Taylor's non-dualistic and non-conceptual transcendental experiences offer compelling insights into the profound divinity and mystery of human nature and reality. Taylor connected her feeling of deep inner peace to her right hemisphere consciousness, which âis completely committed to the expression of peace, love, joy, and compassion in the worldâ (Taylor, 2006, p. 133). Comparing her right hemisphere personality, which stood out during her stroke, with her old personality dominated by her left mind, Taylor (2006) stated that âthe two halves of my brain donât just perceive and think in different ways at a neurological level, but they demonstrate very 98 different values based upon the types of information they perceive, and thus exhibit very different personalitiesâ (p. 133). Taylorâs invaluable experience reveals a deeper meaning of âknow thyselfâânot merely as a confined biological entity distinct from everything else, but as boundless fluid energy at one with the universe. This broadened self-knowledge, enriched by transcendental experiences, introduces new values and possibilities, expands personal vision, and fosters a balanced personality, highlighting the significance of spirituality in education. Neuroanatomical evidence of her transcendental experiences led Taylor (2006) to conclude that âpeace is only a thought away, and all we have to do to access it is silence the voice of our dominating left mindâ (p. 111). This insight inspired her to assist others and advocate for cultivating awareness regarding âwhich sides of our brain are processing what types of informationâ (Taylor, 2006, p. 135), fostering âdual interpenetrating awarenessesâ (p. 148), and adopting a more balanced-brain approachâa reciprocal interplay and balance between the âdoingâ left brain and the âbeingâ right brainâin how we lead our lives. Their educational implications are profound. It is noteworthy that the leftâright hemispheric dominance or lateralization of brain function is based on general trends and should not be absolutized or oversimplified, given the brainâs plasticity and the fact that both hemispheres contribute to a wide range of overlapping and interconnected processes. For instance, research has shown that language is lateralized to the left hemisphere in 95â99% of right-handed individuals, whereas this applies to only about 70% of left-handed individuals (Corballis, 2014). However, these findings do not diminish the immense value of Taylorâs experiences, which revealed two complementary modes of human awareness: the left âdoingâ mode and the right âbeingâ mode. Moreover, while Taylor employed the 99 language of neuroanatomy and acknowledged the interactive dynamics between the brain and consciousness, she did not assume that consciousness is merely a âproductionâ of the brain. Instead, she implicitly recognized the existential primacy of consciousness over matter. As she stated: Knowing that I am a part of the cosmic flow makes me feel innately safe and experience my life as heaven on earth. How can I feel vulnerable when I cannot be separated from the greater whole? My left mind thinks of me as a fragile individual capable of losing my life. My right mind realizes that the essence of my being has eternal life. Although I may lose these cells and my ability to perceive this three-dimensional world, my energy will merely absorb back into the tranquil sea of euphoria. Knowing this leaves me grateful. (Taylor, 2006, p. 160) This statement reveals how Taylor perceived her essence as a conscious being of energy, eternally connected to the grand whole, while viewing her physical experience on Earth as a transient emergence from the eternal cosmic ocean of energy. Taylorâs non-dualistic and non-conceptual transcendental experiences, along with their neuroanatomical underpinnings, provide convincing subjective evidence of the existence of a hidden ontological background of human existence and reality that appears as pure energy and an all-knowing cosmic consciousness, which permeates and connects everything, and emanates non-dual love and compassion. This finding further supports, from a subjective perspective, the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third that connects everything, as opposed to a fragmentary worldview. The characteristics of the Hidden Third revealed by Taylor are consistent with our previous objective understanding of it as dark matter, dark energy, and a hidden cosmic information 100 systemâit pervades the entire universe, possesses intrinsic energy, connects everything, ensures the continuum or completeness of reality, functions as a cosmic information system, and appears as an ever-expanding, energy-laden background from which transient phenomena emerge. The integrated subjective and objective understanding of the Hidden Third suggests that its presence cannot be disproven, thereby affirming the existence of the Hidden Third as a valid ontological axiom. This realization allows us to explicitly incorporate the Hidden Third into the ontological axiom of the methodology of transdisciplinarity, rather than leaving it implicit in the definition of Nature. The modified version is: The ontological axiom: There are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality of the Object and, correspondingly, different levels of Reality of the Subject, with Trans-Nature, or the Hidden Third, as an integral aspect. (see Section 2.6) Due to its non-dualistic and non-conceptual nature, the Hidden Third does not resist everyday experiences and descriptions. Its existence, therefore, cannot be directly proven through scientific methods, which demand objectivity. Instead, it can only be indirectly inferred or reflexively accessed in altered states of consciousness, when our dualistic and egocentric left mind is silenced. However, as discussed above, this does not undermine its validity as an axiom. 3.5 The Undeniable Presence of the Divine The Hidden Third, as a hidden ontological background, in the experiences of Taylor and other meditators and prayer practitioners, also appears as a divine, all-knowing consciousness radiating pure energy, tranquil euphoria, and glorious bliss. The undeniable presence of the Hidden Third demonstrated above thus implies the undeniable presence of the Divine. This subjective understanding of the Hidden Third as the Divine complements our objective comprehension of it, 101 suggesting that it is not only a hidden cosmic information system pervading the entire universe and constantly interacting with the observable physical world but also a divine all-knowing cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral part. Divinity, therefore, is an intrinsic aspect of human existence and reality, as suggested by religious concepts such as human-God and Buddha Nature, as well as the theological metaphor of the âworld as the body of Godâ (Eckholt, 2019; McFague, 1987, 1993). Moreover, since mental activities inherently involve information processing, the physical nature of information implies a close connection between consciousness and matterâenergy. This connection buttresses the spiritual insight that our physical existence on Earth and all phenomena in the universe are but transient emergences from an eternal cosmic ocean of energy, which manifests both as an omnipresent cosmic information system and as an omniscient cosmic consciousness. This connection also illuminates how the Hidden Third, or the Divine, allows the interplay between the flows of consciousness of the Subject and the flows of information of the Objectâenabling the transformation of knowledge into understanding through the fusion of subject and object, self and world, or being and knowledge, from which individuals transcend and the new emerges. Given that the Hidden Third, or the Divine, constitutes 95% of the massâenergy of the universe, worldviews that take into account only the knowable 5% of the universe are inevitably partial and prejudiced, and can hardly represent reality as it is. This realization underscores the significance of the virtue of epistemic humility for humanity. Moreover, since the Hidden Third, as a cosmic information system, is intimately tied to the manifestation of the physical world, ignoring it and focusing solely on tangible real-world problem-solvingâas the Zurich approach does, despite its good intentionsâis as futile as ignoring the incessant inputs and processing 102 rules of a computer system while attempting to change the undesired outputs by working solely on the terminal side. Or, to use a Buddhist metaphor, it is as futile as neglecting the incessant sowing of poisonous karmic seedsâladen with greed, anger, ignorance, arrogance, or jealousy stemming from an egoistic and dualistic worldview that presumes the mutual independence of subject and objectâwhile expecting to harvest wholesome fruits. What if this cosmic information system records and processes all information in streams of consciousness, functioning as an educational feedback system where our actions of mind, body, and speech ultimately bring similar experiences back to us? What if our actions function like AI prompts, informing the system of what we wish to experience next? These are intriguing questions that deserve transdisciplinary exploration. Furthermore, as shown earlier, the Hidden Third, as the non-dual realm of the Divine, is not only an all-knowing cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral part, but also a profound source of inner peace, love, compassion, joy, and bliss, where infinite transcendental possibilities indwell. Denying the Divine, as scientific naturalism does, therefore, not only undermines human integrity and divinityâreducing oneself and others to mere material aggregates, leaving human beings with a deep sense of incompleteness and confusionâbut also hinders self-transcendence, undermines the foundations of mutual love and compassion, and perpetuates devastating conflicts. The consequences, truly, can only be self-destructive. 3.6 The Imperative of the Completeness Axioms for Reality As illustrated earlier, the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers is crucial to various significant conceptual breakthroughs in mathematics. By incorporating the irrational and the imaginary into the axioms of number systems, these developments eventually extended to the 103 consideration of multidimensional spaces and enabled the resolution of previously unsolvable mathematical problems and their real-world applications. Likewise, the Completeness Axioms for Realityâwhich acknowledge the presence of the Divine, the multidimensionality of Reality, the universal interdependence of levels of Reality, and the logic of the included middleâare axioms essential for fostering meaningful and fruitful dialogues between conflicting or contradictory discourses and positions, while also enabling the generation of rigorous and intelligible transdisciplinary knowledge that allows for the resolution of previously unsolvable real-world problems at their roots. The above exploration has also shown that the Completeness Axioms for Reality meet the criteria of axioms: they meet the needs of problem-solving (global challenges and crises), relate to our intuitive concepts (transcendental insights and lived experiences, such as Taylorâs), are supported by empirical evidence (scientific evidence related to dark matter and dark energy), are grounded in established knowledge (world religions and philosophies), and maintain self-consistency while avoiding contradictory deductions (logic of the included middle). This means that the Completeness Axioms for Reality are at least as rational and realistic as the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers. At the same time, the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbersâalong with the axioms for complex and hypercomplex number systemsâis just as irrational and imaginary as the Completeness Axioms for Reality. Yet we have all witnessed its generative and problem-solving power and have benefited from the intellectually rigorous and expansive knowledge systems built upon itâmost notably mathematics and the sciences. This suggests that transdisciplinary knowledge systems founded on the Completeness Axioms for Reality merit equal recognition alongside mathematics and science. In the face of intractable global challenges and impending crises, the foregoing exploration suggests that it is both rational and realistic, and indeed imperative, to make the 104 conceptual and ontological leap to acknowledge the presence of the Divine, embrace the Completeness Axioms for Reality, and move toward a strong transdisciplinarity. 3.7 Toward a Transdisciplinary Understanding of Spirituality The preceding exploration of the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third and its association with the sacred confirms the existence of the Hidden Third, or the Divine, as a valid and vital ontological axiom. This verification resolves the uncertainty about the rationality of Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarity and reaffirms the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity that recognizes and accommodates spirituality. It also underscores the essential role of spirituality in education for fostering a balanced personality, revealing that spirituality primarily concerns the hidden yet integral aspects of human nature and reality, which are supported by robust neuroanatomical and other scientific evidence rather than mere groundless speculation. World religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Indigenous religions, all recognize the spiritual as an integral aspect of human existence that transcends the material, the sensory, and the quantitative (Huebner, 1985b/1999). This aspect of human existence and reality, however, cannot be directly accessed through scientific methods due to its non-dualistic and non-conceptual nature. Religion and science, which provide subjective insights and objective evidence, respectively, into this hidden ontological background, are therefore both indispensable for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of human existence and reality. The previous exploration of the Hidden Third reveals that it manifests both as an omnipresent cosmic information system from which experiential phenomena emerge and as an omniscient 105 divine cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral part. This preliminary understanding of the Hidden Third, or the Divine, provides significant clues for investigating the nature of human existence and reality in both religious and scientific contexts. As demonstrated earlier, the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers can be expressed by several mathematically equivalent statements, depending on the approach used to construct a complete real number system. Similarly, depending on pedagogical emphases and cultural contexts, the Hidden Third, or the Divineâa key element of the Completeness Axioms for Realityâhas been referred to by various spiritually equivalent or analogous terms in different religious (and philosophical) traditions. These include God, Lord, Father, Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman, Tao, Emptiness, the Creator, the One, the All, the Whole, the Self, the Infinite, the Absolute, the Source, the Great Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Supreme Being, God Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, Cosmic Intelligence, and Buddha Nature (pristine Storehouse Consciousness), among others. Taking the concept of Buddha Nature as an example, the YogÄcÄra (Consciousness-Only) philosophy of Buddhism holds that all sentient beingsâincluding Buddhas and Bodhisattvasâshare the same Dharma body (DharmakÄya), known as Buddha Nature (TathÄgatagarbha, literally âmatrix of the Buddhasâ), which represents the pure, unpolluted state of the Storehouse Consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). The concept of Storehouse Consciousness is consistent with our understanding of the Hidden Third. On the one hand, this shared ÄlayavijñÄna, in its pristine state, corresponds to the omniscience of the Buddhas, manifesting as an all-knowing cosmic consciousness. On the other hand, the Storehouse Consciousness functions as a cosmic information system, where the information-like karmic 106 imprints (vÄsanÄá¸¥) of oneâs actions of mind, body, and speech are stored as data-like karmic seeds (bījas), ready to ripenâprocessed, scheduled, and executedâand emerge as future experiences across multiple lifetimes (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; MacKenzie, 2018; Wei, 1973). In the YogÄcÄra doctrine, which denies the existence of an independent external world, when a [karmic] seed bears fruit, it bifurcates into an observing subject and an observed object, with that object falsely imagined to exist separately from the consciousness that perceives it. The response by the subject to that object produces more seeds, either positive, negative, or neutral, which are deposited in the ÄlayavijñÄna, remaining there until they in turn bear their fruit. (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 31) Drawing on the enactive approach in cognitive science, or enactivism10, MacKenzie (2013) elucidated that through the karmic process, we enact both ourselves (in an avatar-like manner) and our worlds (akin to simulated universes). By making and remaking ourselves through our actions and reactions, we enact our identities; through our patterns of action and reaction, we enact meaningful worlds, which, in turn, shape these patterns for better or worse (MacKenzie, 2013). In this karmic process, much like participating in a game of creation within a simulated universe, âwe shape and are shaped by the possibilities for action disclosed within these worldsâ (MacKenzie, 2013, p. 194). Likewise, in an interview and a book, Vopson linked the cosmic information system to the simulation hypothesis, suggesting that its philosophical implication is that it functions as a Creator, and this idea could potentially resolve the ongoing debates between creation and evolution, science and religion, and idealism and materialism, as both components of each pair are considered valid, depending on the perspective taken (University of Portsmouth, 2022; 107 Vopson, 2023a). Vopson suggested that this implies there could be processes of creation followed by ongoing evolution, and that materialism emerges from idealism. In favoring the existential primacy of consciousness and information over matter, Vopsonâs conception of materialism is similar to what Seager (2014) termed epistemic physicalism within an idealistic ontological framework, as opposed to ontological physicalism. The simulation hypothesis is grounded in the holographic principleâa property of string theories derived from the quantum properties of black holes (Greene, 2004). This principle proposes that all phenomena in our universe are holographic projections of information encoded on a distant two-dimensional hologram-like boundary that surrounds us, resembling a cosmic horizon and functioning like the event horizon of a black hole, where information is never lost (Greene, 2004; Susskind, 1997, 2008). Recent research has also advanced the view of black holes as quantum computers (IAS, 2018), suggesting that the cosmic horizon of our universe functions like a cosmic quantum information system. For instance, Racorean (2018) has shown that the geometry of spacetime surrounding a rapidly spinning black hole (Kerr black hole) acts like a quantum computer, capable of processing quantum information. In addition, a quantum state called âmagicâ was found to be strongly involved in the emergence of spacetime geometry, further supporting the emergent nature of spacetime and the holographic principle (Goto et al., 2022; IAS, 2018; Vistarini, 2019). A remarkable feature of holograms is the whole-in-every-part property, meaning that any fragment of a hologram, no matter how small, contains all the information stored in the whole. The subjectâobject duality is therefore illusory. At its source, the hologram-like information 108 system, the universe is indivisibleâno matter how it is divided, each part retains the information of the whole universe. Given that this cosmic information system, as previously shown, is also an all-knowing divine cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral part, the whole-in-every-part property of information implies the potential existence of a similar whole-in-every-part property of consciousness. This suggests that all sentient beings, as beings of consciousness, are not only in this divine cosmic consciousness, but that this divine cosmic consciousness is in each of us. As Jesus said: âDonât you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?â (New International Version, 1978/2011, John 14:10); âOn that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in youâ (New International Version, 1978/2011, John 14:20). The whole-in-every-part property of information and consciousness illuminates how each of us is a human-God with an innate Buddha Nature, how everything in the universe is imbued with both mental and divine elements, how the world is the body of God, and how what we do to others reflect back on ourselves. This mutual interpenetration of everyone and everything in the universe is poetically illustrated by the Buddha in the Flower Garland Sutra (Avataá¹saka Sutra;è¯å´ç¶) through the metaphor of Indraâs net. At each junction of Indraâs infinite net hangs a magnificently polished and infinitely faceted jewel that reflects in its every facet all the facets of all other jewels in the net, so that any alteration to one jewel in this infinite net always results in changes to all the others (Mingyur, 2007). The foregoing exploration provides a glimpse into the power of transdisciplinary hermeneutics between religion and science in elucidating the nature of human existence and reality, as well as in deepening our understanding of spirituality. It highlights the existential and causal primacy of consciousness and information over matter, the omnipresence of mental and divine elements, the 109 non-duality of subject and object, the emergent nature of experiential phenomena, and the whole-in-every-part property of the universe based on the holographic principle. Together, these concepts form a foundation for guiding further transdisciplinary inquiries. Moreover, the mutual verification and enrichment between religion and scienceâwhere science facilitates the intelligibility of esoteric spiritual teachings and religion informs significant existential implications of scientific theoriesâunderpin the credibility of long-standing religious doctrines and the indispensability of both religion and science in the curriculum. It also illustrates the critical role of science in facilitating interfaith conversation and reconciliation. As Nicolescu (2015a) indicated, technoscience is itself blind to value, âhowever, when it enters into dialogue with cultures and religions, it becomes the best mediator of the reconciliation of different cultures and different religionsâ (p. 64). Transdisciplinarity that accommodates both science and religion is therefore also trans-religious, enabling interfaith conversation and reconciliation among different religions and religious denominations, thereby making the ideal of unity through diversity possible. The above discussion reveals that the assumptions underlying the secular approach to educationâincluding the incredibility of religious doctrines, the dispensability of religion, and the irreconcilability of diverse religionsâare untenable within a strong transdisciplinary framework. It also suggests that, in addition to offering courses on comparative religion in the curriculum, cultivating transdisciplinary literacy, which enables the fusion of being and knowledge and facilitates the transcendence of individual students, is equally important. Science and religion, as illustrated earlier, both uncover hidden aspects of human existence and reality that point to the mental self-simulation metaphor for the universe and liken human 110 existence to a game of creation. The existential and educational significance of religion, however, extends far beyond this. Given that science is inherently value-neutral, the popularization of Bostromâs (2003) simulation hypothesis, as discussed in Chapter 1, has led to the proliferation of various forms of nihilism and determinism, resulting in disturbing socio-cultural consequences. In contrast, for millennia, similar issues and significant existential inquiries have been extensively explored, debated, and addressed within various religious traditions. The spiritual wisdom of long-standing religious traditions, therefore, must have much to offer to educational and curricular thinking. In light of the insights gained in this chapter and my religious background in Buddhism, the next chapter explores Buddhist spirituality within a transdisciplinary methodological framework to deepen the understanding of spirituality and lay the groundwork for further transdisciplinary hermeneutics. 111 Part Two: Spirituality 112 Chapter 4: Understanding Spirituality: A Buddhist Perspective 4.1 Introduction In Chapter 1, I envisioned a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum inspired and enriched by the synergy between transdisciplinarity and spirituality. In Chapter 2, I demonstrated the advantages of Basarab Nicolescuâs axiomatic methodology over other competing conceptions of transdisciplinarity. Chapter 3 further elucidated that, to recognize and accommodate spirituality without compromising rationality, transdisciplinarity requires an axiomatic methodology. This is because the Divine, due to its non-dualistic and non-conceptual nature, can only be apprehended reflexively or inferred indirectly and cannot be directly proven through scientific methods, which require objectivity. In Chapter 3, by demonstrating that the presence of the Divine can neither be proven nor disproven, I established its validity as an ontological axiom. On this basis, I argued that adopting Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarity, which embraces spirituality, is not only rational and realistic but also imperative. With enhanced confidence in Nicolescuâs methodology of transdisciplinarityâparticularly in its recognition of the Divine, where infinite transcendental possibilities indwellâthe current and subsequent chapters, representing the second movement of the studyâs argument, aim to cultivate an ever-renewing transdisciplinary understanding of spirituality, first, by exploring diverse aspects of spirituality within the transdisciplinary methodological framework in this chapter, and then by conducting a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality in the next, while simultaneously establishing a theoretical framework for understanding curriculum as play. 113 In Chapter 3, we arrived at a preliminary understanding of the Hidden Third as the Divine and of the metaphor of mental self-simulation for the universe, revealing that spirituality is essentially concerned with the nature of human existence and reality, particularly in regard to the Hidden Thirdâa shared, non-objectifiable ontological background that scientific naturalism fails to acknowledge. Though unrecognized by the dominant scientific worldview, this hidden ontological background has, for millennia, been known by various spiritually equivalent or analogous terms and taught by Holy Beings across religious traditions. Given my Buddhist background, this chapter draws on MahÄyÄna Buddhism and explores the ontological, epistemological, and logical aspects of Buddhist spirituality as a theoretical instance. The aim is to deepen our understanding of spirituality, while identifying potential conceptual pitfalls for educational purposes. In this chapter (Chapter 4), my personal experiences are interwoven and presented as Interludes. These dialogues between my lived experiences and Buddhist philosophies serve to illuminate the temporality, or historicity, that characterizes my understanding of spirituality. Temporality, or historicity, as Huebner (1967/1999) elucidated, is both a historical and a dialectical process that makes possible moments of vision and transcendenceâa historical process in which the past remains open to reinterpretation and the future retains endless possibilities, and a dialectical process in which the world invites new responses from the individual, who, in turn, elicits further responses from the world. These dialogues also serve to highlight the place of subjectivity and subjectâobject interaction in transdisciplinarity, illustrating the nature of transdisciplinary knowledge, which, as discussed in Chapter 2, is simultaneously interior and exterior, subjective and objective, reflecting the coevolution of being and knowledge, self and world, humanity and 114 reality, where knowledge of human beings and knowledge of the universe mutually sustain one another (Nicolescu, 2014b). This chapter begins with an exploration of the contemporary significance of MahÄyÄna Buddhism. This is followed by an introduction to the two major schools of MahÄyÄna Buddhism, YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka. Then, in light of the threefold axiomatic framework of transdisciplinary methodology, I sequentially explore Buddhist ontology, epistemology, and logic by drawing on the philosophies of YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka. Finally, I reaffirm the primacy of consciousness over matter and illustrate the transdisciplinary significance of ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka system as an archetype for developing transdisciplinary knowledge systems and as the foundation for advancing a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality. Before proceeding, it is worth mentioning that, in contemporary research, definitions of consciousness and related termsâsuch as mind, sentience, awareness, and cognitionâare highly controversial and vary across disciplines and even among individuals (Niikawa, 2020; Van Gulick, 2022).11 Given the transdisciplinary nature of this research, âconsciousnessâ and âmindâ are used interchangeably as umbrella terms encompassing all aspects of mindâincluding conscious, preconscious, and unconscious dimensionsâas well as all types of mental phenomena and states12 (Thompson, 2007; Van Gulick, 2022). Other terms will generally retain their conventional meanings. For clarity, specific adjectives may be added as needed, such as in âanalytical mindâ or âsensory awareness.â 115 4.2 The Contemporary Significance of MahÄyÄna Buddhism MahÄyÄna (Great Vehicle) is a development of Buddhism in India that emerged around the 1st century CE, approximately four centuries after the Buddhaâs passing, marked by the appearance of sutras that were previously unknown and nearly lost13 (Blumenthal, 2013; Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Pettit, 1999). While early Buddhist traditions accept the arhat14âa saint who has achieved personal liberation from samsaraâas the principal spiritual ideal, MahÄyÄna texts generally set forth the bodhisattva path, motivated by bodhicitta15, which seeks the attainment of Buddhahood for the benefit and liberation of all sentient beings (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Pettit, 1999). Moreover, while earlier mainstream Buddhist schools assert the real existence of irreducible infinitesimal particles as the ultimate building blocks of the phenomenal world, MahÄyÄna Buddhism rejects the existence of such part-less particles, denying both subjectâobject duality and the intrinsic nature (svabhÄva) of all phenomena (Bitbol, 2008; Blumenthal, 2013; Kok, 2023). Here, intrinsic nature (svabhÄvaÅÅ«nyatÄ) ârefers to a hypostatized and reified nature that is falsely attributed to phenomena by ignorance, such that phenomena are mistakenly conceived to exist in and of themselvesâ (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 879). Since this paradigm shiftâmuch like the modern transition from classical to quantum scienceâwas both radical and controversial, the authenticity of MahÄyÄna sutras has been a subject of debate in India from the 2nd to the 12th centuries (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Johnson & Grim, 2013). Although MahÄyÄna later became the largest Buddhist tradition globally16, it was not until the 1990s, when the GÄndhÄrÄ« manuscripts17âradiocarbon-dated to between 23 and 127 CE, predating the oldest extant fragments of the Pali Canon18âcame to light, that the authenticity of MahÄyÄna sutras was supported by strong empirical evidence (Allon & Salomon, 2010; Falk & Karashima, 2012, 2013; Johnson & Grim, 2013; Karashima, 2013; Stargardt, 2000). Given the parallels between 116 the ancient and modern paradigm shifts concerning the nature of human existence and reality, MahÄyÄna Buddhism holds particular importance in fostering a transdisciplinary understanding of spirituality. The profound soteriological concern of MahÄyÄna Buddhism for the deliverance of all sentient beings is also reflected in the Pure Land19 methodâan approach to universal salvation enabled by the compassionate vows of the Buddhas, most prominently AmitÄbha20 Buddhaâs 48 great vowsâwhich guarantee21 that those who devotedly invoke his name will be received and reborn in his Land of Bliss (SukhÄvatÄ«), Western Pure Land22, thereby attaining liberation from samsara within a single lifetime (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003). In the Commentary on the Ten Stages Sutra, NÄgÄrjuna characterized the Pure Land method as the âeasy pathâ toward the stage of non-retrogression (avaivartika).23 He compared this easy path to traveling by boatâa âgreat vehicleâ created by a Buddhaâacross the sea, which is joyous and depends primarily on other-power, in contrast to traveling on foot over land, which is arduous and relies solely on self-power (JÅdo Shinshū, n.d.; Walker, 2021). This âeasy path,â however, is not easily embraced with faith and necessitated the Buddhaâs elaboration on human nature and reality as presented in MahÄyÄna sutras. Since the Pure Land method24 represents a form of Holy Name Prayer designed to achieve universal salvationâa practice found across various religious traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Shamanism, and Indigenous religions (Baesler, 2016; æº«éæ¯,2013)âthe MahÄyÄna philosophies underlying the Pure Land method hold significant trans-religious importance. 117 Generally, MahÄyÄna teachings are considered to have been taught by the Buddha during his second and third turnings of the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma25âthe three phases of teachings in his 45-year teaching career. During these phases, the Buddha employed skillful means (upÄya-kauÅalya) and offered a spectrum of teachings with varying degrees of philosophical subtlety, tailored to the diverse mentalities and karmic predispositions of his disciplesâwhile some teachings are of definitive (nÄ«tÄrtha) meaning, others are merely provisional (neyÄrtha) (Blumenthal, 2013; Sopa, 2017). Briefly, the three turnings of teachings are: (a) a general teaching on the nature of samsara and nirvana, presented as if phenomena exist intrinsically and independently; (b) an esoteric exposition of Emptiness from the side of the object (Madhyamaka); and (c) an exoteric exposition of Emptiness from the side of the subject (YogÄcÄra) (Blumenthal, 2013; Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Both the teachings of the second and third turnings of the Dharma Wheel are commonly regarded as conveying definitive meaning. By elucidating the Buddhaâs skillful means and pedagogical concerns, this three-turning framework underscores the importance of prudent interpretation of sacred texts. As the Buddha emphasized, in search for the truth, we have to follow the Four Reliances: Do not rely on the person, rely on the teaching; Do not rely on mere words, rely on their meaning; Do not rely on the provisional meaning, rely on the definitive meaning; Do not rely on conceptual understanding, rely on direct realization. (Sopa, 2017, p. 34) In Tibetan Buddhism, the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma also represent three historical periods in the development of Buddhism26 (Blumenthal, 2008; Hopkins, 2017). This three-phase evolution in the search for truth offers significant insights into threads of continuity that may unite moments of yesterday and tomorrow as we envision the next moment in the development 118 of curriculum, religion, and scienceâcrucial to the future of humanity. As Huebner (1967/1999) reminded us, the present does not always easily find its way into the values of a prospective futureâthe next moment, a tomorrowâand requires us to withdraw from the present and look upon it as if it were past. From this perspective, it becomes evident that the present moment in curriculumâalong with religion and scienceâis confronted with a âlure of the transcendentâ (Huebner, 1985a/1999, p. 360), signaling a potential âthird turningâ of curriculum theories toward a transdisciplinary stage, enabled and enriched by the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality and marked by explicit and exoteric expositions of Emptiness or the Divine. Its details will be discussed in Chapter 7. Recognizing the contemporary significance of MahÄyÄna Buddhism, I begin my exploration of its wisdom with an Interlude that traces the historicity of my existential inquiries. Interlude: Faith as the Entry The Buddhadharma is a vast sea; faith is its entry, and knowledge is its ferryman. âNÄgÄrjuna, The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom In MahÄyÄna sutras and treatises27, faith is emphasized as the âmother of all virtues,â which eradicates doubts, transforms obstacles, cultivates reverence, opens profound teachings, and reveals the supreme path (CBETA T0278, n.d.; Lamotte, 1944/2001). Rather than signifying blind or dogmatic belief, faith denotes a reasoned conviction that initiates the recursive process of faith, understanding, practice, and realization on the ten-staged (bhūmi) bodhisattva path 119 (Hsing-Yu, 2017). Though preliminary, faith is essential and meant to coevolve with knowledge and wisdom. Influenced by the lived spiritual experiences of my parents and family, as well as my own, my faith began to develop at a very young age (Chu, 2019, 2024). I recall, likely due to my parentsâ piety, that on several occasions in our living room, without any physical source, we would suddenly smell a surreal, divine sandalwood-like fragranceâfar richer and stronger than the usual incense scent.28 In those moments, my parents would joyfully and reverently exclaim, âThe deity has arrived!â and promptly lead us to the shrine to offer incense and express gratitude. Even when my knowledge of religions was still limited and entwined with various forms of naïve realism, the existence of deities was beyond doubt for me. My serious inquiry into the nature of human existence and reality, as detailed in an essay (Chu, 2024), began with a touching and awe-inspiring experienceâencountering an embodied Guanyin Bodhisattva (AvalokiteÅvara), working through Miao-Zong Shifu (å¦å®å¸«ç¶), the highly respected medium and abbot of Sheng-En Temple (èæ©å®®), renowned for his omniscience and prophetic insights (èæ©å®®, 2019). One of the Bodhisattvaâs distinctive methods of cultivating followersâ faith is by explicitly responding to their prayersâalong with imperceptible responsesâvia written oracle stanzas. Prior to each twice-monthly Dharma assembly, the Bodhisattva would handwrite hundreds of oracle stanzas in brush pen, each tailored to a prospective participant without indicating the recipientâs name. These stanzas were then folded into strips and tied into bunches for efficient distribution. Open to the public with no registration requirements, these assemblies culminated in the Bodhisattva dispatching core 120 disciples into the audience, accompanied by invisible Dharma protectors, to distribute the stanzas. Miraculously, although the stanzas appeared to be distributed ârandomlyâ and participants were free to select any stanza from any distributor, each person ultimately received the stanza specifically written for them. This is exactly how I received my first stanza, which concisely yet precisely described my earlier prayer for my parents (Chu, 2024). My profoundly deepened faith, grounded in this wondrous experience, guides me into a conscious, responsive living world, which is not the world, therefore it is the world (see Section 4.5). It also initiated a recursive hermeneutical process through which I decipher enigmatic experiences, engage in increasingly sophisticated existential inquiries, and cultivate an ever-deepening reasoned conviction in the sacred teachings regarding the nature of human existence and reality. The awe-inspiring manifestation of Guanyin Bodhisattva, representative of the great compassion, wisdom, and divine power of the Holy Ones across diverse religious traditions, remains inexplicable from a scientific perspective. Nonetheless, it has been repeatedly witnessed by numerous people, including diehard skepticsâsuch as a neighbor of my fatherâs friend. Amusingly, he challenged the Bodhisattva by participating in a Dharma assembly, deliberately changing seats, wandering about, eluding several distributors, and eventually drawing one stanza randomly from a different distributor. When he opened and read the stanza, he was struck by the word, âLosing connection to the Buddhas for three generations.â At that moment, he completely abandoned his skepticism and admitted that his family had converted to Christianity exactly three generations ago, beginning with his grandfather. I wonder whether he also realized, in that moment, that Jesus and Guanyin are in each other, each manifesting and illuminating the other (see Section 3.7). 121 While skepticism may sometimes appear profane, it is essential for preventing blind belief and, when coupled with a curious openness, can serve as a pathway toward deeper reverence and reasoned faith. Reasoned faith is foundational for meaningful interfaith dialogue, grounded in intellectual integrity and mutual respect rather than mere tolerance or acceptance. Skepticism, however, can become problematic when we are skeptical solely of the âsupernaturalâ and the âsurrealââwhether found in sacred texts or in lived experiencesâwhile remaining uncritical of the ânaturalâ and the âreal.â For instance, when scientific naturalism and realism are taken for granted in our worldviews, they risk blinding us to potential intellectual and ontological leaps made possible by the presence of the Divine, which restores fragmented reality and makes it whole again. In this exploration of spirituality, I invite readers to embrace both skepticism and a curious openness, as I do, to explore how their interplay might enrich the recursive hermeneutical process that fosters a reasoned conviction in both oneâs own religion and that of othersâeach like different fingers, tailored to individuals with varied predispositions, pointing compassionately to the same moonâan essential step toward the ideal of âunity through diversityâ within interculturalism (see Prologue). 4.3 An Introduction to YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka As noted earlier, the Hidden Third is key to understanding spirituality. In Chapter 3, we developed a preliminary understanding of the Buddhist equivalent to the Hidden Thirdâspecifically, the pristine Storehouse Consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna) or Buddha Nature (TathÄgatagarbha, literally âmatrix of the Buddhasâ) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Since MahÄyÄna 122 Buddhism offers profound insights into Storehouse Consciousness and the nature of human existence and reality, it is essential for understanding Buddhist spirituality. YogÄcÄra (Consciousness-Only) and Madhyamaka (Middle Way) are generally regarded as two major, complementary schools of MahÄyÄna Buddhism (Garfield & Westerhoff, 2015). YogÄcÄra, literally meaning âyoga practice,â is known by various names, such as CittamÄtra (Mind-Only) and VijñÄnavÄda (Doctrine of Consciousness) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Central to YogÄcÄra philosophy is the doctrine of cittamÄtra or vijñaptimÄtra (mind-only or experience-only), which posits that the experiential phenomena of the self (subject) and the external world (object) are merely manifestations and transformations of consciousness, both existing solely within the realm of consciousness (MacKenzie, 2018; Wei, 1973). The metaphor of âa man in a dreamâ is employed to demonstrate that the perceived independence of subject and object is merely a cognitive distinction within the non-dual flow of experience (citta-caitta) and that there are no mind-independent objects (MacKenzie, 2018; Wei, 1973). The negation of subjectâobject duality is therefore a philosophical hallmark of YogÄcÄra. While the dream metaphor and its contemporary updateâthe mental self-simulation metaphorâeffectively illustrate subjectâobject non-duality, it is important to recognize that in YogÄcÄra philosophy, human existence, though dream-like, is the intersubjective co-creation of shared phenomenal worlds rather than the imaginative play of a single individualâs mind-streams (MacKenzie, 2018). As Vasubandhu and Dharmakīrti both emphasized, YogÄcÄra is by no means solipsismâthe belief that only oneself and oneâs experiences can be known to exist (Butler, 2010; Lusthaus, 2002; MacKenzie, 2018). Nor is YogÄcÄra mere subjective idealism, 123 which internalizes the objective and reduces it to the subjective (MacKenzie, 2018). Instead, YogÄcÄra idealism radically rejects the reduction of either objectivity, subjectivity, or both, in favor of an enactivist perspective (see Section 3.7). MacKenzie (2013, 2018) elucidated that, on the phenomenal level, YogÄcÄra idealism upholds the dependent co-arising of subject and object through the karmic process. On the ultimate level, however, in consonance with Taylorâs (2006) direct experiences of the Divine (see Section 3.4), it contends that neither subject nor object exists, only the flow of non-dual awarenessâalthough we must remember that even phrases like âthe flow of non-dual awarenessâ are merely provisional pointers to what is ultimately non-conceptual and therefore inexpressible (MacKenzie, 2018). To better understand YogÄcÄra idealism and the concept of Storehouse Consciousness, a comprehension of the YogÄcÄra classification of consciousness is essential. In YogÄcÄra philosophy, eight aspects or types of consciousness are distinguished: The first five dimensions are the basic forms of sensory awareness. The sixth dimension is called âmental-consciousnessâ (manovijñÄna), which, [as the cognitive faculty,] allows for direct non-inferential access to oneâs mental states. It is also thought to serve a synthetic, apperceptive function with regard to the other types of sensory awareness. These six types or aspects of consciousness are accepted throughout Indian Buddhist philosophy of mind, but thinkers associated with YogÄcÄra posit two more types of awareness: afflictive mentation (kliṣṭamanas) and base- or store-consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna). (MacKenzie, 2015, p. 283) Among the eight aspects of consciousness, the eighth consciousnessâÄlayavijñÄna, Storehouse Consciousness, Alaya Consciousness, or Base Consciousnessâis of the greatest importance 124 (MacKenzie, 2015). As discussed in Chapter 3, the pristine ÄlayavijñÄnaâthe matrix of the Buddhasâis shared by all sentient beings, including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. It manifests both as a cosmic karmic information system, from which the experiential phenomena of subject and object dependently co-emerge, and as a cosmic divine consciousness, corresponding to the omniscience of the Buddhas or equivalent Holy Ones. As the Buddha revealed in the Laá¹ kÄvatÄra Sūtra (æ¥ä¼½ç¶), the pristine ÄlayavijñÄna that abides within all sentient beings is the universal ground of all phenomena (Suzuki, 1978). Its nature is pure and immaculate, and its qualities are akin to those of a wish-fulfilling jewel (cintÄmaá¹i)âconstantly interacting with our karmic inputs, prompts, or âwish listââthough it is often obscured by afflictive defilements and unrecognized. In this sutra, the Buddha employed the metaphor of the ocean and waves to illustrate the inseparability and dynamics between ÄlayavijñÄna and experiential phenomena. He explained that, just as waves arise on the vast ocean, ceaselessly stirred by the wind, the boundless ocean of ÄlayavijñÄna is agitated by conditioned windsâsuch as the erroneous ontological assumption of subjectâobject dualityâgiving rise to the seven consciousnesses and their karmic manifestations. The wise perceive both the ÄlayavijñÄna ocean and its transitory phenomenal waves, discerning the intricate karmicâexperiential interplay and the ultimate nature of all phenomena. In contrast, the deluded focus solely on the waves, oblivious to the oceanâs presence and its underlying karmic process, which, like a wish-fulfilling jewel, ensures that we eventually reap the karmic fruits of our actions and intentions (Suzuki, 1978; CBETA T0670, n.d.). 125 In Zen Buddhism, to foster the recognition and direct experience of the pristine ÄlayavijñÄna, it is referred to as the âoriginal faceâ before your parents conceived you (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). In the Tibetan system of Anuttarayoga Tantra (Unexcelled Yoga Tantra), the pristine ÄlayavijñÄna is associated with âmind of Clear Lightâ or âluminous mindâ (prabhÄsvaracitta), which represents the primordial and subtlest state of consciousness, free from agitating waves of afflictions and characterized by luminosity and emptinessââthrough enlightenment, the mindâs innate luminosity is restored to its full intensity so that it shines through all objects, revealing their inherent vacuity and lack of substanceâ (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 653), thereby uncovering oneâs original face. In the YogÄcÄra doctrine, it is noteworthy that the Storehouse Consciousness has both individual (asÄdhÄraá¹a) and shared (sÄdhÄraá¹a) dimensions, corresponding to personal and shared reality, respectively (MacKenzie, 2018). In Buddhist cosmology, within samsara, although humans and hungry ghosts (pretas) share the same receptacle world (bhÄjana-loka), the differences in their karmic conditioning have led to different perceptions: while humans look at a river and see clear water, hungry ghosts see pus in the same river (MacKenzie, 2018).29 This illustrates how sentient beings co-create shared intersubjective worlds corresponding to their common karmic tendencies. These perceived âobjectiveâ worlds then become the shared context for ongoing karmic activities and, in turn, shape the subjectivity of sentient beings within them (MacKenzie, 2018). Unlike the discontinuous flow of the six types of sensory awareness, the streaming of Storehouse Consciousness is considered to be diachronically continuous and egoless (MacKenzie, 2015). Due to the diachronic continuity of ÄlayavijñÄna, the karmic information (imprints) or data (seeds) stored in it will reside across multiple lifetimes until they fructify as future experiences, 126 or are destroyed by transcendental wisdom (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). This elucidates why it is challenging to provide a comprehensive explanation of the causes and effects of karma30 when observations are limited to this lifetime alone. Typically, negative karmic information is associated with the seventh consciousness, afflictive mentation (kliṣṭamanas), or manas consciousness. While manas consciousness is also diachronically continuous, it contrasts with the egoless Storehouse Consciousness, serving as the source of our basic sense of selfâthe inherent sense of mental ownership embedded in our default mental structure (MacKenzie, 2015). MacKenzie (2015) explained that kliṣṭamanas takes ÄlayavijñÄna as its basis; however, this involves a fundamental cognitiveâaffective illusionâmistaking the egoless, observing aspect of the non-dual flow of streams of experience within ÄlayavijñÄna for an enduring self, independent of the world. This innate distortion, which misconstrues the epistemological duality of self and world as an ontological one, is considered the root of various agitating emotions and mental afflictions (kleÅa). These ego-driven negative afflictions, along with the unwholesome actions they motivate, are, according to the Buddhaâs teachings, the very causes of suffering and the endless cycle of rebirth in samsara (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; MacKenzie, 2015). Ethical disciplines, such as the Ten Virtues or the Ten Commandments, thus hold far more profound and enduring existential and soteriological significance than secular education can ever convey. In MahÄyÄna Buddhism, the cognitive obstructions (jñeya-Ävaraá¹a) and afflictive obstructions (kleÅa-Ävaraá¹a) are two obstructions that must be overcome to perfect the bodhisattva path, transform the eight aspects of consciousness into four transcendental wisdoms31, and achieve Buddhahood (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). The two primary cognitive obstructionsârooted in naïve realismâare the misleading ontological assumptions of subjectâobject duality and the intrinsic 127 nature of the self and phenomena. The three primary afflictions, or three poisons (triviṣa), are rÄga (desire, greed, or attachment), dveṣa (aversion, anger, or hatred), and moha (delusion or ignorance) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014).32 Given that cognitive obstructions are subtle hindrances that give rise to afflictive obstructions (Buswell & Lopez, 2014), and that YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka philosophies respectively address the two primary types of cognitive obstruction, both philosophical systems are foundational to the bodhisattva path. Moreover, since overcoming cognitive and afflictive obstructionsâessential for progress on the spiritual pathâcan hardly be achieved without both a general understanding of the nature of human existence and reality, and an introspective awareness of the specifics of oneâs own mentalityâthat is, both the general and specific dimensions of self-knowledgeâself-knowledge, in its broadest sense, carries fundamental existential, soteriological, and educational significance. It therefore merits recognition as knowledge of the highest worth. Like YogÄcÄra, Madhyamaka embraces the doctrine of consciousness-only, though their approaches differ. Their differences stem not from a disparity in their understanding of the nature of human existence and reality,33 but rather from distinct philosophical temperaments and soteriological positions (Shulman, 2015), which in many ways complement each other and cater to individuals with varying predispositions.34 The Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way (MÅ«la-Madhyamaka-kÄrikÄ, hereafter MMK), written by NÄgÄrjuna (circa 150â250), is considered the foundational text of Madhyamaka tradition (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). While earlier Buddhist thought focused on the idea that the person is emptyâmeaning the person is empty of intrinsic nature or unchanging essence, and the self is merely a conceptual constructionâthe earliest MahÄyÄna sutras go far beyond this claim, asserting that not only the 128 person, but everything is devoid of intrinsic nature (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). Despite asserting universal emptiness, early MahÄyÄna Buddhism did not provide a philosophical defense for it. NÄgÄrjunaâs task in the MMK is to offer this defense (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). Thus, the doctrine of universal emptiness becomes a philosophical hallmark of the Madhyamaka school, firmly associated with the Perfection of Transcendental Wisdom (prajñÄpÄramitÄ) (Hayes, 2019). While YogÄcÄra highlights non-dual love and compassion (method-side practices) and Madhyamaka emphasizes universal emptiness (wisdom-side practices), both traditions underscore the union of compassion and wisdom. As two complementary wings of MahÄyÄna Buddhism, YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka reached their philosophical culmination in the 8th century through ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs masterful synthesis into a cohesive YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka system. Given its transdisciplinary significance, this research adopts this synthesis as a philosophical foundation, as will be discussed later. In the following three sections, building on this initial understanding of YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka philosophies, I sequentially examine Buddhist ontology, epistemology, and logic within the transdisciplinary methodological framework to gain deeper insights into Buddhist spirituality and its resonances with transdisciplinarity. Interlude: Lived Experiences with MahÄyÄna Buddhism Before delving into Buddhist philosophies, this interlude shares my personal lived experiences that inform my understanding of Buddhist spirituality, with a focus on Holy Name chanting as a means of universal salvation. As noted earlier, universal salvation is a profound soteriological 129 concern in MahÄyÄna Buddhism. A key practice that enables all sentient beings to easily access the salvific grace of Buddhas and Bodhisattvasâwhether for worldly assistance, spiritual progress, or transcendental liberationâis Holy Name chanting, aloud or silently.35 Rather than mere blind faith, a scientific investigation conducted by Lee et al. (2002) discovered compelling evidence suggesting that Holy Names are genuinely holyâcarrying extraordinary messages and energyâand functioning like website addresses that directly link to the spiritual realm, an information field.36 Their remarkable findings suggest the efficacy of the Holy Name Prayer as a profound means of connecting with the Holy Ones. In MahÄyÄna Buddhism, Holy Name chanting is exemplified by, though not limited to, the devotional invocation of Guanyin Bodhisattva and AmitÄbha Buddha. In the âUniversal Gate Chapterâ of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha praises Guanyin Bodhisattvaâs boundless compassion, pure great vows, and extraordinary divine power and wisdom to manifest in various formsâsuch as a person, an animal, a celestial being, or even a life-saving bridgeâto aid those who invoke with faith, offering protection, alleviating suffering, overcoming afflictions, or fulfilling virtuous wishes, thereby transforming their indefinite karma (FGSITC, 2006). I recall hearing Guanyin Bodhisattva compassionately tell a believer who visited Sheng-En Temple for guidance, âYou should have called upon me for help then!â after hearing her share a distressing experience. The âUniversal Gate Chapterâ forms the foundation of my understanding of various miracles across religions. While it may seem like a myth, it is entirely ânormalâ when considered from the perspective of YogÄcÄra idealism. Moreover, my family, myself, and nearly all fellow disciples and devotees at Sheng-En Temple can provide numerous lived experiences that resonate with its content (Chu, 2024). For example, a devotee shared an experience during his visit to Mount 130 Putuo. While traveling in a small boat to a nearby island, a sudden storm struck, and all the paddles were swept into the sea. As the boat was about to be blown out to open sea, they urgently invoked Guanyin Bodhisattva for help. Soon after, they saw two large waves and three smaller waves coming from different directions, successfully pushing their boat back to shore. When he returned to the temple to thank the Bodhisattva, before he could speak, the Bodhisattva said to him, âYou have made the Bodhisattva create two great waves and three smaller ones to save you!â Furthermore, numerous devotees, including myself, have encountered Guanyin Bodhisattva manifesting as an ordinary personâoffering timely support or guidance, sometimes appearing as a sacred trickster and often presenting a trial of virtue before granting guidance. One such divine encounter in Vancouver, which conveyed a prophecy, was crucial in keeping me on the academic path, while another affirmed my vision of integrating the teachings of Luangpor Pramote Pamojjo, a renowned TheravÄda Dharma master (Dhamma.com., n.d.), with MahÄyÄna Pure Land practice. Guanyin Bodhisattva, together with other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, also manifests in the digital realm. In my personal experience, divine responses have come through email, Firefox web pages, and the Line messaging app, each marked by striking synchronicity. These awe-inspiring and blissful divine encountersâillustrating the profound compassion and playful brilliance of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvasâhave significantly deepened my understanding of and reasoned faith in MahÄyÄna teachings. Guanyin Bodhisattva, as one of the Three Saints37 of the Western Pure Land (Land of Bliss)âwho together receive and safeguard faithful practitioners at the moment of death or during the bardo38, guiding them to rebirth in AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Land of Blissânot only provides worldly support but also fosters transcendental liberation. As the ultimate refinement of 21 131 billion Pure Lands, the Land of Bliss offers an unparalleled environment for rapid spiritual progress toward Buddhahood and is praised by all Buddhas (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003).39 For over a decade following my initial visit to Sheng-En Temple, my deep faith and reverence for Guanyin Bodhisattva gradually expanded to include AmitÄbha Buddha and the Pure Land teachings. However, these concepts remained abstract to me until I had an embodied experience during a hypnosis session. This three-hour past-life regression session was unplanned, as I unexpectedly filled in for an uncancellable appointment originally scheduled for Wisher, my late husband, to explore his recurring dream. Although Dr. Sheng-Ying Chen (é³åè±), a renowned psychiatrist, provided comforting and effective guidance, my lack of experience led me to frequently question whether what I âsawâ was genuine memory or merely imagination. In the third hour, since I had no major issues to explore, Dr. Chen proposed visiting a Buddhaâs Pure Land. I was overjoyed by this suggestion and chose to explore the Western Pure Land. With guidance, I joyfully âsawâ a luminous and serene landscape, where graceful Bodhisattvas gathered in groups as if discussing the Dharma. Some were on the ground, while others floated gently in the air. In the distance, I noticed a Bodhisattva meditating under a gorgeous tree. This session culminated in a glimpse of the moment of my passing in this life. Following Dr. Chenâs guidance to tune in, I was profoundly moved to witness the majestic presence of the Three Saints of the Western Pure Land. Upon closer observation, I was awed by the celestial brilliance and exquisite beauty of their luminous forms, delicate robes, jeweled crowns and necklaces, all radiating a marvellous glow that surpassed anything worldly. This wondrous vision was the clearest of the entire session; however, I once again wondered whether it was merely a product of my imagination. Immediately after this doubt arose, I felt an invisible wave surge 132 toward me, so vivid and powerful that it nudged me backward.40 At the same time, beyond anything I could have imagined, I was enveloped in a transcendental bliss so profound and immense that it filled my entire being. In that moment, I realized why AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Pure Land is called the Land of Bliss. This embodied experience of bliss completely dispelled my doubts, cultivating unwavering faith within me. The efficacy of Holy Name chanting, along with the connection between this blissful experience and the presence of the Three Saints of the Western Pure Land, was reaffirmed years later when a family member opened her third eye, enabling us to mutually verify our diverse experiences. Intriguingly, whenever someone recited a Holy Name, sacred text, or mantraâeven silentlyâshe would witness the appearance of the corresponding Holy One, regardless of religion. Typically, she would see AmitÄbha Buddha when chanting âNamo AmitÄbha Buddha.â However, during one of the AmitÄbha Dharma Assemblies we attended at Huizhong Temple (æ 中寺), while chanting AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Holy Name after sutra recitation, she unexpectedly witnessed the advent of all Three Saints of the Western Pure Land. It was exactly at that moment that I once again experienced the transcendental bliss I had encountered during hypnosis. This intersubjective verification of subjective experiences reinforced my faith in MahÄyÄna teachings, reaffirming the need to shift skepticism from sacred texts to dominant scientific worldviews grounded in naturalism, which deny the presence of the Divine, fragmenting reality and reducing humans to mere things. Given that YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka philosophies provide a compelling foundation for understanding my experiences with Holy Name chantingâand, by extension, Holy Name Prayer 133 across diverse world religionsâthey are invaluable in advancing transdisciplinary and trans-religious worldviews that foster both intellectual and ontological leaps. Below, drawing on these philosophies, I proceed to explore the ontological, epistemological, and logical dimensions of Buddhist spirituality. 4.4 Buddhist Ontology: Three Natures and Two Truths As shown in Chapters 2 and 3, the ontological axiom has played a pivotal role in transdisciplinarity and spirituality. Drawing on the Three Natures and Two Truths theories, this section explores Buddhist ontology while addressing various common conceptual pitfalls. Due to the abstract nature of these theories, the dream or mental self-simulation metaphor may serve as a useful conceptual tool throughout the exploration. 4.4.1 Three Natures The Three Natures theory is central to YogÄcÄra philosophy (Cleary, 1995).41 It indicates that all experiential phenomena possess the following three natures: the constructed nature (parikalpita-svabhÄva), the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhÄva), and the perfected nature (parinipanna-svabhÄva) (Blumenthal, 2013; MacKenzie, 2018). In keeping with the pivotal role of consciousness in YogÄcÄra, each of the three natures describes entities partly in relation to the subjects that perceive them (Blumenthal, 2013). The interpretations of the three natures of experiential phenomena are diverse. Following MacKenzieâs (2018) explication of Vasubandhuâs Treatise on the Three Natures (TrisvabhÄvanirdeÅa), this study takes an anti-internalist stance and adopts the non-dualist 134 interpretation. While the non-dualist interpretation takes as its starting point the postulation of subjectâobject non-duality (the perfected nature), the internalist interpretation begins with the constructed nature based on the representationalist theory, which argues that the mind perceives objective material reality through internal mental representations constructed from immediate sensory data, from which the existence of corresponding physical objects can be inferred (Chandler & Munday, 2020; MacKenzie, 2018). This internalistârepresentationalist account of mind, propounded by the SautrÄntika school of Buddhism, is associated with indirect-realist views of perception that presuppose the objective existence of an external world independent of observation (Garisto, 2022; Hebor, 2013; MacKenzie, 2018). The constructed mental representations thus act as a medium, bridge, or veil between the observing subject and a preexistent objective worldâwhat we directly perceive in experience are not external objects but rather internal mental images or representations (ÄkÄra) (MacKenzie, 2018). This internalistârepresentationalist view is questionable not only because local realism has been experimentally disproved (see Section 1.7), but also because it maintains the concept of mentality as a self-contained, private, and subjective realm, and then seeks to internalize the external worldâtransforming the phenomenal world into the content of a private internal world model (MacKenzie, 2018). This view raises the specter of solipsism, as the same arguments used to reduce the external world to mere content within oneâs own mind can similarly be used to reduce other minds (of sentient beings) (MacKenzie, 2018). In contrast, the non-dualist interpretation of the three natures denies the preexistence of an independent objective world, presupposes subjectâobject non-duality, and treats the distinctions between subject and object, or mind and world, as distinctions drawn within the non-dual flow of 135 streams of experience (MacKenzie, 2018). Based on this non-dualist interpretation, the constructed nature of an experiential object refers to the cognitive processes through which the object is mistakenly perceived as possessing an intrinsic nature, independent of the consciousness in which it appears (Blumenthal, 2013; MacKenzie, 2018). This illustrates how the object, as experienced, depends on the constructive activities of mental processes. However, it is important to note that this is not to say that this object is a mere hallucination. Instead, it highlights how our default mode of cognition involves a form of naïve realism that misleads us into believing in the mutual independence of subject and object, whereas this perceived duality is, in actuality, a distortion of the non-dual flow of streams of karmicâexperiential phenomena emerging from the ÄlayavijñÄna (Blumenthal, 2013; MacKenzie, 2018). This gives rise to the dependent nature of phenomena, which refers to the dependent origination of the perceiver and the perceived in experiential phenomena (Williams, 2009), closely tied to the incessant karmic process. It reveals that the appearance of an experiential object is dependent on the sensoryâcognitive systems of the perceivers (MacKenzie, 2018). MacKenzie (2018) elucidated that since the object, as a construct, is not pre-given in itself, our deep-seated belief that cognition is simply the mirroring of pre-given external objects is mistaken. However, since the karmicâexperiential process of the ÄlayavijñÄna are both beneath and beyond subject and object, we are usually unaware of the mindâs constructive activities and the fact that what we perceive are merely constructed images within the non-dual flow of experience rather than external objectsâthe mind constructs a virtual world-model that appears transparent to us (MacKenzie, 2018). Furthermore, since subjectivity is not possible without an object and there can be no object in the absence of a subject, MacKenzie argued that subjectivity and objectivity 136 are mutually specifying, and therefore mentality cannot be understood as a private, self-contained subjective domain. Thus, YogÄcÄra is neither subjective idealism nor solipsism. Additionally, since subjectivity and objectivity are interdependent constructions, the subject is always a subject-in-a-world (MacKenzie, 2018). Given this dependent nature, experience is the dynamic karmic process through which subject and object co-emerge dependently (MacKenzie, 2018). An understanding of the constructed and dependent nature of experience leads to the realization of the perfected nature, or ultimate nature, of experiential phenomena, which is the dependent nature that is uncontaminated by the mistaken construction of subjectâobject duality (MacKenzie, 2018). Since all phenomena are empty of subjectâobject duality and there are no mind-independent objects, all phenomena, in line with Madhyamaka philosophy, are empty of self-production and intrinsic nature. Understanding the Three Natures the other way around, we see the Three Naturelessnesses (AsvabhÄva) of experiential phenomena: the absence of subjectâobject duality, self-production, and intrinsic nature, and other constructed distortions (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Sopa, 2017). By offering a concise framework for overcoming mistaken ontological assumptions, this theory helps us transcend cognitive and afflictive obstructions, awakening us from our own constructs and transforming us into mindful, authentic players. While YogÄcÄra idealism emphasizes the primacy of Storehouse Consciousness, from the ultimate perspective, everythingâincluding Storehouse Consciousness, its equivalents, and even the concept of emptiness itselfâis empty of absolute existence and intrinsic nature. This understanding reflects the wisdom of the Two Truths theory. 137 4.4.2 Two Truths The theory of Two Truths, which distinguishes between two complementary aspects of reality, is central to Madhyamaka philosophy. In Buddhist philosophy, truth (satya) refers to the nature of reality, and the two truths are phenomenal or conventional truth (loka-saá¹vá¹ti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramÄrtha-satya) (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018; Sopa, 2017). Ultimate truth refers to what is known or experienced by a mind discerning the ultimate nature of thingsâemptiness (ÅÅ«nyatÄ) (Blumenthal, 2008; Newland, 2009). Conventional truth pertains to objects identified by conventional minds that are not investigating the ultimate nature of things, which includes everything except emptiness (Newland, 2009). The Sanskrit term loka-saá¹vá¹ti, translated as âconventional,â is a compound of loka and saá¹vá¹ti, where saá¹vá¹ti is associated with three distinct etymologies: concealing, mutual dependency, and conventions (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). The most significant root meaning, âconcealing,â suggests that conventional truth includes all the ways of thinking and speaking that conceal the true nature of reality from ordinary people (loka) (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). In contrast, ultimate truth, or emptiness (ÅÅ«nyatÄ), is the faultless realization attained by the noble ones (Äryas) who have entered the path of seeing (Newland, 2009; Sopa, 2017). While YogÄcÄra underscores the emptiness of subjectâobject duality, Madhyamaka highlights the emptiness of intrinsic nature. In transdisciplinary realism, characterized by the ternary structure {Subject, Object, Hidden Third}, the Subject and Object correspond to conventional truth, while the Hidden Third represents ultimate truth (see Section 2.6). 138 The two truths distinction is essential for understanding the Buddhaâs teachings (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). While the conventional truths are not ultimately true, they are not to be rejected. As NÄgÄrjuna underscored: âWithout relying on the conventional, the ultimate cannot be taught; without understanding the ultimate, [nirvÄá¹a] is not attainedâ (as cited in Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 487). To make the actual ultimate teachable without causing confusion, the Madhyamaka tradition distinguishes between two types of emptiness: the actual ultimate and the approximate ultimate. The actual ultimate is the non-conceptual direct experience of emptiness (Newland, 2009; Sopa, 2016, 2017).42 The approximate ultimate, also known as pure conventional wisdom, refers to the post-meditative retrospection of the direct experience of emptiness, or the inferential knowledge of emptiness derived through logical analysis and reasoning, including the concepts discussed in this study (Mipham, 1877/2005; Newland, 2009; Sopa, 2017). In Madhyamaka, attaining a proper understanding of emptiness requires the precise identification of the object of negationâwithout either refuting too much, by denying the dependent origination of karmicâexperiential phenomena, thereby undermining ethics, negating conventional existence altogether, and falling into the extreme of nihilism; or refuting too little, by affirming intrinsic nature, thus slipping into the opposite extreme of reificationism or eternalism, and leaving our ignorance intact (Newland, 2009). Such an understanding is referred to as the right view of emptiness. Since the concept of emptinessâand its equivalents or analogues, such as the Hidden Third, the Divine, or the Godâtranscends ordinary perception, it is susceptible to misinterpretation, reification, dogmatization, or outright rejection. This makes the right view essential for a clear understanding of spirituality. 139 In Buddhism, right view (samyag-dá¹á¹£á¹­i) means âright seeingâ or âseeing things as they really areâ (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Sopa, 2005). Since it has nothing to do with holding views or opinions, the rendering of right view as âright viewsâ is not acceptable (Fuller, 2005; Walshe, 2007). Also, while the Buddhist literature talks about right view and wrong views (micchÄ-diá¹­á¹­hi), right view does not stand in opposition to or rectify wrong views, neither does it mean the rejection or relinquishment of all views (Fuller, 2005). Rather, right view is âa detached order of seeing, completely different from the attitude of holding to any view, wrong or rightâ (Fuller, 2005, p. 1). Right view is therefore neither a doctrine nor a proposition, but is meant to be practiced rather than to be adopted or believed in (Fuller, 2005). Even if a statement is factually or logically true, when reified, dogmatized, or attached, it becomes a wrong view. The view that âone must hold no viewsâ thus also falls into the category of wrong views. Similarly, clinging to the concept of emptiness and reifying it as a new form of intrinsic natureâwhile forgetting that even emptiness itself is emptyâalso falls into the category of wrong views (Mipham, 1877/2005; Newland, 2009). Right view also does not imply the absence of mental activity.43 This recurring conceptual pitfall in Buddhist historyâembodied in the misleading Zen-like instruction to âthink nothing and do nothingâ as a path to liberation44âis problematic, as it merely suppresses the activity of the six consciousnesses without addressing the cognitiveâaffective distortions of the seventh consciousness (kliṣṭamanas), which is the root of egoic afflictions (see Section 4.3). Right view, therefore, is neither the relinquishment of all views nor the suppression of all mental activity. Rather, it involves the cessation of reification, dogmatization, and attachment to these 140 views, while remaining open to transcendental possibilities. In the MahÄyÄna tradition, the right view of ultimate truth is a proper understanding of emptiness, which signifies infinite possibilities, while the right view of conventional truth is a proper understanding of the law of karma (Sopa, 2005). Much like in a dream or a mental self-simulation, it is precisely because everything is empty of intrinsic nature and there are no mind-independent objects that the law of karma can prevail, making everything possible. Right view of the two truths, therefore, is crucial for fostering authentic players and transforming both our personal and shared realities. The Two Truths theory discussed above offers a valuable framework for understanding human nature and reality. Nonetheless, Lusthaus (2010) reminds us that it is not meant to eclipse or replace other analytical models, but to serve as a shorthand from which other models can be extrapolated. He noted that Buddhism encompasses various types of truthâranging from Onefold and Twofold to Tenfold truths and beyondâeach corresponding to different levels of reality.45 When expressed through language, truths become conventions, and insightful Bodhisattvas, out of compassion, can infinitely condense or expand them to communicate, using conventions, from both subjective and objective perspectives for the benefit of sentient beings. Since MahÄyÄna Buddhism recognizes multiple levels of reality on the conventional level and acknowledges the Hidden Third on the ultimate level, it aligns with the ontological axiom of transdisciplinary methodology (see Section 2.6). 4.5 Buddhist Epistemology: Dependent Origination The concept of dependent origination (pratÄ«tyasamutpÄda) is a key element of Buddhist epistemology. It indicates that all phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, 141 intricately linked to the dynamic karmic process (MacKenzie, 2013, 2018). In Tibetan Madhyamaka teachings, dependent origination is explained on three levels: causal, whole/part, and conceptual (Thompson, 2015). From the YogÄcÄra perspective, dependent origination corresponds to the dependent nature of experiential phenomena. It emphasizes that the perception of mutual independence between perceiver and perceived is merely a cognitive distinction within the non-dual flow of experienceâthere are no mind-independent objects (MacKenzie, 2018; Wei, 1973). This understanding, consistent with the epistemological axiom of transdisciplinarity, highlights universal interdependence, characterized by the coexistence of complex plurality and open unity of experiential phenomena (see Section 2.6). On one level, dependent origination refers to the twelve links of dependent origination from which the circumstances of samsara arise (Sopa, 2005). These twelve interconnected links are ignorance, formative activity, consciousness, name and form, the six sense bases, sensory contact, sensation or feeling, craving, grasping, existence or a process of becoming, birth or rebirth, and aging and death (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). From the perspective of the mental self-simulation metaphor, this causal chain illustrates how ignorance of the ultimate nature of reality leads to the endless cycle of birth, death, and the entire spectrum of existence within the simulated realm of samsara (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Importantly, this twelvefold chain affirms the continuity of personality without implying any permanent essence underlying existence (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Thus, it represents a middle way between the two extremes of eternalismâthe belief in a permanent soul that remains unchanged across lifetimesâand annihilationism, which asserts that a person ceases to exist at death without rebirth (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). 142 On another level, the concept of dependent origination is coterminous with emptiness and the middle way. As NÄgÄrjuna explained in MMK: âThat which arises dependently we explain as emptiness. This is dependent designation; this is the middle wayâ (as cited in Newland, 2009, p. 32). In the Refutation of Objections, NÄgÄrjuna emphasized that emptiness, dependent arising, and the middle way convey a single meaning (Newland, 2009). Though empty, phenomena do appear (dependent origination); though phenomena appear, they are nonetheless empty (emptiness) (Mipham, 1877/2005). Recognizing the inseparability and complementarity of appearance and emptiness in dependently arising phenomena represents the middle way that unites conventional and ultimate truths (Mipham, 1877/2005). In line with transdisciplinary epistemology, this union demonstrates that the two aspects of reality each exist as they are due to the coexistence of both, and this perspective can be applied to the causal, whole/part, or conceptual levels of dependent origination. Moreover, since the Buddhist concept of dependent origination involves both the conventional and ultimate levels of reality, itâaligned with transdisciplinary epistemologyâexhibits vertical complexity (see Subsection 2.6.4). The concept of dependent origination, however, can be easily taken as yet another reified metaphysical theory imposed on phenomena (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). The Buddhaâs strategy to prevent this is to employ a negative approach, known as the eight negations. This approach, aimed at overcoming naïve realism and its associated afflictions, asserts that all dependently arising phenomena lack the eight logically possible attributesâarising or cessation, annihilation or permanence, coming or going, unity or pluralityâin and of themselves and do not exist apart from the minds that impute them (Newland, 2009; Sopa, 2017). By asserting neither A nor non- 143 A, the eight negations effectively negate classical binary logic, favoring instead the logic of the included middle, which introduces a third state, T, that is simultaneously A and non-A at another level of reality. This negative approach is regarded as the essence of dependent origination and is intended to be expanded and applied to all realms of knowledge and experience (Siderits & Katsura, 2013). Its relationship with Buddhist logic is discussed below. 4.6 Buddhist Logic: The Approach of Negation and the Logic of Not The approach of negation is pervasive throughout MahÄyÄna literature. For example, in the Diamond Sutra (éåç¶), through his dialogue with Subhuti (Subhūti) 46, the Buddha demonstrated this negative approach, stating, for instance, âSubhuti, what the Lord Buddha declared as âtranscendent wisdomâ by means of which we reach âthe other shore,â is not essentially âtranscendent wisdomââin its essence it transcends all wisdomâ (Gemmell, 1912, p. 47); and âSubhuti, the Lord Buddha declares that all these âatoms of dustâ are not essentially âatoms of dust,â they are merely termed âatoms of dustââ (p. 49). But why? Echoing the dream and mental self-simulation metaphors, the Buddha illuminated that all phenomena âmay be likened unto a dream, a phantasm, a bubble, a shadow, the glistening dew, or lightning flashâ (Gemmell, 1912, pp. 108â110). Aware that the teachings on ultimate truth and the approach of negation may seem like philosophical gimmicks to secular audiences, the Buddha emphasized in this sutra that a Buddha only speaks what is real, presenting things as they are. Since right view of emptiness is not only a state of being to be attained but also a process of negation to be practiced, the Buddha illustrated this practice throughout the Diamond Sutra with the repeated use of what Nagatomo (2000) called the âlogic of notâ (p. 213). The âlogic of notâ 144 can be expressed in a propositional form: A is not A, therefore it is A, where A represents a linguistic sign (e.g., the world, all dharmas, wisdom). Below are some examples: (1) âThe world is not the world, therefore it is the worldâ (section 13-c). (2) âAll dharmas are not all dharmas, therefore they are all dharmasâ (section 17-c). (3) âThe perfection of wisdom is not the perfection of wisdom, therefore it is the perfection of wisdomâ (section 13-a). (Nagatomo, 2000, p. 214) If we confine our awareness to the phenomenal and remain absorbed in itâas if it truly existed in and of itselfâwhile strictly adhering to Aristotelian binary logic, then such statements would indeed appear nonsensical. However, if we awaken to the ultimate truthâto the game of mental self-simulationâwe begin to appreciate the sobering power of the âlogic of notâ in fostering recursive, playful, and liberating shifts in modes of awareness that shape how we understand ourselves and relate to the world. From the MahÄyÄna perspective, âA is not A, therefore it is Aâ reflects a perspectival shift from naïve realism to the Madhyamaka middle way, as well as a progressive realization of the YogÄcÄra three natures: (a) A (constructed nature): initially viewing A as a mind-independent entity with intrinsic nature, (b) non-A (dependent nature): negating the mind-independence and intrinsic nature of A, and (c) A and non-A (perfected nature): affirming the conventional existence of A while recognizing its lack of mind-independence and intrinsic nature. Since the middle-way perception âA and non-Aâ represents a third state T that is simultaneously A and non-Aâat another level of reality beyond the mere phenomenalâand this applies to all phenomena, the âlogic of notâ is coterminous with the logic of the included middle as specified in transdisciplinary methodology (see Section 2.6). 145 This third state, or middle-way perception, T (A and non-A), represents a mode of being in which A âis âthereâ in the mode of ânot being thereââ (Reid, 2015, p. 130). This superpositional mode of beingâin a sense similar to the waveform in the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, where all possibilities coexist in superpositionâopens a third space of formlessness or emptiness, a liberating playground of creation where all possibilities dwell, enabling the emergence of the new and fostering the process of playing, transcending, and becoming. It is noteworthy that while the state T (A and non-A) arises from A and non-A, it is neither A nor non-A. Therefore, the shift to this middle-way perceptionâT, the third spaceârequires the initial negation of both A and non-A, as illustrated by the eight negations. The âlogic of notâ and the eight negations are, therefore, essentially the same approach, sharing the aim of overcoming naïve realismânegating subjectâobject duality and the intrinsic nature of phenomenaâso that we may perceive things as they truly are and engage in mindful, meaningful play within a simulation-like universe. The âlogic of notâ is, therefore, the logic of authentic players. 4.7 The Primacy of Consciousness and ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka The above exploration reveals diverse aspects of Buddhist spirituality, demonstrates their resonances with transdisciplinarity, and identifies potential conceptual pitfalls, highlighting the inseparability of spirituality, transdisciplinarity, and consciousness. As shown above, YogÄcÄra idealism grants existential primacy to Storehouse Consciousness. The primacy of consciousness over matter is aptly expressed by Bitbol (2008): [Consciousness] is not something that we have, but it identifies with what we are in the first place. It is not something that can be known or described by us in the third person as 146 if we were separated from it; but it is what we dwell in and what we live through in the first person. I would recapitulate this by saying that consciousness is existentially primary. (P. 54) The primacy of Storehouse Consciousnessâthe Divine, God, or their equivalentsâmay seem counterintuitive, yet this is precisely why spiritual teachings are essential. However, in recognizing the existential primacy of consciousness, it is crucial not to reify or absolutize it. As emphasized in the PrajñÄpÄramitÄ Sūtras, âMind is devoid of mind, for the nature of mind is clear lightâ (Hopkins, 2017). This statement, which reflects both YogÄcÄra and Madhyamaka perspectives on mind and non-mind, illustrates a staged practice that progresses from conceptual engagement with mind and non-mind to the direct realization of mind as clear light or luminosity (prakÄÅatÄ). This integrative approach, which avoids potential conceptual pitfalls, is embodied in ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka synthesis. ÅÄntaraká¹£ita (725â788) is one of the most important and pivotal Indian Madhyamaka thinkers in the development of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, who played a crucial role in the early dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018; Hayes, 2019).47 What makes his contribution to Indian Buddhist philosophy unique is his innovative integration of NÄgÄrjunaâs anti-essentialism with aspects of YogÄcÄra philosophy, along with the logico-epistemological theories of DignÄga and Dharmakīrti, into a unified and internally coherent Madhyamaka framework (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018). ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs synthesis has been recognized as the last major development in Indian Buddhist philosophy (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018). The uniqueness of ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs thought is also found in his dynamic engagement with various competing Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspectives, and he encouraged his readers to 147 actively do the same (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018). This gives the YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka system a transdisciplinary nature. In this system, YogÄcÄra philosophy is incorporated into the Madhyamaka framework of two truths on the conventional level, followed by a fundamentally Madhyamaka analysis applied to the level of ultimate truth (Blumenthal, 2013). This unique presentation also integrates significant elements of PramÄá¹avÄdaâDignÄga and DharmakÄ«rtiâs logico-epistemological traditionâincluding theories of perception, reflexive awareness, and inferential reasoning (Blumenthal, 2013). As ÅÄntaraká¹£ita elucidated in the The Ornament of the Middle Way: By embracing the doctrine of mind only, one stops taking external objects as real; then by embracing Madhyamaka, one realizes that no objects at all have substance; then, taking the reins of reasoning, one rides the chariot of both systems as a single great vehicle (mahÄyÄna). (Hayes, 2019, p. 29) The way in which conventional truths are presented in this framework is not the result of mistaken views (e.g., positing the intrinsic existence of mind) but rather a skillful means (upÄya-kauÅalya) that serves as a crucial soteriological stepping stone toward realizing the ultimate nature of reality (Blumenthal, 2009). For ÅÄntaraká¹£ita, YogÄcÄra, including PramÄá¹avÄda, provides the best approach to understanding the conventional level of reality, while Madhyamaka offers the best approach to understanding the ultimate (MacKenzie, 2021). Through a masterful synthesis of YogÄcÄra, Madhyamaka, and Buddhist logico-epistemology, ÅÄntaraká¹£ita articulated a crucial doctrine that underpins all MahÄyÄna teachings and established a tradition that elucidates how these teachings can be directly experienced on the path (Mipham, 1877/2005). 148 Jamgön Mipham (1877/2005), one of the greatest Nyingma masters of his time (1846â1912), indicated that ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka philosophy surpasses other interpretations of Madhyamaka, as it provides definitive knowledge of five key propositions: 1. The only authentic objects of valid cognition are causally efficient entities. 2. Reflexive awareness48ânon-dual, pre-reflective self-awareness or self-illuminating mind, which does not involve an agentâactionâobject structureâexists on the conventional level. 3. Consciousness-only: all phenomena are projections or manifestations of consciousness. 4. A distinction is made between approximate ultimate truth and actual ultimate truth. 5. Two types of valid reasoning, based on approximate and actual ultimate truths, are upheld without contradiction. The YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka synthesis holds profound transdisciplinary significance because it provides an archetype for developing transdisciplinary knowledge systems grounded in the Completeness Axioms for Reality (see Section 3.2). It embraces logical reasoning and scientific investigation into consciousness and diverse phenomena on the conventional level, treating them as if they possess intrinsic nature independent of the perceiver, while maintaining awareness of the limitations of objectivity and the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena, including Storehouse Consciousness, and its equivalents across religious and philosophical traditions. Given its soteriological skillfulness, pedagogical ingenuity, philosophical profundity, and transdisciplinary significance, this research adopts ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka knowledge system as the foundation for further transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality in the next chapter. 149 Chapter 5: Understanding Spirituality: A Transdisciplinary Hermeneutics 5.1 Introduction In Chapter 4, through an exploration of Buddhist spirituality within the transdisciplinary methodological framework, I presented a theoretical instance of how transdisciplinarity and spirituality align and enrich each other. This exploration also identified potential conceptual pitfalls in understanding spirituality and recognized ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka synthesis as a valuable archetype for developing transdisciplinary knowledge systems that skillfully avoid such pitfalls. This synthesis integrates YogÄcÄra philosophy, along with PramÄá¹avÄda logico-epistemological reasoning, into the Madhyamaka framework of two truths on the conventional level, followed by a fundamentally Madhyamaka analysis of the ultimate truth (Blumenthal, 2013; Hayes, 2019). By acknowledging consciousness-only and reflexive awareness on the conventional level while remaining mindful of the ultimate emptiness of consciousness and all phenomena, the YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka framework proposes a non-dualist middle path that prioritizes the cultivation of non-dual love and compassion, along with the non-objectifying practice of reflexive awarenessâguided by bodhicitta and grounded in the awareness of the law of karma and universal emptinessâwhich together make everything possible. By integrating logical reasoning and scientific investigation on the conventional level, this framework fosters an ever-renewing transdisciplinary understanding of spirituality as science advances. This understanding, in turn, guides the trajectory of scientific progress for the well-being of humanity as a whole. 150 As demonstrated in previous chapters, the Hidden Third is key to understanding spirituality. An investigation from both subjective and objective perspectives in Chapter 3 validated the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third as the Divineâmanifesting as both an omnipresent cosmic information system from which experiential phenomena arise and an omniscient cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral part. An exploration of the Buddhist equivalent of the Hidden ThirdâStorehouse Consciousness (ÄlayavijñÄna)âin Chapter 4 further revealed significant properties of the Hidden Third as Storehouse Consciousness, including: (a) Storehouse Consciousness is the basic sentience or fundamental awareness from which all other types of consciousness arise; (b) it is reflexive or self-illuminating; (c) it is diachronically continuous and egoless, yet the egoless, observing aspect of the non-dual flow of experience is often mistaken for an enduring self, independent of the world; (d) it serves as both the database and processor of karmic seeds, from which the phenomenal experience of self (subject) and world (object) dependently co-emerge, much like a man in a dream; (e) it is the universal ground of everything, its nature being pure and immaculate, with qualities like wish-fulfilling jewels; (f) it is non-individuated on the ultimate level; (g) all sentient beings, including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, share the same Dharma body (DharmakÄya), known as the Buddha Nature (TathÄgatagarbha), which represents the pristine state of Storehouse Consciousness and corresponds to the omniscience of the Buddhas; (h) although this shared Buddha Nature abides within all sentient beings, it is obscured by afflictive defilements (or sins, in theological terms) rooted in mistaken ontological constructions, such as subjectâobject duality and intrinsic nature. The Buddhaâs teaching on Storehouse Consciousness not only deepens our understanding of the Hidden Third, or the Divine, as both a cosmic information system and a cosmic consciousness, 151 but also illuminates the inseparability and complementarity of the phenomenal and ultimate aspects of reality, reaffirming the necessity of the Madhyamaka middle path that embraces both truths. While these properties of ÄlayavijñÄna transcend the scope of mundane knowledge and cannot be directly verified by the scientific method due to their non-dualistic and non-conceptual nature, the philosophical implications of various scientific discoveries and theories, alongside diverse philosophical traditions, reveal remarkable resonances with Buddhist philosophy. To foster an ever-renewing transdisciplinary understanding of spirituality and establish a theoretical framework for understanding curriculum as play, this chapter, Chapter 5, engages in a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of key aspects of spirituality, drawing on quantum physics, new biology, cognitive science, and philosophical hermeneutics. I begin with an exploration of the primacy of consciousness over matter from diverse perspectives, drawing on quantum physics, cognitive science, and new biology. This is followed by an examination of the concept of complementarity, including the principle of complementarity and biological complementarity, which are vital to a deeper understanding of Madhyamaka philosophy and the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems. Finally, drawing on Gadamerâs philosophical hermeneutics, I explore the concept of play as a clue to ontological explanation and establish the existential and educational significance of understanding human existence as play. 5.2 Understanding the Primacy of Consciousness Over Matter 5.2.1 Where Does the âBitâ Come From? In Chapter 3, I identified the Hidden Third as a hidden aspect of reality corresponding to dark energy and dark matter, which together constitute 95% of the universeâs total massâenergy. Further investigation into Vopsonâs (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023b) massâenergyâinformation 152 equivalence principleâwhich posits that information is not only a fundamental building block of the universe but also constitutes energy and possesses mass, and that the missing dark matter is information massâtogether with its theoretical underpinnings, including Einsteinâs special relativity, Landauerâs principle, and the second law of infodynamics, enables us to conceptualize the Hidden Third as a cosmic information system. From a subjective perspective, the Hidden Third is experienced as a non-dual realm of pure energy, an all-knowing divine cosmic consciousness, and a profound source of inner peace, love, compassion, and blissâa space where infinite transcendental possibilities dwell. In physics, the connection between information and physical entities was encapsulated by renowned physicist John Wheeler in the phrase It-from-Bit as early as 1990. For Wheeler, thingsâmatter and radiationâshould be seen as secondary, functioning as carriers of a more abstract and fundamental entity: information (Greene, 2011; Wheeler, 1990/2018). Wheeler (1990/2018) explained: It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottomâat a very deep bottom, in most instancesâan immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe. (p. 5) This is a participatory universe, as everyone contributes informationâthe âBitââthrough actions of mind, body, and speech, from which the âItâ emerges. Wheelerâs view, in line with the properties of Storehouse Consciousness, suggests that the fundamental nature of physical reality can be understood through information theoryâphysical phenomena arise from the encoding, 153 processing, manipulation, and interpretation of information, and it is our very participation that makes the universe possible. Wheelerâs theory is sturdily supported by the work of Maldacena and Susskind (2013), who proposed that âentanglement and wormholes create spacetime, which emerges from connected bits of quantum informationâ (IAS, 2018, para. 3). In a conversation, referring to his research on how quantum information travels through spacetime, Maldacena also noted, âwe think that the geometry of spacetime itself is reflecting properties of this quantum informationâ (IAS, 2018). Traditionally regarded as the universeâs backdrop, spacetime is now suggested by research in string theory and loop quantum gravity to be an emergent property of a more fundamental reality (Becker, 2022; IAS, 2018). If the It-from-Bit theory is convincing, the next question would be: Where does the âBitâ come from? Clearly, the answer cannot be âIt.â Although Wheeler (1990/2018) did not directly associate information (bit) with consciousness due to our limited understanding of consciousness, he identified consciousness as one of the critical clues to a new perspective on reality, suggesting: Does this It-from-Bit perspective not seek to explain the physical world, about which we know something, in terms of an entityâconsciousnessâabout which we know almost nothing? He further remarked that Parmenides of Elea might tell us that âwhat is... is identical with the thought that recognizes it,â and suggested that somedayâwhen we know more about consciousnessâwe may need to expand the scope of what we mean by a âwho.â While Wheelerâs philosophical stance in favor of the primacy of consciousness over matter is evident, he refrained from directly associating information and matter with consciousness, as our understanding of consciousness remains limited. This instance illustrates the limitations of 154 contemporary scientific culture, which precludes significant intellectual and ontological leapsâvital to the survival and thriving of humanityâthat are inherent in diverse scientific breakthroughs. Despite Wheelerâs expectation that we may someday gain a deeper understanding of consciousness, that day may never come if we continue to confine ourselves to dominant scientific worldviews grounded in scientific naturalism and realism, equate mental states with brain states, and insist that the scientific method is the only valid means of acquiring knowledge in all domains, including consciousness. Just as the equation x2 = 2, for instance, cannot have a solution without completing the number system by filling the âgapsâ in â with irrational numbers, questions concerning consciousness, as demonstrated in Chapters 3 and 4, cannot be fully addressed without filling the âontological gapsâ in our understanding of self and reality with the Hidden Third or the Divine, which connects everything and makes us whole again. If we recognize the pressing need to expand our understanding of the âwhoâ that transcends mere material existence, it becomes imperative to acknowledge the presence of the Hidden Third or the Divine, adopt the Completeness Axioms for Reality, and develop transdisciplinary knowledge systems that integrate both science and religion. Among eminent physicists, Wheeler is not the only one to suggest the primacy of consciousness over matter. For instance, Max Planck, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, stated, âI regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousnessâ (Sullivan, 1931, p. 17). Similar remarks have been made by titans of contemporary physics: 155 Erwin Schrödinger: Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. Arthur Eddington: The stuff of the world is mind stuff. J. B. S. Haldane: We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter...; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe. Julian Huxley: Mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe. This is, I believe, the truth. Freeman Dyson: [M]ind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call âchanceâ when they are made by electrons. David Bohm: It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. Werner Heisenberg: Was [is] it utterly absurd to seek behind the ordering structures of this world a âconsciousnessâ whose âintentionsâ were these very structures? Andrei Linde: Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other? (Irwin et al., 2020, p. 5) These quotes, along with other science-based insights into YogÄcÄra idealism, further support the mental self-simulation metaphor, in which a being of consciousness participates in an existential game of creation governed by specific game rules. 156 Acknowledging the primacy of consciousness over matter, Irwin et al. (2020) proposed an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics by adapting Bostromâs (2003) simulation hypothesisâa materialistic viewâinto a non-materialistic framework known as the self-simulation hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, âeverything is information, which we define as thought. The universe self-actualizes itself into existence via self-simulation using a mathematical code and a simulation game rule called the principle of efficient languageâ (Irwin et al., 2020, p. 1). Within this hypothesis, the physical universe is conceptualized as a strange loop, defined as a hierarchical structure âwrapped back upon itself, where the simplest object is embedded in the whole or the most complex emergent part and where all parts depend upon all others and where the emergent whole is dependent upon the synergy of partsâ (Irwin et al., 2020, p. 5). Irwin et al. (2020) argued that the assumption of mental simulation is more plausible than the materialistic computer simulation hypothesis, aligning more closely with the implications of quantum mechanics and the quantum measurement problem. By proposing a panpsychic self-simulation model that builds on and expands digital physics and panpsychism, Irwin et al. (2020) sought to describe the origin of panconsciousness through a synthesis of three general ideas: (1) reality is made of information in the form of code/languageâ¦ (2) reality is a transtemporal system, where things from one time can influence things in other timesâ¦ and (3), the substrate of this information is panconsciousness that emerges from itself, as the creator or simulator of itself. (p. 2) This panpsychic self-simulation hypothesis offers a science-based model for contemplating the properties of Storehouse Consciousness, YogÄcÄra idealism, and the mental self-simulation metaphor for the universe. It also resonates with the teachings of the Buddha and Bodhisattva Maitreya on the relationship between consciousness and matter. In the Bodhisattva Dwelling in 157 the Womb Sutra (è©è©èèç¶), the Buddha asked Bodhisattva Maitreya to elaborate on the following question: In the process of mental activities, how many units of consciousness and matter are formed? Bodhisattva Maitreya replied: In the snap of a finger, thirty-two trillion units of micro-consciousness are formed. Each micro-consciousness leads to the formation of micro-dust, and intrinsic to each micro-dust is micro-consciousness. Micro-consciousness is extremely subtle, finer than micro-dust, and cannot be seen or held. The Buddhaâs extraordinary and mighty consciousness can enter micro-consciousness to guide it toward liberation (CBETA T0384, n.d.). This conversation between the Holy Ones offers profound insights into the question: Where does the âBitâ come from? 5.2.2 Brain in a Vat vs. Body in a World In contemporary culture, however, the idea that âyou are your brainâ or âconsciousness is the phenomenon of the brainâ remains prevalent, and the thought experiment of the âbrain in a vatâ has inspired numerous works of science fiction, films, and TV shows (Noë, 2010; Thompson & Cosmelli, 2011). While neuroscientists often equate mental states with brain states (a brainbound view), philosopher and cognitive scientist Evan Thompson pointed out in an interview that the idea of the mind being something inside the brain is misguided (Heuman, 2014). He explained, âItâs like saying that flight is inside the wings of a bird. The mind is relational. Itâs a way of being in relation to the world. You need a brain, just as the bird needs wings, but the mind exists at a different levelâthe level of embodied being in the worldâ (Heuman, 2014, p. 40). Moreover, Thompson and Cosmelli (2011) cautioned that research on the neural correlates of consciousness, despite providing valuable insights into the brain, should not be seen as an attempt to find a minimal constitutive supervenience base for experience within the brain. This is 158 because neuroscience does not provide sufficient evidence for such heavy philosophical interpretations and because such claims can prematurely shut down a wide range of significant and wide-open questions regarding brain-body relations in the biological realization of consciousness. Through careful examination of the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment, Thompson and Cosmelli (2011) demonstrated that any adequately functional âvatâ would be a surrogate body, that is, that the so-called vat would be no vat at all, but rather an embodied agent in the world. Thus, what the thought experiment actually shows is that the brain and body are so deeply entangled, structurally and dynamically, that they are explanatorily inseparable. Such entanglement implies that we cannot understand consciousness by considering only the activity of neurons apart from the body, and hence we have good explanatory grounds for supposing that the minimal realizing system for consciousness includes the body and not just the brain. (p. 163) On this basis, they refuted the brainbound view of experience in favor of an âenactiveâ view, replacing the brain-in-a-vat metaphor with that of a body-in-a-world, and contended that consciousness is a life-regulation process in which the whole organism dynamically interacts with its worldâa view of consciousness that aligns with both the understanding of the Hidden Third as Storehouse Consciousness and the mental self-simulation metaphor. This enactive view of experience, as shown in Section 3.7, is employed by MacKenzie (2013) to elucidate the karmic process, in which we enact both ourselves (in an avatar-like manner) and our worlds (akin to simulated universes). 159 5.2.3 Emergentism vs. Panpsychism The brainbound view of experience represents a form of emergentism. According to Theise and Kafatos (2013b), contemporary philosophical understanding of consciousness can be roughly divided into two positions: emergentism and panpsychism. While panpsychism maintains that consciousness pervades the universe at all levels, emergentism understands consciousness as arising from the physical universe when a sufficient degree of complexity is attained. There is an obvious stance in emergentism that it is the nervous system, or possibly the brain specifically, that represents the complexity and organization required to generate consciousness. However, the concept of autopoiesis proposes that it is not the brain itself, nor nervous systems in general, that are required; rather, life in its most fundamental formâthe cellâis both sufficient and necessary for basic forms of consciousness (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). Autopoiesis, derived from the Greek Î±á½ÏÎ¿ (auto, meaning âselfâ) and ÏÎ¿Î¯Î·ÏÎ¹Ï (poiesis, meaning âcreationâ), refers to a variant of complexity theory grounded in a self-organizational approach (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). Complexity theory has had a prominent place in many sciences (Theise, 2005). In brief, it describes the emergent self-organization within complex adaptive systems (Theise, 2005). Theise and Kafatos (2013a) explained: Complexity describes how interacting agents in biological systems (at least) self-organize into larger scale structures which display emergent properties not easily predicted from the characteristics of the individual agents at the lower level of scale or contained in them. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. (p. 12) The criteria required to be considered a complex system include: 160 â¢ There must be significant numbers of interacting agents (three birds do not form a flock, two people do not form a village) and the complexity of the system and its potential adaptive strategies increase with increasing numbers (a village is not a city, is not a megalopolis). â¢ There must be an overall balance of homeostatic, negative feedback loops [that promote stability of the system] â¦ â¢ The individual agents do not partake of global sensing, but respond primarily to local cues derived from the local environment (including other agents within the local environment). â¦ â¢ There must be limited randomness or âquenched disorderâ in the system: too much [disorder] yields no capacity to self-organize, too little does not allow for exploration of new organizational strategies in response to changing conditions. (Theise & Kafatos, 2013a, pp. 12â13) Cells exemplify a complex system that fulfills all these criteria: they exist in significant numbers, exhibit homeostatic negative feedback loops in their interactions, respond only to local environmental cues with limited quenched disorder, and self-organize without external planning (Theise, 2005). What emerge from their adaptive self-organization are structures and functions of our tissues, organs, and bodies (Theise, 2005). While the original form of autopoiesis theory adopts an emergentist position, Theise and Kafatos, as discussed below, employed a complexity approach down to quantum scales, transforming autopoiesis into a theory aligned with panpsychism. 161 In complexity theory, adaptive self-organization is an intriguing concept that describes how interacting individuals within a community modify their modes of self-organization to adapt to a changing environment, which is considered a sign of sentience (Theise & Kafatos, 2013a). Sentience, in this context, is defined as âsensing of the surrounding environment, complex processing of information that has been sensed (i.e., processing mechanisms defined by characteristics of a complex system), and generation of a responseâ (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 378). The notion of adaptive self-organization raises questions about the role of sentience, or consciousness, in complex systems. According to Theise and Kafatos (2013b), a paramecium (a single-celled organism) exemplifies an autopoietic unit. It moves toward increasing concentrations of nutrients, such as sugar, but reverses course when it encounters toxic substances or physical barriers, thereby perceiving its environment and adjusting its behavior accordingly. In the process of âmaking senseâ of its environment, a paramecium assigns âvaluesâ to elements, categorizing nutrients as âgoodâ and toxins or obstructions as âbad.â Using the paramecium as an example, autopoietic theory identifies four characteristics common to all autopoietic living systems: a. A boundary (the cell membrane in this example) that is open to energy, but closed to foreign materials, i.e. is semi-porous. This is boundary defines the âbeingâ of the system; b. The processes of sensing and reacting are the âdoingâ of the system; c. A nervous system that connects external events and the internal processes of the living system in which information sensed is then processed, yielding a response; d. Communication channels between the living system and its external environment (in this case, ion channels). (as cited in Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 382) 162 Theise and Kafatos indicated that while this description provides a valuable foundation for understanding the evolutionary development of the mind, it sets a lower limit for the presence of consciousness. A paramecium, despite being a single cell without a nervous system or brain, âknowsâ when it encounters an obstacle and responds âappropriatelyâ by backing up and changing direction. In this context, autopoiesis, or life, is where the mind is found; where life is absent, the mind would also be absent (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). Thus, the autopoietic approach identifies cells as the smallest units of life, where the most basic form of mindâsentienceâdwells (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). Regarding the lower limit on where consciousness can be found, however, there is the fundamental question of how atoms and molecules can self-assemble into autopoietic units. Theise and Kafatos (2013b) argued that, on one hand, complexity theory supports and clarifies the autopoiesis analysis in some respects; for instance, the concept of quenched disorder49 has helped elucidate the autopoietic âdoingâ that facilitates adaptation and evolution in response to a sensed environment. On the other hand, however, complexity theory âundermines the nature of the autopoietic unit as something particularly distinct from the lower-level structures beneath itâ (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 383). Theise and Kafatos explicated that a key aspect of complex systems is their scalability, meaning that general principles apply across different levels of scale. Therefore, moving downward, while cells arise from self-organizing molecules, molecules themselves arise from self-organizing atoms, atoms emerge from self-organizing subatomic particles, and so forth, down to the Planck scale, where the smallest entities (âstringsâ or otherwise) do not arise from anything smaller but instead appear and disappear from the energetic vacuum in a quantum foam. These observations suggest that the specified complexity 163 of the autopoietic unit is just one form of complex self-organization and is not particularly unique. In this light, the âlower boundaryâ of living systems at the single-cell level may not represent the lower boundary of sentience itself (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). Based on this reasoning, Theise and Kafatos (2013b) suggested another view. Using the DNA double helix as an example, they demonstrated that certain biomolecules exhibit a simpler form of sentience. Similarly, atoms sense their environment and interact with other atoms through the electrical activities of their electron shellsâwhat could be termed atomic sentience, simpler yet still a form of sentience. In the nucleus, protons and neutrons exhibit similar behaviors. At the lowest scales, from subatomic particles downward to the smallest entities, âinternal processingâ is mediated by quantum effects, which inherently involve an element of quenched disorderâspecifically, the probabilistic behaviors of quantum mechanics. Moreover, at these lowest levels of scale, we are deep in the quantum realm where all entities are defined by wave functions that extend infinitely in all directions, overlapping with all others. Thus, technically speaking, there is no âexternalâ to be sensed and no âinternalâ processing to create a response to the external; rather, the component activities that define sentience are inherent and pervasive, to be currently described, in part, by the concepts of quantum entanglement and non-locality. In the quantum realm one might tentatively suggest that the notion of âsentienceâ be considered a simplest form of âself-sentienceâ, i.e., nascent self-awareness. (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 385) Since nothing smaller exists beyond the Planck scale (approximately 10-35 meters in length), what remains is âthe energetic vacuum, the creative void, out of which all existence arises, 164 building itself through complex self-organization from smallest subatomic entities into larger subatomic particles into plasmas and atoms and such, thence into molecules, autopoietic living systems, worldsâ (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 385). Therefore, complexity theory analysis dissolves the lower boundary (cells) of potentially sentient activities, suggesting that the differences in sentience across these scales lie primarily in the level of complexity of that sentience, with apparent and inherent self-sentience emerging at the lowest scales within the quantum realm (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). In this way, complexity theory transforms the fundamentally emergentist aspects of autopoiesis theory into a panpsychist framework while also elucidating, from a biological perspective, the diverse properties of the Hidden Third or Storehouse Consciousness. This, however, as Theise and Kafatos (2013b) emphasized, does not imply that all things are sentient, nor that sentient entities always self-organize into larger sentient units at higher scales. Also, sentience is not synonymous with consciousness, which includes self-consciousness. They clarified that, as defined earlier, sentience is a more general feature of structures at all levels of the universe. It âis not a material that transfers through aggregated units, it is a process that may function at its most simple within larger, non-globally sentient structuresâ (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 387). According to this analysis, they argued, all atoms may be sentient, yet not all atoms self-assemble into sentient molecules, and the same applies to the levels of molecules, cells, organs, and so forth. They further explained that at larger scales, while non-sentient entities may be defined, there is no structure in the universe that does not contain sentient entities at some lower level of scale, down to the lowest levels of the quantum realm emerging in the quantum foam. At that level, with quantum entanglement 165 and non-locality operational for all possible units of existence (whether they are confirmed as multidimensional strings or some other structure), sentience is, in fact, universal. (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b, p. 387) Furthermore, at the lowest quantum levels, where the distinction between inside and outside becomes impossible, sentience may be conceived as originating as self-sentience. For Theise and Kafatos, this quantum-level self-sentience represents the inherent interactivity at these quantum levels of scale, serving as the minimal criterion for the tiny entities emerging from the quantum foam to self-assemble into larger-scale structures. Thus, it is sentience, defined in part by interactivity and quenched disorder, that serves as the minimal criterion for self-assembly of the universe into larger-scale structures, including those which are capable of sense-making and being consciously self-aware (Theise & Kafatos, 2013b). On this basis, Theise and Kafatos (2016) proposed an ontological framework of non-dual Fundamental Awareness. In this framework, non-dual Awareness is foundational to the universe, rather than originating from the structures or interactions of higher-level physical phenomena. Drawing on three investigational domainsâscientific, philosophical, and metaphysicalâthey argued that: 1. Awareness is the underlying reality, irreducible to anything else. 2. Awareness is identical with existence. 3. The universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, and consists of a holarchy50 of complementary, process-driven, recursive interactions. 4. The universe is its own first observer and subject. 166 5. Viewing the world as non-material and inherently composed of Awareness is to privilege information over materiality, action over agency, and reveals that qualia are not a âhard problemâ but the foundational elements of all existence. The concept of Fundamental Awareness resonates with Taylorâs (2006) account of her non-dual experience associated with right hemisphere consciousness (see Section 3.4) and further affirms the presence of reflexive awareness at the conventional level in ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka framework. This concept not only aligns with the understanding of the Hidden Third and Storehouse Consciousness developed in previous chapters but also offers science-based insights into the Hidden Third, illuminating its underlying functions and mechanisms. Theise and Kafatos (2016) argued that Fundamental Awareness is consistent with the comprehensive knowledge system of the 21st century and surpasses other models in inclusivity, ensuring that no aspect of contemporary scientific investigation is overlooked while offering a self-consistent framework that reflects the implied wholeness of the universe. For example, while Fundamental Awareness provides a panpsychic framework, key emergentist theories of consciousness, such as autopoietic theory and integrated information theory, remain valid and applicable within specific contexts and scales, whereas prominent panpsychist theories, such as Orch OR and Conscious Realism, offer detailed specifications and mechanisms within the broader framework of Fundamental Awareness (Theise & Kafatos, 2016). This instance illustrates how the recognition of Fundamental Awareness, or the Hidden Third, allows for the coexistence of complementaryâeven contradictoryâperspectives and theories, each corresponding to different contexts and scales. The concept of complementarity, which 167 underpins Madhyamaka philosophy and facilitates the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems, is explored below. 5.3 Understanding Complementarity In previous chapters, I identified two complementary aspects of realityâthe conventional and the ultimateâfrom diverse perspectives. The conventional pertains to the everyday phenomenal aspect of reality, characterized by diversity and subjectâobject duality, while the ultimate corresponds to the non-dual realm of the Hidden Third or the Divine, signifying the interconnectedness of all things and the non-duality of subject and object. The Madhyamaka middle path, which rests equally on both truths, therefore entails the âseeingâ of the whole in every part, or relationality in individuality, based on the understanding of dependent origination and applied through the approach of negation or the âlogic of notâ (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6). Recognizing the complementarity of the phenomenal and the ultimate, the part and the whole, the specific and the general, individuality and relationality, diversity and unity, epistemological duality and ontological non-duality, as well as similar dyads across diverse contexts and scales of observation, is essential for understanding spirituality. 5.3.1 Complementarity in Physics: The Principle of Complementarity In physics, the concept of complementarity is tied to waveâparticle duality and Heisenbergâs uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Unlike classical physics, quantum theory describes a reality in which particles exist in a superposition of possibilities until measurement forces them into a definite state. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, a particle simply has no specific position prior to measurement, existing as a combination of all potential states and 168 behaving like a wave until observed (Greene, 2004; Kaku, 1994). From the perspective of transdisciplinary methodology, the wavelike aspect of quanta represents a third state, T, in the logic of the included middle, which is at the same time A and non-A. The waveâparticle duality of quantum entities (e.g., electrons and photons) is convincingly illustrated by the double-slit experiment, which demonstrates that by choosing to observe or not observe a particle on its way from source to screen, we can force either the particle-like or wave-like feature to become more prominent (Greene, 2004). Heisenbergâs uncertainty principle describes the fundamental limit in quantum measurement to simultaneously determine precise values of certain pairs of physical quantitiesâsuch as momentum (wave-like property) and position (particle-like property)âof a quantum entity (Greene, 2004). Although mutually exclusive in observation, both aspects are indispensable for a comprehensive description of quantum reality. The concept of complementarity, which highlights the inseparability two aspects of reality, was theorized by Niels Bohr in 1928, known as the principle of complementarity: Every electron, every photon, everything, in fact, has both wavelike and particlelike aspects. They are complementary features. Thinking purely in the conventional particle frameworkâin which particles move along single, unique trajectoriesâis incomplete, because it misses the wavelike aspects demonstrated by interference patterns. Thinking purely in the wavelike framework is incomplete, because it misses the particlelike aspects demonstrated by measurements that find localized particles that can be, for example, recorded by a single dot on a screen. A complete picture requires both the complementary aspects to be taken into account. (Greene, 2004, p. 185) In resonance with Madhyamaka philosophy, the concept of complementarity recognizes the dependent origination and ultimate emptiness of phenomena, challenges the classical notion of 169 objective reality, highlights two complementary aspects of reality, and emphasizes the need for a middle path that embraces both aspects of reality. As Bohr (1948) underscored, âin the contrasting phenomena we have to do with equally essential aspects of all well-defined knowledge about the objectsâ (p. 314). This insight is applicable across all domains of knowledge and is fundamental to the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems. In physics, the principle of complementarity is manifested through the coexistence of three scale-dependent horizons of knowledge: while classical physics functions effectively within a specific observational scale, significant reductions or expansions of that scale lead to the breakdown of classical descriptions, thereby necessitating the application of quantum mechanics or relativity (Theise & Kafatos, 2016). 5.3.2 Complementarity in Biology: Biological Complementarity Throughout his life, Bohr intuitively, scientifically, and philosophically suggested that the complementarity observed and predicted in quantum physics is not confined to the quantum world but exists and is broadly applicable at higher levels of scale, including in the biological and cosmological realms (Theise & Kafatos, 2013a; 2016). His commitment to the principle of complementarity even led him to incorporate the Yin-Yang symbol into his coat of arms (Theise & Kafatos, 2016). Bohr (1937) indicated that the apparent contradictions found in diverse domains of human knowledge seem to be avoidable only from the perspective of complementarity. He also suggested that the existence of life in biology should be considered in terms of the possibilities of observation and definition. Inspired by Bohr, Max Delbrück shifted from physics to biology to investigate biological complementarity, leading to his 1969 Nobel Prize with two others (Theise & Kafatos, 2013a). Despite this extraordinary achievement, their 170 investigation did not directly identify biological complementarity. In subsequent decades, the lack of experimental evidence and conceptual advances caused interest in this topic to fade until 2013, when Theise and Kafatos (2013a) argued that complexity theory and systems biology reveal important forms of biological complementarity that could advance biology to a new stage. Systems biology, for most scientists and physicians, is a computational analysis and modeling of data sets generated from various scales of systems (e.g., cells, tissues, and organ systems) to decode information flow from one level of system to another in complex biological systems (Tavassoly et al., 2018; Theise & Kafatos, 2013a). Theise and Kafatos (2013a) pointed out that its novel and real task is the methodological shift from reductionism to holismâby reassembling data obtained by taking apart biological structures to better understand the living whole. Since most people who work on complexity theory and related fields focus on details of individual systems, the implications of systems biology for understanding biological systems as systems of systems (of systems â¦) have been underappreciated. They noted that an interesting yet seldom-discussed implication of a systems biology approach is that biological systems can be described as nested or overlapping levels of organization, the definition of which depends on the scale of observation. In this light, they explained the hierarchies of complexity and how this notion forms the basis of a form of biological complementarity, as follows: All biological systems at all levels of scale derive from self-organization of smaller interacting agents. The self-organization leads from lower levels of scale, through increasing complexity of âsystems of systems,â to higher levels of scale. At each level of scale, different horizons of knowledge set in. Thus, for example, whether something appears to be a unitary entity or thing at one level of scale (e.g., a bird at our everyday 171 observational scale) or a phenomenon arising from interacting smaller things (e.g., the cells of the bird, the molecules of the cells, etc.) at a lower level of scale depends on the scale of observation. This is the basis for a form of biological complementarity as foreseen by Niels Bohr. The nature of the system depends on a selected observational stance of an investigator, simultaneously revealing details present at the selected scale of observation while obscuring features seen at lower or higher levels of scale than the one selected. (Theise and Kafatos, 2013a, p. 13) Complementarity in life, therefore, reveals that no single technique or perspective can provide a complete view of all the qualities and behaviors of a biological entity; rather, complementary perspectives, each of which excludes others at the moment an experimental approach is chosen, are essential for understanding the whole (Theise & Kafatos, 2013a). Similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which highlights the role of measurement selection in determining the precision of physical quantities in quantum measurements, observational selection is inherently and irreducibly tied to biological systems under observation (Greene, 2004; Theise & Kafatos, 2013a). Within the non-dual ontological framework of Fundamental Awareness, these nested biological systemsâranging from the smallest subatomic entities emerging from the energetic vacuum of Fundamental Awareness, the Hidden Third, or God, to plasmas, atoms, biomolecules, autopoietic living systems, the global ecosystem, and the universe as the body of Godâfunction as a seamless whole, operating simultaneously and complementarily across various levels of scale, and self-regulate through recursive interactions (Eckholt, 2019; Theise & Kafatos, 2013a, 2013b, 2016). The whole, therefore, âexists not at any single level of scale, nor in a hierarchy of 172 systems, but, to use Koestlerâs term, as a holarchyâa holistic (quantum-like) superposition of all levels of scaleâ (Theise & Kafatos, 2016, p. 9). Similar to the wavelike aspect of quanta, the holarchy represents a third state, T, in the logic of the included middle, which is at the same time A and non-A. Within this holarchy, where all potential modes of the âwholeâ or âunitary entityâ coexist in a superposition of possibilities, no scale- or perspective-dependent view is prioritized or privileged. Depending on the observerâs observational selection, any single level of scale in complex systemsâexcept the smallest subatomic particles and the whole universeâcan be complementarily perceived as a whole or as part of a higher level of scale of observation, along with its corresponding biological descriptions and horizons of knowledge (Theise & Kafatos, 2016). Theise (2005) playfully illustrated the concept of biological complementarity and its reliance on observational selection with the phrase, âNow you see it, now you donât!ââmuch like a magician might say. By introducing the concept of holarchy, where all potential modes of wholeâpart relationships coexist in a superposition of possibilities, biological complementarity reveals a complementary aspect of biological individuality, characterized by the coexistence of all possible modes of relationality, signifying the interconnectedness and wholeness of all things. When applied to humans, biological complementarity underpins the dependent origination and lack of intrinsic nature of the self. Within this framework, an individual can be viewed as a unitary entity at the everyday observational scale, or as a phenomenon arising from interactive self-regulating organs, tissues, cells, molecules, and so on at lower levels of scale, or as an integral part of a community, city, nation, global ecosystem, or the universe. Depending on the dynamic observational selections in lived situations, the corresponding horizons of knowledge need to be applied. 173 Biological complementarity is, therefore, like the principle of complementarity, fundamental to the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems. Moreover, by emphasizing the superposition of diverse modes of relationality at all levels of scaleâincluding relationality with the non-dual realm of Fundamental Awareness, which corresponds to the Hidden Third or the Divineâbiological complementarity enables us to transcend the misleading ontological assumptions of subjectâobject duality and the intrinsic nature of the self and phenomena, along with their accompanying ego-driven afflictions. This, in turn, in alignment with the YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka path, fosters mindful and creative play in the dialectical karmicâexperiential process for the benefit and liberation of all sentient beings, while maintaining awareness of their ultimate emptinessâthe lack of intrinsic nature. 5.4 Understanding Human Existence as Play In this and previous chapters, we have seen how the mental self-simulation metaphor for the universe not only aligns with cutting-edge scientific theories but also functions as a valuable conceptual tool for elucidating otherwise abstruse spiritual teachings, such as the YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka philosophies. This metaphor for the universe enables us to understand human existence as play, engaging in a sacred game of creation. To gain further insights into the play metaphor for human existence, this section explores the concept of play by drawing on Gadamerâs philosophical hermeneutics. The concept of play (Spiel) as the clue to ontological explanation was introduced by Hans-Georg Gadamer (1960/2004) in Truth and Method to bridge the notions of universality and historicity, while also establishing its significance in aesthetics. The first task undertaken in his introduction 174 to the concept of play is to liberate it from the subjective meaning that had dominated modern aesthetics and philosophies. Gadamer (1960/2004) argued, âin analyzing aesthetic consciousness we recognized that conceiving aesthetic consciousness as something that confronts an object does not do justice to the real situationâ (p. 102). In contrast to the subjective meaning, he maintained that the true subject of play is not the player but the play itself, which remains and endures, and that âthe mode of being of play does not allow the player to behave toward play as if toward an objectâ (Gadamer, 1960/2004, p. 103). For Gadamer, play is a form of self-presentation: by engaging in the task of the game, one is playing oneself out, and self-presentation is a universal ontological feature of nature. Nature, as a constantly self-renewing play, therefore, can serve as a model for art (Gadamer, 1960/2004). Following Friedrich Schlegel, he suggested that âall the sacred games of art are only remote imitations of the infinite play of the world, the eternally self-creating work of artâ (as cited in Gadamer, 1960/2004, p. 105). Gadamerâs metaphorical use of play as a clue to ontological explanation may initially seem abstruse. However, since the German word Spiel also means game, drama, and originally dance (Gadamer, 1960/2004), these layers of meaning allow us to connect Gadamerâs portrayal of natureâas a constantly self-renewing play and an eternally self-creating work of artâwith the mental self-simulation metaphor for the universe, along with its diverse scientific and religious underpinnings explored earlier. Gadamerâs metaphorical use of play is therefore not only aesthetic but also aligns with cutting-edge science and ancient spiritual wisdom within a transdisciplinary framework. This realization allows us to readily grasp and accept Gadamerâs (1960/2004) important methodological conclusion that, within the human sphere, it becomes 175 eventually meaningless to distinguish between literal and metaphorical uses of the concept of play, given the close resemblance between the mode of being of play and the dynamic form of nature. From the perspective of Buddhist spirituality, the removal of subject meaning from play implies the negation of ontological subjectâobject duality and aligns with ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka approach, which acknowledges consciousness-only and reflexive awareness on the conventional level. From the perspective of transdisciplinarity, the assertion that the subject of play is the play itself, rather than the player (actor), signifies a shift in worldviewâfrom naïve realism or scientific naturalism to transdisciplinary realismâcharacterized by the recognition of the Hidden Third or the Divine, which manifests both as an omnipresent cosmic information system, from which the karmicâexperiential phenomena of subject (avatar-like player or actor) and object (simulation-like world) dependently co-emerge, and as an omniscient cosmic consciousnessâa watching Godâof which we are an integral part. Much like a being of consciousness engaging in a role-playing game within a self-simulated virtual reality, for the play to truly be considered play, it must involve two complementary aspects: the object-directed subjectivity or intentionality of the player (avatar or actor), and the non-dual reflexive awareness or reflexivity of the being of consciousness, which perceives the phenomenal presentation of self and world, or subject and object, as a unified whole. Therefore, becoming totally absorbed in role-playing while losing reflexive awareness of oneâs whole beingâakin to a childâs naïve realismâdoes not constitute genuine play. 176 Gadamer (1960/2004) illustrated the two aspects of the being of play through the metaphors of a religious rite and a theatrical performance, arguing that, unlike the total absorption of a child at play, âtheir being is not exhausted by the fact that they present themselves, for at the same time they point beyond themselves to the audience which participates by watchingâ (p. 108). He emphasized that while the players (actors) play their roles as in any game, the play itself is a whole, encompassing both players and spectators. In fact, the play âis experienced properly by, and presents itself (as it is âmeantâ), to one who is not acting in the play but watching it. In him the game is raised, as it were, to its idealityâ (p. 109). Therefore, in resonance with the YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka non-dual middle path, Gadamer argued that play should be defined as a process that takes place âin betweenâ the phenomenal presentation and the audience, and that in play, it is not the player (actor) but the spectatorâthe intended audience, or, from a transdisciplinary perspective, the watching God, of which we are an integral partâwho should become absorbed. The capacity to shift perspectiveâplacing the non-dual, reflexive awareness of the spectator in the position of the player (actor)âfor Gadamer, is what allows the play, as such, to become a play. This, however, as Gadamer (1960/2004) clarified, does not imply that the player (actor) is unable to experience the significance of the whole within which they play their representational role. Rather, the spectator has only methodological precedence: in that the play is presented for him, it becomes apparent that the play bears within itself a meaning to be understood and that can therefore be detached from the behavior of the player. Basically the difference between the player and the spectator is here superseded. The requirement that the play 177 itself be intended in its meaningfulness is the same for both. (Gadamer, 1960/2004, p. 110) While emphasizing the methodological priority of non-dual reflexivity and relationality over object-directed intentionality and individuality, Gadamer also underscored the compatibility, complementarity, and equal significance of these two modes of awareness. The ability to move back-and-forth between these two complementary modes of awarenessâthe absorbed playerâs (actorâs), which discerns the parts, the phenomenal, or individuality through object-directed intentionality (epistemological subjectâobject duality), and the sober spectatorâs, which perceives the whole, the ultimate, or relationality through non-dual reflexivity (ontological subjectâobject non-duality)âwhile striving for higher values, meanings, and purposes in consonance with the Divine, is thus a defining feature of an authentic player.51 The recursive movement between these two modes of awarenessâa hermeneutical circle oriented toward meaningfulnessâconstitutes the core meaning of the in-betweenness of play as a transitional process of creating and becoming (see Section 6.5). This movement, as Gadamer noted (1960/2004), has no definitive goal that brings it to a fixed end; instead, it continually renews itself through repetition. This intermediate senseâor middle pathâof play, characterized by the recursive movement between two modes of awareness corresponding to two aspects of reality, signifies an intrinsic openness to limitless transcendental possibilities. The two modes of awareness, according to Taylorâs (2006) experiences and the associated neuroanatomical evidence discussed in Chapter 3, can be understood as corresponding to the left and right modes of consciousness, respectively. In her lived experiences, the non-dual and non-conceptual right mind is associated with feelings of deep inner peace, love, joy, compassion, and 178 the interconnectedness of all things. She thus concluded that peace is merely a thought away and can be readily accessed by quieting the dominant left mindâan insight underscoring the significance of reflexive meditative practice, which awakens us to and reconnects us with our shared ontological matrix, namely the Hidden Third, the Divine, God, Allah, Brahman, Tao, the Great Spirit, the Creator, the Whole, the Self, Cosmic Consciousness, or Buddha Nature, among others. This profound insight has inspired Taylor to advocate for cultivating interpenetrating awarenesses through a reciprocal and balanced interplay between the left âdoingâ mind (object-directed intentionality; epistemological duality; method-side practices) and the right âbeingâ mind (non-dual reflexivity; ontological non-duality; wisdom-side practices). Taylorâs middle path, in resonance with Gadamer and ÅÄntaraká¹£ita, fosters genuine play that cultivates non-dual compassion and transcendental wisdom, leading toward ultimate liberation. Understanding human existence as play is therefore of immense existential and educational significance. Building on this insight, the next chapter explores concepts and theories of play, illustrating how play can be understood as a third zone of human experience in the recursive transitional process of creating and becoming. 179 Part Three: Play 180 Chapter 6: Understanding Play: A Third Zone of Human Experience If there is a need for this double statement [of inner and outer], there is also need for a triple one: the third part of the life of a human being, a part that we cannot ignore, is an intermediate area of experiencing, to which inner reality and external life both contribute. âDonald Winnicott, 1971 This [third space] is the space where all humans as artists creatively indwell. âTed Aoki, 1996/2004 6.1 Introduction In Chapter 1, I highlighted the educational significance of play and argued that understanding play as a metaphor for human existence and reality requires an appreciation of both transdisciplinarity and spirituality. My investigation into transdisciplinarity in Part One (Chapters 2 and 3) expanded this preliminary understanding of human nature and reality, further supporting the play metaphor. This expanded understanding is characterized by the ternary structure of transdisciplinary realismâ{Subject, Object, Hidden Third}âin which the Hidden Third manifests both as an omnipresent cosmic information system from which the experiential phenomena of self (subject) and world (object) dependently co-emerge, and as an all-knowing divine cosmic consciousness of which we are an integral and inseparable part. This understanding of spirituality is further deepened and enriched in Part Two (Chapters 4 and 5) through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spiritualityâfirst by exploring the ontological, epistemological, and logical dimensions of Buddhist spirituality within a transdisciplinary 181 methodological framework, and then by examining key aspects of spiritualityâincluding the primacy of consciousness over matter, the principle of complementarity, and an understanding of human existence and reality as playâthrough a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality. Together, my explorations of transdisciplinarity and spirituality in Parts One and Two offer a transdisciplinary understanding of human nature and reality, serving as a theoretical framework for understanding the concept of play. Within this theoretical framework, this chapter examines the concepts and theories of playâparticularly Donald Winnicottâs theory of playâto lay the groundwork for understanding curriculum as play in the next chapter. I begin with an autobiographical reflection on play, and then move into an exploration of the concept of play and its relevance to curriculum. This is followed by a review of theories of play. I then examine key aspects of Donald Winnicottâs theory, including the transitional object, transitional phenomena, potential space, the two paradoxes to be accepted, paradoxical logic, and ternary thinking. Over the course of this exploration, I illustrate how Winnicottâs theory of play aligns with and enriches both transdisciplinarity and spirituality, deepening our understanding of play as a third zone of human existence within the recursive, transitional processes of becomingâenabled and fostered by the Hidden Third, or the Divine. 6.2 An Autobiographical Reflection: Who Wants to Play? During my childhood, I lived with my parents and siblings in a faculty residential community at the primary school where my father served as a teacher. Located in the heart of a tranquil rural town in central-southern Taiwan, this community comprised two rows of Japanese-style wooden 182 buildings, surrounded by bamboo fences, along with lush trees and flowers. Adjacent to this communityâs western edge were a military dependentsâ village and a semi-rural area. Further to the west, vast rice fields extended endlessly. On sunny evenings, the boundless fields of green or yellow, scattered trees, the orange setting sun, and playful clouds created a soothing, picturesque scene. Located at the western end of the faculty community, my home stood at the intersection of three neighborhoods, with a public well and vacant land right beside the front yard, and the backyard adjoining the schoolâs basketball court. Standing in the backyard and looking outward across the basketball court, from time to time, I could see and hear my father teaching in one of the classrooms. On the other side of the classrooms was the school playground. With these surroundings, my childhood was never short of playgrounds and playmates. On pleasant afternoons, one to two dozen kids would gradually gather in the public vacant lot and the front yard of my home, and somehow âself-organizeâ into small gameplay groups until someone shouted, âWho wants to play tag?ââour favorite collective âtrans-culturalâ game that enlivened and connected everyone. Despite coming from different backgrounds and not always being familiar with one another, we all eagerly joined in and played together, often until the sun had set and the mothers called or shouted for their children to come home for dinner. The only exception was the twin girls. They would occasionally appear, but somehow never participated naturally or asked to join our games. Instead, they watched from a distance and sabotaged usâmocking or ridiculing us, and sometimes throwing sand or small stones our wayâlike the âbadassâ characters from the cartoons we watched at the time. These cartoons typically portrayed battles between heroes and villains, grounded in a simplistic binary view of good versus evil, along with a strong sense of fixity or invariabilityâa binary logic of warfare that disregarded 183 possibilities in between. Bound by such childish binary thinking, antagonism seemed to be our only option. At the same time, due to my naïve assumption that our experiences were similar, I was perplexed by the twin girlsâ behavior and mindset. To me, playmates and playgrounds were plentiful, and had they ever asked to join us, showing a willingness to follow the rules and play well, none of us would have rejected them. The binary antagonism eventually faded, however, at least in my psyche, and was replaced by a sense of sympathy when I passed by their home one day and heard their terrible cries, accompanied by the sound of whips and the harsh scolding of their father. Later on, I learned that their father, who was illiterate, insisted on the needlessness of literacy and refused to send their elder sister to primary school, even though she had long surpassed the legal age for compulsory education. I was uncertain about the fate of their elder sister, but later, I saw the twin girls wearing primary school uniforms and appearing happier. I never saw them again after the semi-rural community where they lived was razed and rebuilt, but during our last encounter, we exchanged smiles as they rode past my front yard on their bicycles. Who wants to play? Arenât we already playing? What is the game we are playing, and what are its rules? Do we recognize the game as a game and the playground as a playground, or have we turned the playground into a battlefield? What has prevented humanity from truly playing? Is it our misconstrued egos, fragmented worldviews, or toxic afflictions rooted in naïve realism? Could it be culturally illiterate leaders, hegemonic authorities, or shortsighted politicians? Who calls us home when the sun goes down? Do we heed their call and awaken to the game, or do we 184 lose ourselves, perpetuating the suffering-laden cycles of the game? What defines the value and meaningfulness of play? What, ultimately, is play? 6.3 What is (not) Play? Play is a topic of continuing fascination for parents, educators, researchers, philosophers, and anyone interested in understanding human nature (Smith & Roopnarine, 2019). As far back as Ancient Greece, Plato (424â347 BC) proposed, âLet your childâs education take the form of playâ (as cited in Harrison & Robinson, 2017, p. 62). Aristotle (384â322 BC) saw play as having its own virtue, eutrapelia, meaning wittiness that brings about pleasantness in conversation with ease and a good sense of humor (Ã Beckett et al., 2017). Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225â1274) argued for the inherent worth of play, claiming that play has no purpose beyond itself since it is essential for our happiness (Ã Beckett et al., 2017). As a pervasive phenomenon, play is easy to recognize, yet it notoriously resists definition (Ã Beckett et al., 2017; Wong & Logan, 2016). Wong and Logan (2016) traced the English word âplayâ to the written record of Ancient Greece, etymologically connecting paizein (the Greek for play) to pais (the Greek for child) and to paideia (the Greek for education or training). Despite this primary association, in Ancient Greece and today alike, the term âplayâ is not confined to the play of children but is an essential and integral part of human behavior, communication, experience, and culture, incorporating arts, music, drama, oration, games, sports, and more (Ã Beckett et al., 2017; Wong & Logan, 2016). Play, therefore, remains an elusive and all-encompassing word (Wong & Logan, 2016). It is thus not surprising that theories of play regarding its definition, nature, purpose, meaning, value, cause, effects, and influence have been diverse and sometimes controversial (Bergen, 2014). Researchers who study human play, however, commonly agree that play is defined less by the 185 specific actions involved than by the attitudes and motives underlying those actions (Gray, 2019). Perhaps due to its motivational connection with leisure and enjoyment, play is often intuitively viewed as the opposite of work (Wong & Logan, 2016). This dichotomy, arguably first established by Aristotle, remains deeply ingrained in contemporary thought. However, it is problematic as it tends to trivialize play (Wong & Logan, 2016) and overlooks a third zone of human experienceâor a third state, T, in the logic of the included middleâcharacterized by the coexistence of all possibilities. In the field of curriculum, Aoki (1987/2004) expressed concern that separating work from play could perpetuate a hidden curriculum that âsublimated work and deemphasized play, and sanctified the rather simpleminded attitude of either work or play, but never, never, work and play togetherâ (p. 357). For Aoki, understanding play as a legitimate experience and providing alternative understandings of the relationship between work and play are worthwhile curricular tasks. Latta (2013) also expressed concern about the undervaluation of play in curricular practices and the resulting âmissingâ of play in curricular discussions. Drawing on Dewey and Gadamer, among others, she emphasized the possibility and significance of merging play and seriousness, arguing that it is possible to be both playful and serious simultaneouslyâan ideal mental state that is incompatible with carelessness or flippancy. Latta posited that human understanding entails aesthetic play and worked to build a language that creates space for initiating and negotiating the movement of play, while also generating images of lived curricular practices that foster the aesthetics of human understandings taking place in-between self and others. Likewise, Johnson and Han (2019) identified the tension between fabula (the Latin term for play or drama), representing the free spirit or soul of play, on one hand, and 186 the focus and seriousness typical of curriculum planning and implementation, on the other. In addressing this tension, Johnson and Han (2019) introduced the Germanic expression Spoudogeloiosâa blend of spoudos (serious) and gelein (to laugh)âand posed the question: Can there be a happy tension between playfulness and seriousness, or merriment and gravity? How many of us have the urge to reach the ideal of Spoudogeloios in practicing the art of connecting play and curriculum? âWho wants to play?â Celeste asked in a playful, poetic inquiry into the nature of play (Wiebe et al., 2016). Pamela joyously responded (as if speaking on behalf of many), âThank you! I would love to come out and play! And I donât even need to ask permission! Wheeeee!â (Wiebe et al., 2016, p. 6). Building on her enthusiasm, Pamela added, âPlay is the language of spirit. Play connects across difference,â and further questioned, âWhat is so dangerous about play anyway that we have to exclude it [from education]? Hmm...?â (Wiebe et al., 2016, p. 6). In seeking answers to this question, the following observation provides a valuable clue: âTeachers mean very different things by âplayââand often it is not play at allâ (Mill & Almon, 2009, as cited in Burghardt, 2010, p. 1). This observation highlights the importance of clarifying what play is (and is not) and calls for an exploration of theories of play. 6.4 Theories of Play: A Brief Review Theories of play, as mentioned earlier, have been diverse and wide-ranging. In the literature, some classical theories of play emerged between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries (Henricks, 2019; Smith & Roopnarine, 2019). During the 1970s and 1980s, the modern study of play became active, and recent years have seen a resurgence of interest (Smith & Roopnarine, 2019). 187 This is reflected in the publication of books and handbooks on play from diverse perspectives, including early childhood education, special education, curriculum studies, evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, therapeutic play, cultural and media studies, game studies, neuroscience, art, history, anthropology, and sociology (Brabazon, 2016; Jennings & Holmwood, 2020; Lynch, Pike, & Ã Beckett, 2017; Smith & Roopnarine, 2019). In a review of the foundations of play theory, Bergen (2014) identified four major strands of thought that have influenced the current theoretical understanding of play: 1) defining the characteristics of the behaviour called play; 2) examining aspects of animal play and its meaning; 3) examining the role of play as a socio-cultural phenomenon and adaptive life quality throughout the lifespan; and 4) focusing on the role of various types of play in fostering childrenâs development and education. (p. 2) For many play researchers, defining and recognizing play is a fundamental task, as this influences how they formulate and test research hypotheses, compare studies, and engage in shared conversations with others. Many attempts to define play have been made by identifying its characteristics, which constitute the first strand of thought. In his classic work on play, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, Johan Huizinga (1949) explained play by elaborating on its five characteristics: voluntary; separate from the ordinary or the ârealâ (the serious and purposive aspects of life); secluded or limited; ordered; and as an enterprise that surrounds itself with secrecy. He summed up that play is a free activity standing quite consciously outside âordinaryâ life as being ânot seriousâ, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own 188 proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means. (Huizinga, 1949, p. 13) In addition to Huizingaâs description, general characteristics of play, drawing on both classical and contemporary definitions, include: voluntary (self-chosen); autonomous (self-directed); conducted in a state of relaxed alertness and absorption (a state Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi called flow); intrinsically motivating, with its own reward (focused on process rather than product); actively engaging; free from imposed rules (guided by the playerâs own mental rules, allowing room for creativity); symbolic/non-literal (pretended, with a âwhat ifâ quality and secret meaning to the player); imaginative (transcending the concrete here-and-now); and enjoyable, providing fun and pleasure (Gray, 2019; Wong & Logan, 2016). These characteristics, however, are inevitably controversial and open to debate. As Ã Beckett et al. (2017) noted, play is a dynamic phenomenon shaped by socio-historic factors and influenced by variables such as age, race, and gender, leading to diverse cultural understandings of play. Other scholars similarly argue that play is culturally constructed and view it as progress, asserting that there is no static or unified definition of play (Ã Beckett et al., 2017). This socio-cultural perspective is further enriched by scholars like Vanderven, who conceptualized play as a dynamic system, drawing on dynamic systems theory to view play as a self-organizing complex system with all the characteristics of such systems (Bergen, 2014). This aspect of play, if understood within the non-dual ontological framework of Fundamental Awareness, akin to the 189 Gadamerian concept of play, serves as a clue to ontological explanation and highlights the existential significance of play. In addition to the above two strands of thought, play theorists have also explored the meanings of animal play and its implications for human play (Bergen, 2014). Evidence revealed that all 12 listed types of child playâat least in rudimentary formâcan be observed in nonhuman animals, particularly in apes and some birds (Burghardt, 2010). For Burghardt, this suggests that any framework for identifying play should account for both animal and human play. The last strand of thought emerged during the mid- to late 20th century, when the concept of play as a catalyst for development and education was advanced by the leading theorists of the era, emphasizing its role in fostering socio-emotional and cognitive development (Bergen, 2014). Influential developmental theories include Freudian, Piagetian, and Vygotskian theories, among others (Bergen, 2014). The four strands of play theory mentioned above are undoubtedly conducive to our understanding of play. However, the investigation of physiological and psychological characteristics and types, socio-cultural elements, and the utility of play provides only partial solutions to Huizingaâs (1949) quest for the primary quality of playâwhat play is in itself and what it means for the player. Huizinga (1949) pointed out that play, particularly the fun element that characterizes its essence, resists all analysis and logical interpretation, and stated, âplay only becomes possible, thinkable, and understandable when an influx of mind breaks down the absolute determinism of the cosmosâ (p. 3)âa breaking free from the habitual, the conditioned, and the reified. He further argued that play is older than culture, and human civilization has 190 added no essential elements to its nature. Play is also more than a list of characteristics with merely instrumental value. For Huizinga, the assumption that play must serve something that is not play should be questioned. He identified the tension between the non-utilitarian (instinct) and utilitarian (will) understanding of play, insisting that play goes beyond the confines of purely physical or purely biological activity. It is a significant functionâthat is to sayâthere is some sense to it. In play there is something âat playâ which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action. All play means something. If we call the active principle that makes up the essence of play, âinstinctâ, we explain nothing; if we call it âmindâ or âwillâ we say too much. (Huizinga, 1949, p. 1) Huizingaâs insights, resonating with Gadamerâs (1960/2004), highlight not only the âin-betweenâ nature intrinsic to play but also its existential significance that imparts meaning. This third stateâsituated in-between instinct and will, or reflexivity and intentionalityâcalls attention to psychoanalyst Donald Winnicottâs work on play. Given its potential to illuminate our understanding of curriculum, I explore Winnicottâs theory of play and its educational implications below. 6.5 Donald Winnicottâs Theory of Play 6.5.1 Relevant Features of Winnicottâs Theory of Play In his celebrated book Playing and Reality (1971), Winnicott drew on his clinical work as a psychoanalyst and paediatrician and used the earliest infantâmother interactions to illustrate the relationship between playing and reality and how playing can enact creative living that allows the (re-)discovery of the self and makes life worth living (Ã Beckett, 2017; Winnicott, 1971). 191 Based on differing conceptions of reality, Winnicottâs theory of play has been interpreted in diverse ways. Diverging from scientific naturalism and realism (see Section 1.6), as well as from subjective idealism, solipsism, and the internalistârepresentationalist account of mind (see Sections 4.3 and 4.4), I interpret Winnicottâs theory of play through a transdisciplinary understanding of the nature of human existence and reality developed in the preceding chapters, characterized by the ternary structure of transdisciplinary realism: {Subject, Object, Hidden Third}. Two of the most significant features of Winnicottâs theory of playâechoing the non-dualist middle path of YogÄcÄra-Madhyamakaâare his emphasis on the infantâmother (subjectâobject) union, a non-objectifying relationship, as a starting point, and his locating of the place of playing in the third zone of human life between the inner and outer reality, which features a state of formlessness. Unlike Piaget, Winnicott did not view the child as an independent entity. Instead, he famously argued that there is no such thing as âa babyâ and maintained that, in infancy, no child can be considered a single âI,â as there is always another person involved in the infantâs lifeâa life that must therefore be recognized as a social endeavour. It is through play that the relationship between the child and the other comes into being (Ã Beckett et al., 2017; Wilson & Robinson, 2002). Winnicottâs theorization of social relations, however, differs from Vygotskyâs. Vygotskyâs social constructivism employs âsocial processes of mutual recognition to explain the development of social relations, the development of the child, and what transpires in play,â and âfocuses on the way each individual responds to and depends upon the other in a process of social exchangeâ (Ã Beckett et al., 2017, p. 16). Winnicott, by contrast, based on the non-objectifying infantâmother relationship, went beyond the focus of mutual recognition and social exchange to explore the 192 process of attempting to get in between the two extremes of inner life (psychic reality) and outer life (external, shared reality) (Ã Beckett et al., 2017; Winnicott, 1971). He observed that in the vast psychoanalytic literature influenced by Freud, âthere can be found a tendency to dwell either on a personâs life as it relates to objects or else on the inner life of the individualâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 105). Under this influence, both external realityâincluding an individualâs modes of contact with it in terms of object-relating and object-usageâand inner psychic realityâsuch as various forms of inheritance, personality organization, introjected environmental factors, and projected personal factorsâtend to be assigned a high degree of fixity or invariability, which obscures new possibilities (Winnicott, 1971). In contrast, like Nicolescu, Winnicott (1971) argued for a third zone of human experience that cannot be ignored, noting that âif we look at our lives we shall probably find that we spend most of our times neither in behaviour nor in contemplation but somewhere elseâ (p. 105). This âsomewhereâ exists in an intermediate area of experiencing, characterized by a special kind of variability corresponding to a non-purposive state of formlessness, or emptiness, to which both inner life and external reality contribute, in which play comes to life and life becomes play (Winnicott, 1971). Winnicottâs theory of play, therefore, not only aligns with the concepts of transdisciplinarity and spirituality but also elucidates the concept of play as a metaphor for human existence developed previously in Chapter 5. 6.5.2 Transitional Object and Transitional Phenomenon Winnicottâs theory of play is grounded on the concepts of transitional object and transitional phenomenon in the third zone of human experience. A transitional object is an object (e.g., 193 pacifier, blanket, teddy bear) that is chosen, also âcreated,â by the infant and stands for the mother (mother-figure, or part of mother) (Wilson & Robinson, 2002; Winnicott, 1971). It is the childâs first ânot-meâ possession and is a co-creation of the infantâs objective perception of the object and their subjective projection of relating (loving and being loved) onto it (Wilson & Robinson, 2002, p. 963). Winnicott (1971) elucidated the notions of transitional object and its associated phenomenon through the tasks of a âgood-enough motherâ and the infantâs experience of the illusionâdisillusionment process. In this context, both illusion and disillusionment are understood from the conventional perspective within the framework of the two truths. A good-enough mother, according to Winnicott (1971), is one who, out of love and her identification with the baby, initially makes an almost complete adaptation to the infantâs needs. This adaptation provides the infant with a sufficient opportunity for the illusion that she is part of the infant, corresponding to the infantâs need and capacity to create and exert magical omnipotent control. In such exact adaptation, Winnicott (1971) argued, there is no (social) exchange between the mother and the infant because, psychologically, âthe infant takes from a breast that is part of the infant, and the mother gives milk to an infant that is part of herselfâ (p. 12). They form a mutually inclusive union, a nursing couple (Wilson & Robinson, 2002; Winnicott, 1971). Based on this illusion, however, the good-enough motherâs eventual task is to facilitate the infantâs transition from the pleasure principle to the reality principleâthat is, to disillusion the infant (a preliminary step in the task of weaning) by adapting less and less, in accordance with the infantâs growing ability to tolerate the resultant frustrations and to recognize and accept external reality (Winnicott, 1971). 194 The transitional phenomenon from illusion to disillusionment, and the transitional object that provides the infant with symbolic continuity of closeness to the mother in this process, are thus shared experiences of both the infant and the mother. These experiences reside in the intermediate area of experienceâbetween there being nothing but me (non-duality) and there being objects that are not me (duality), between unawareness of indebtedness and the acknowledgment of indebtedness, between what is subjectively conceived and what is objectively perceived, between me-extension and not-me, between union and separateness, and between fantasy and reality (Pitt, 2000; Wilson & Robinson, 2002; Winnicott, 1971). This intermediate area, or third zone in between, according to Winnicott, is where people play (Ã Beckett, 2017; Winnicott, 1971). 6.5.3 Potential Space, Playing, and Cultural Experience To describe the space for play, Winnicott (1971) postulated a potential space between the infant and the mother, which involves an in-between state of being that is neither subjective nor objective, but exists at the interplay between the subjective object and the object objectively perceived. Playing, in Winnicottâs (1971) theory, starts from a state where the baby and mother are merged as a union. This infantâmother union gives rise to a secure and dependable non-dual holding environment, wherein âthe holder is not a container that holds others like a bowl of peas. Indeed, disrupting this Euclidean space of separate identities, holding consists of a simultaneous holding and being heldâ (Game & Metcalfe, 2001, as cited in Ã Beckett, 2017, p. 32). Being free of social exchange and the imposed constraints of social expectations and structures, this non-dual holding environment provides a context for relaxation and a non-purposive state of 195 formlessness wherein creative playing can emerge (Ã Beckett, 2017; Winnicott, 1971). With the babyâs confidence in the motherâs reliability, established through a sufficiently long relationship of love and trust in a holding environment, the potential space can become an intermediate playground (Winnicott, 1971). In this playground, the mother playfully engages with her baby in a to-and-fro game of hide and seek, âbetween being that which the baby has a capacity to find and (alternatively) being herself waiting to be found,â thereby allowing the object (mother) to be ârepudiated, re-accepted, and perceived objectivelyâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 47) through recursive transitional processes. Winnicott (1971) observed that from birth, human beings are engaged in the perpetual strain of relating inner and outer reality, and no one ultimately resolves the matter of illusion and completes the task of reality-acceptance. He posited that the intermediate area of experience provides a resting place from the tension between subjectivity and objectivity, and this experience is directly connected to the play space of a small child who is immersed in play. As the child grows, the fate of the transitional object is not so much forgotten as relegatedâit loses meaning but never leaves (Wilson & Robinson, 2002; Winnicott, 1971). This is because the transitional phenomena have become diffused and âspread out over the whole intermediate territory between âinner psychic realityâ and âthe external world as perceived by two persons in commonâ, that is to say, over the whole cultural fieldâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 5). Winnicott saw culture as the inherited traditions, conventions, and elements that form the shared pool of humanity. For him, cultural experience is a natural extension of infantâmother play, involving an expanded potential space between the individual and the environment or between subjectivity and objectivity. This understanding applies to educational experience as a vital component of 196 cultural experience. Moreover, similar to Nicolescu, Winnicott (1971) contended that the potential space, in which play and cultural or educational experience unfold, is sacred. This extension elevates the concept of play to an ontological level, enabling a reinterpretation of Winnicottâs theory within a transdisciplinary framework. In this framework, the Hidden Third or the Divineâacknowledged as a potential space that is neither subjective nor objective and experienced as an in-between state of formlessness or emptiness imbued with divine loveâserves as an interactive and unifying force between the individual and the environment. This perspective allows us to view a motherâs love as a modest representation of divine love and to comprehend infantâmother play as a clue to understanding human existence as play. While human development through transitional phenomena is, for Freud, a process of cumulative disillusionment with a growing capacity for mourning, for Winnicott, it is a growing capacity to tolerate the recursive and increasingly sophisticated process of illusionmentâdisillusionmentâre-illusionment (Pitt, 2000). Throughout the lifespan, this intermediate area of experience âis retained in the intense experiencing that belongs to the arts and to religion and to imaginative living, and to creative scientific workâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 14). This intermediate area of experience, for Winnicott (1971), is an unchallenged area because no claim is made on its behalf. He suggested that if adults can simply enjoy this unchallenged area without making claims on the objectivity of their subjective experiences, there will be pleasure in finding common experiences among members of a community in art, religion, philosophy, and other fields (Winnicott, 1971). After all, even objectivity, to some extent, âis a relative term because what is objectively perceived is by definition to some extent subjectively conceived ofâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 66), and therefore remains, in a sense, subjective. 197 6.5.4 Two Paradoxes to be Accepted According to Winnicott (1971), potential spaceâan in-between state of beingâis the only place where play and cultural experience can start. However, it varies greatly from individual to individual and does not necessarily become prominent as a place of play or cultural experience in the mental life of a developing person. A unique feature of potential space is that âit depends for its existence on living experiences, not on inherited tendenciesâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 108). The fate of the potential space is closely related to a paradox in the notions of transitional objects and phenomena. This paradox, as Wilson and Robinson (2002) explained, lies in the fact that âthe childâs ability to separate from the mother begins in holding firmly to her, or at least a rendition of herâ (p. 861); or more generally, âseparation can come to exist only in the context of a symbolic continuityâ (p. 861). Winnicott (1971) indicated that unless there is an almost exact adaptation to the infantâs need (driven by love) at the start, which offers the opportunity for the illusion that the mother is part of the infant corresponding to the infantâs needs and creation, the infant cannot begin to develop the capacity to experience a relationship with the external world or even to form a conception of it. Essential in the mother-as-me-extension is mutual love. Yes, âa baby can be fed without love, but loveless or impersonal management cannot succeed in producing a new autonomous human childâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 108). Drawing on Edgar Morinâs paradigm of complex thought, Reid (2015) understood the infantâmother union from the perspective of the principle of organizational recursivityâa circularity between the causes and effects, where causes become effects and effects, in turn, become causes. In this dialectical process, individuals create their society, which, through culture, shapes individuals (Reid, 2015). 198 From this perspective, each pole of the infantâmother dyad circularly contributes to the creation of the infantâmother unity (Reid, 2015). In other words, âthe mother creates the child who creates the mother who creates the child in a virtual continuous movement, which can, however, be brought to a standstill depending on the evolution of the relationshipâ (Reid, 2015, p. 128). According to Winnicott (1971), the motherâs love does not merely meet the babyâs physical needs, but also, out of a capacity to identify with her baby, affords the baby the opportunities to gradually move from dependence to autonomy. Without love and a built-up sense of trust matched with reliability, there will not be a relaxed formless state that is vital to the natural arising of creative playing in the potential space between the infant and the mother (Winnicott, 1971). Furthermore, without the use of transitional objects that provide significant symbolic continuity of loving and being loved in the transitional phenomena, âthere is no meaning for the human being in the idea of a relationship with an object that is perceived by others as external to that beingâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 11). In Geza Roheimâs work, which predates Winnicottâs, there has been a description of how a transitional object aids the infant in feeling grounded enough to explore (Wilson & Robinson, 2002). Hermann, in his seminal book To Clingâto go in Search, also expressed a similar view that âthe infant requires a link between his or her inner experience and emerging external experienceâ (Wilson & Robinson, 2002, p. 864). When the link is concretized, it becomes a transitional object; when the link is imaginalâsuch as a memory, an idea, a phrase, or a symbolâit functions and is sustained in the transitional area of becoming (Wilson & Robinson, 2002). The paradoxical function of this link was well illustrated by Winnicott (1971) through a boyâs use of a string as a transitional object, which both joins and 199 separates. Winnicott (1971) explained that the babyâs separation of the world from the self can only be achieved âthrough the absence of a space between, the potential space being filled inâ (p. 108). He further elucidated: Here where there is trust and reliability is a potential space, one that can become an infinite area of separation, which the baby, child, adolescent, adult may creatively fill with playing, which in time becomes the enjoyment of the cultural heritage. (Winnicott, 1971, p. 108) In other words, with love and built-up trust and reliability, the infinite area of separation ceases to be a separation and becomes a form of union (Winnicott, 1971). In Reidâs (2015) words, âthe mother is âthereâ in the mode of ânot being thereâ (p. 130). Human love, however, as a modest representation of divine love, cannot always be flawless. This highlights the existential and educational significance of recognizing the loving presence of the Hidden Third or the Divine, known by various names across religious traditions. Manifesting as both an omnipresent karmic information system from which experiential phenomena emerge and an omniscient divine consciousness of which we are an integral part, the Divine fills the âontological gapsâ within fragmented experiential phenomena with unconditional love and limitless transcendental possibilities, offering an abiding symbolic continuity of loving and being lovedâaiding us in overcoming fear and feeling grounded enough to detach and venture into the uncharted realms of formlessness or emptiness in search of possibilities and meaningfulness within the recursive transitional processes of becomingâthereby fostering creative and meaningful play from infancy through adulthood. 200 This paradoxâcharacteristic of the coexistence or superposition of the being and non-being of the mother or the Divineâis, according to Winnicott (1971), to be accepted and respected rather than resolved. In the methodology of transdisciplinarity, this paradox is embraced through the logic of the included middle, which includes a third state, T, that is simultaneously A and non-A. It is through the acceptance of this paradoxical third state T that we come to understand the transitional phenomenon as a recursive process of illusionmentâdisillusionmentâre-illusionment, or me-extensionânot-meârenewed-me-extension. This recursive process of creating and meaning-making can be viewed as a back-and-forth movement between the two complementary modes of awareness: object-directed intentionality (epistemological duality; the left âdoingâ mind) and non-dual reflexivity (ontological non-duality; the right âbeingâ mind). It also represents a movement between the phenomenal and the ultimate, the part and the whole, the specific and the general, individuality and relationality, or diversity and unity (see Section 5.4). This to-and-fro game of hide and seek recalls Theiseâs (2005) playful remark, âNow you see it, now you donât!â (see Section 5.3). Another paradox within transitional phenomena and objects is the foundâcreated paradox. That is, âthe baby creates the object, but the object was there waiting to be created and to become a cathected objectâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 89). Winnicott (1971) asserted, âin the rules of the game we all know that we will never challenge the baby to elicit an answer to the question: did you create that or did you find it?â (p. 89). This paradox, once again, is not meant to be resolved but to be accepted. In another work, Winnicott further explained this paradox: The fact is that what we create is already thereâ¦ So when I look at the clock, as I must do now, I create a clock, but I am careful not to see clocks except just where I already 201 know there is one. Please do not turn down this piece of absurd unlogic â but look at it and use it. (Winnicott, 1986, as cited in Reid, 2015, p. 129) Winnicottâs explication recalls the principle of complementarity and the concept of biological complementarity (see Section 5.3), both of which reveal an aspect of reality defined by the coexistence or superposition of all possibilities. From this perspective, all potential transitional objects already exist, waiting to be âfoundâcreatedâ and utilized, provided we have developed the capacity to make appropriate observational selections and enact them. As Winnicott (1971) emphasized, this foundâcreated paradox is to be embraced, as it âhas value for every human individual who is not only alive and living in this world but who is also capable of being infinitely enriched by exploitation of the cultural link with the past and with the futureâ (p. xii). 6.5.5 Paradoxical Logic and Ternary Thinking To understand Winnicottâs thoughts, particularly the above two paradoxes, Reid (2015) introduced Morinâs paradoxical logicâa new logic within the paradigm of complex thought grounded in a new epistemology, âwhich invites us to give a moderate place in our thinking to the principle of non-contradictionâ (p. 127). Following the dialogical principle of the paradigm of complex thought, âin paradoxical logic, two antagonistic concepts are not only opposed but, at the same time, nourish one another, are complementaryâ (Reid, 2015, p. 128). According to this new logic, âto find and to create are simultaneously antagonistic and complementaryâ (Reid, 2015, p. 128), as are the being and non-being of the mother or the Divine in the potential space. Without completely invalidating traditional logic, âthe paradigm of complex thought opens new horizons concerning our knowledge of reality and, specifically, our knowledge of unconscious 202 psychic realityâ (Reid, 2015, p. 128). Particularly, it replaces traditional binary thinking with ternary thinking (Reid, 2015). In the conceptual framework of ternary thinking, all notional duality requires a triadic principle, including the connotation of an absent third notion. This absence is understood not as a nonexistence, but, rather, as a hope, a potential presence. Binary thought involves a third excluded; in contrast, ternary thought reveals a third included. (Reid, 2015, p. 129) Morinâs paradoxical logicâa form of ternary logic central to ternary thinkingâis therefore coterminous with both the logic of the included middle, as specified in transdisciplinary methodology (see Section 2.6), and the âlogic of notâ in Buddhism (see Section 4.6). Ternary thought permeates Winnicottâs writings. Key examples of the triadic principle include Winnicottâs shift from the internalâexternal (subjectiveâobjective) dichotomy to the intermediate area of the in-between. As Reid (2015) observed, the triadic principle is also reflected in Winnicottâs rejection of the conceptual duality of hallucinatory satisfaction vs. real satisfaction in the foundâcreated paradox, in favor of a third concept: a satisfaction that is simultaneously hallucinatory and real. Most importantly, through ternary thinking, Winnicott, like Nicolescu, freed us from the confines of fixed or reified forms of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality, opening an intermediate third space of formlessness or emptiness characterized by the coexistence of all possibilities, thereby illustrating a worldview consistent with the ternary structure of transdisciplinary realism, {Subject, Object, Hidden Third}. The above exploration demonstrates how Winnicottâs theory of play aligns with and enriches our understanding of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, deepening our understanding of play as a 203 third zone of human existence in the recursive transitional processes of becoming, enabled and fostered by the Hidden Third or the Divine. I examine its profound implications for education and curriculum thinking in the next, and final, chapter. 204 Chapter 7: Understanding Curriculum as Play 7.1 Introduction The purpose of this study was to articulate a conception of curriculum as play, while advancing the field of curriculum toward a transdisciplinary stage grounded in an ever-renewing understanding of human nature and reality, fostered through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality. The primary concern, as discussed in the Prologue and Chapter 1, was to address significant existential, curricular, and educational issues stemming directly or indirectly from the dominance of technoscience and the omission or marginalization of religion in educationâas if science alone were sufficient to address profound existential inquiries and the various global crises facing humanity. In seeking to address these challenges, I illustrated in Chapter 1 the indispensability of transdisciplinarity and spirituality and envisioned a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum. To gain a deeper understanding of transdisciplinarity, in Chapters 2 and 3, I demonstrated the advantages of Basarab Nicolescuâs methodology and argued for the need to move toward a strong transdisciplinarity. I also demonstrated the undeniable presence of the Divine and illustrated how the axiomatic methodology of transdisciplinarityâserving as the Completeness Axioms for Realityâembraces spirituality without compromising rationality, thereby enabling rigorous and meaningful transdisciplinary conversations based on explicit and precise axioms. Then, in Chapter 4, using Buddhism as a theoretical instance, I illustrated how transdisciplinarity and Buddhist spirituality align and enrich each other. Building on this foundation, Chapter 5 drew on insights from quantum physics, new biology, cognitive science, and philosophical hermeneutics 205 to conduct a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of key aspects of spirituality, including the primacy of consciousness over matter, the concept of complementarity, and an understanding of human existence as play. This deepened transdisciplinary understanding of human nature and reality, attained through a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality, forms the basis for further exploration of the concept of play. In Chapter 6, through an exploration of the concepts and theories of play, particularly Donald Winnicottâs theory, I demonstrated how play can be understood as a third zone of human experience within the recursive transitional processes of becoming, enabled and fostered by the Hidden Third or the Divine. This transdisciplinary understanding of play, along with the nature of human existence and reality, lays the groundwork for understanding curriculum as play in this chapter. To consolidate the theoretical foundation for understanding curriculum as play, this chapter begins with a reflective recapitulation and a discussion of the paramount significance of transdisciplinary self-knowledge for education. This is followed by an argument for the necessity of moving toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculumâone characterized by explicit and exoteric expositions of the Divineâaimed at restoring the place of spirituality in education through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, thereby fostering genuine and meaningful play. On this basis, I present an understanding of curriculum as play in three sections, serving as an initial theoretical instance of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculum. These include an understanding of currere as play, an argument for the necessity of lived curriculum, and an investigation into the interplay between the being and non-being of planned and lived curricula. The chapter closes with a retrospective conclusion on understanding curriculum as play. 206 7.2 The Significance of Transdisciplinary Self-Knowledge for Education In the preceding chapters, I demonstrated, from various perspectives, the profound hermeneutical power and potential of the synergy between transdisciplinarity and spirituality. These include providing explicit philosophical grounding in the form of axioms; uncovering the presence and characteristics of the Divine; illuminating the nature of human existence and reality; offering credible metaphors for understanding the self and the universe; facilitating cross-discourse and interfaith conversations; promoting the ideal of a harmonious coexistence of open unity and complex diversity within interculturalism; cultivating ternary thinking rooted in ternary logic; fostering a third zone of human experience that is play; and enabling the generation of rigorous and cohesive transdisciplinary knowledge systems, where science and religion are given equal legitimacy and their rightful places. Together, these serve to address the aforementioned educational challenges, demonstrating the limitations of science and the complementarity of science and religion, while revealing that the hidden assumptions underlying the secular approach to educationâincluding the incompatibility of religion and science, the irreconcilability of diverse religions, the incredibility of religious doctrines, and the dispensability of religionâare, in fact, untenable. Over the course, this exploration revealed significant transdisciplinary self-knowledge that transcends the perception of ordinary states of consciousness and eludes direct empirical investigation through scientific methods. It offers a transdisciplinary worldview characterized by the presence of the Divine and the metaphor of mental self-simulation for the universe, enabling us to understand human existence as playâengaging in a sacred game of creationâand inviting 207 us to reimagine curriculum that cultivates authentic players. At the core of this worldview is transdisciplinary realism, which distinguishes itself from scientific naturalism and realism by acknowledging the presence of the Hidden Third or the Divine. Manifesting as both an omnipresent quantum karmic information systemâwhere quantum entanglement and wormholes contribute to the emergence of spacetimeâand an omniscient divine consciousness of which we are an integral part, the Hidden Third, or the Divine, serves not only as a wellspring of possibilities and hopeâa wish-fulfilling jewel that records, processes, and responds to our karmic inputs of mind, body, and speech, ensuring that we ultimately reap what we sowâbut also as a profound source of unfailing transcendental love, peace, grace, and bliss. As such, denying the presence of the Divine and its associated worldview may amount to a form of self-denial or self-estrangement that negates humanityâs inherent divinity and transcendental possibilities, while disavowing experiential phenomena as oneâs own creation or karmic manifestationâoverlooking that âthere is a âtruthâ to be had, an understanding to be reached, in the unmethodical incidents of our livesâ (Jardine, 1992, p. 54)âa truth that is beyond the taken-for-granted ontological assumptions, and an understanding that transcends âindividuality and what it thinksâ (Gadamer, 1960/2004, p. 296). Such denial may also give rise to disorientedâeven tyrannical or villainousâsleepwalkers or prisoners (in contrast to authentic players), who, lost in delusion, confine themselves within the âbeing-for-itself of subjectivityâ (Gadamer, 1960/2004, p. 103). Driven by misleading ideologies rooted in deep-seated existential delusions, along with an insatiable worldly craving for egoic gratification and dominationâfueled by a haunting sense of incompleteness and triviality arising from a lack of divine self-knowledgeâthey may harbor afflictive mentalities, commit non-virtues, and harm others with little remorse, 208 oblivious to the fact that âthat which is âotherâ and strange can be part of the Iâ (Huebner, 1993/1999, p. 408). Ignorant of their being-in-the-game and of the underlying game rules, some may sow unwholesome karmic seeds in the pursuit of happiness, only to reap bitterness, thereby perpetuating an endless cycle of suffering across multiple lifetimes. The above discussion reveals how the absence of self-knowledge in education can lead to ontological crises, impede genuine and meaningful play, perpetuate the dominance of the ego along with the logic of competitiveness and hegemony, and hinder both self-cultivation and social democratization, ultimately endangering humanity as a whole. Arguing against instrumentalism, which deprives the present moment of lifeâbe it the present study, job, residence, relationships, or even oneselfâof intrinsic value and meaning, reducing everything to a mere instrument for the next, Chung expressed concern about how such thinking in education has produced alienated persons âhaunted by ontological doubts about their own being with no room for ontological sympathy and commitmentâ (as cited in Aoki, 1981/2004, p. 227). In seeking an alternative to the understanding of educational planning rooted in instrumentalism, he proposed a karma-based understanding of planning. Connecting the notion of karma (see Note 30) with historical causation, he argued that what makes social change successful, âis not change itself but the historical undercurrent, the necessary Karma, that has been slow in the makingâ (as cited in Aoki, 1981/2004, p. 225). He maintained: History will not respond favourably to those calculating and utilitarian minds who do something today with an eye to the quick and easy return in the future. History responds favourably to something simply because it is the thing that âoughtâ to be done now and is 209 âdesirableâ to be done now to the best of your personal, moral and social judgment, and to the best of your calculation. (as cited in Aoki, 1981/2004, p. 226) Chungâs insights highlight the educational significance of transdisciplinary self-knowledge, which nurtures the karmic-historical undercurrent essential for sustained personal transformation and social change. The existential and educational significance of self-knowledge is illuminated by the Indian guru of nondualism, Nisargadatta Maharaj, who advised: Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have realised them as one with yourself, you cannot love them. Donât pretend to be what you are not; donât refuse to be what you are. Your love of others is the result of self-knowledge, not its cause. Without self-realisation, no virtue is genuine. When you know beyond all doubting that the same life flows through all that is and you are that life, you will love all naturally and spontaneously. When you realise the depth and fullness of your love of yourself, you know that every living being and the entire universe are included in your affection. But when you look at anything as separate from you, you cannot love it for you are afraid of it. Alienation causes fear and fear deepens alienation. It is a vicious circle. Only self-realisation can break it. (Maharaj, 1973, p. 235) In keeping with the non-dualist middle path of ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka, Maharajâs wisdom gives self-knowledge, particularly the subjectâobject non-duality, pedagogical priority over other methods for overcoming fear and alienation, which, as shown in Section 6.4, is crucial for fostering transformative educational experiences that is play. He insisted that âit is ignorance of yourself that makes you afraid and also unaware that you are afraid. Donât try not to be afraid. 210 Break down the wall of ignorance firstâ (Maharaj, 1973, p. 152). Maharaj's insight aligns with Miphamâs (1877/2005) exposition of YogÄcÄra-Madhyamaka, which emphasized that for those striving on the spiritual path, pursuing genuine happiness and ultimate liberation for self and others, there is nothing more important than developing âa sure confidence in the understanding that all phenomena are but the self-experience or projection of the mindâ (p. 125). Through the dream metaphor, he illustrated that when we are caught up in our dreams at night, attempting to address experiential phenomena using methods based on subjectâobject duality will never bring them to an end. However, if we understand that the phenomena in our dreams arise from the mind itself, then all are pacified in a single stroke. He concluded that âwe should understand that the appearances of existence, which are endless in time and unlimited in extent, are similar to the visions of our dreamsâ (Mipham, 1877/2005, p. 125). The pedagogical priority of self-knowledge emphasized by Maharaj and Mipham echoes Lao Tzuâs wisdom, which places Taoâthe Taoist equivalent of the Hidden Thirdâabove morality, benevolence, justice, and propriety. As Lao Tzu stated: Morality is required when Tao is lost; Benevolence is emphasized when morality is lost; Justice is sought once benevolence is lost; Propriety is obligatory when justice is lost. So called propriety is needed, When little loyalty and faithfulness remain. This is a sign of disorder. (Yuan, 2010, p. 84) 211 Similar to Maharaj, Lao Tzu clarified that morality, benevolence, justice, and propriety are natural and spontaneous outcomes of Tao, rather than its causes. Only when Tao is lost and genuine virtues no longer arise spontaneously do external commands or controls become necessary. Nonetheless, as Maharaj and Mipham made clear, if the cultivation of virtues remains rooted in subjectâobject duality, they risk ceasing to be genuine virtues and may never fully resolve issues in a dream-like reality. This realization underscores the paramount significance of self-knowledge as knowledge that is of most worth, as discussed in Chapter 1. It also highlights the necessity of advancing toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculumâone grounded in and fostering an ever-renewing transdisciplinary understanding of human nature and reality, or self-knowledge, both conceptually and experientially. 7.3 Toward a Transdisciplinary Stage of Curriculum Within the evolutionary framework of the Buddhist Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma in the search for truth, as discussed in Section 4.2, I argued that the field of curriculum studies is facing a lure to transcend and move toward the âthird turningâ of curriculum theoriesâspecifically, understanding curriculum transdisciplinarilyâenabled and enriched by the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, marked by explicit and exoteric expositions of the Divine, as well as the complementarity of religion and science. As illustrated in Chapters 1 and 4, understanding curriculum, corresponding to the Buddhaâs second turning of the Dharma Wheel, is deeply rooted in and conveys the definitive meaning of human nature and realityâcharacterized by subjectâobject non-duality and the ultimate emptiness of self and phenomenaâwhile embodying the ancient meaning of curriculum, a far-reaching hermeneutics of spiritual wisdom that encompasses all the great undertakings of humanity. While deeply valued and 212 appreciated by defenders of the existential tradition, within the context of official secularism and the dominance of technoscience in education, their spiritual and philosophical underpinnings are often conveyed implicitly or esoterically. An in-depth understanding of these underpinnings demands âan interest in understanding more fully what is not said by going beyond what is saidâ (Aoki, 1981/2004, p. 227). Consequently, they may not be recognized or fully appreciated, particularly by proponents of the dominant scientific worldviews, who demand scientific credibility for truth and acknowledge only truths derived from the scientific method. However, this identification of truth with methodâwhich precludes deeper levels of truth beyond the reach of the scientific methodâis precisely what existentialâhermeneutical traditions seek to challenge (Gadamer, 1960/2004; Jardine, 1992). Such tension has led to a persistent impasse in communication between understanding curriculum (existential tradition) and curriculum development (scientific tradition), as discussed in Chapter 1. The scientific method, underpinned by Galileoâs axioms (see Section 2.6), as discussed in Chapter 1, is characterized by the establishment of objectivity as the supreme criterion of truth. A key premise, rooted in classical science, is the mutual independence of subject and object. However, as demonstrated in previous chapters, advanced scientific theoriesâsuch as quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, the holographic principle, the massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle, Landauerâs principle, It-from-Bit, and the emergent nature of spacetimeâhave undermined the assumption of a mind-independent objective reality. That is to say, the key premise underlying the scientific method not only fails to represent a universal truthâa true description of reality across all scales of observationâbut also does not qualify as a valid axiom, since it has been disproven. The scientific method is therefore inherently flawed, and is not as 213 rational, rigorous, credible, or almighty as we might have assumed. Its limitations are evident in its inability to address the hard problem of consciousness or to directly investigate the Hidden Third or the Divineâour shared, non-dual ontological matrix, which accounts for 95% of the massâenergy of the entire universe. This, however, is not to negate the value of the scientific method altogether, but to raise awareness that truth or knowledge derived from itâas if phenomena exist intrinsically and independently, akin to the Buddhaâs first turning of the Dharma Wheelâmay not tell the full story, although it provides significant provisional meaning that is valid at certain levels of reality and scales of observation, and thus serves as a necessary conceptual stepping stoneâone that eventually reveals its own limitationsâin the search for ultimate truth. After all, as discussed earlier, in a dream-like reality, attempting to address experiential phenomena solely through methods based on subjectâobject duality, such as the scientific method, will never lead to a lasting resolution (Mipham, 1877/2005). In contrast to the scientific method, the methodology of transdisciplinarity offers an all-inclusive framework grounded in rigorous and valid axioms, which is not only scientifically and philosophically tenable but also practically feasible and existentially meaningful. On one hand, it acknowledges the validity of the scientific method at certain levels of reality; on the other hand, it recognizes and accommodates spirituality without compromising rationality, provides a rigorous and unequivocal axiomatic foundation for interpretative work, and thus grants hermeneutical methods credibility no less than that of the scientific method. In doing so, it accords both science and religionâand both the scientific tradition (curriculum development; curriculum-as-plan) and the existential tradition (understanding curriculum; curriculum-as-lived)âtheir due and legitimate places within the transdisciplinary methodological framework, 214 thereby achieving âthe âbelonging togethernessâ of science and humanitiesâ (Aoki, 1993b/2004, p. 201). The methodology of transdisciplinarity is, therefore, more rational, rigorous, credible, applicable, and arguably more âscientificâ than the conventional scientific method. Moreover, by replacing implicit philosophical assumptions with explicit ontological, epistemological, and logical axioms that unequivocally articulate or refute âthe unspoken taken-for-grantedââessential for authentic dialogue (Aoki, 1981/2004, p. 227)âtransdisciplinary methodology facilitates rigorous, intelligible, and meaningful conversations between conflicting or contradictory discourses, breaking the impasse in cross-discourse communication and, in turn, strengthening the intellectual rigor and political significance of curriculum studies as an academic discipline. By recognizing the presence of the Hidden Third or the Divine, along with other axioms, transdisciplinary methodology legitimizes a third zone of human experience beyond âCartesian dualism and the Cartesian egoâ (Aoki, 1993a/2004, p. 300). This zone, situated between subject and object, the planned and the lived, science and the humanities, two orders, two existents, two ideologies, and so on, is characterized by an in-between state of formlessness or emptiness where all transcendental possibilities coexistâa sacred playground âwhere all humans as artists creatively indwellâ (Aoki, 1996/2004, p. 422). By uncovering the hidden, complementary aspect of reality beyond the phenomenal, it illuminates how the differences between science and the humanities involve not only differences in degree but also differences in kind, reflecting distinct worldviews and purposes, and thereby resisting integration (Aoki, 1993b/2004) within a dualistic framework. In contrast to the dominant scientific worldviewâmarked by the clear-cut binary subjectâobject structure and the either/or binary logicâwhich tends to turn sites of resistance or tension into battlefields, the transdisciplinary 215 worldviewâcharacterized by the ternary structure of transdisciplinary realism and the ternary thinking fostered by the ternary logic of the included middleâenables us to transform such sites into sacred and loving playgrounds in the middle, inviting creative and meaningful living. Aoki (1993a/2004) called this playground the âlandscape of âboth this and that, and moreââ (p. 295), where âpossibilities are there ad infinitum, never-ending, evermoreâ (p. 295). Embracing the transdisciplinary methodology and its associated worldview is therefore vital for fostering lasting peace and collective well-being across all levels of realityâfrom the personal and intersubjective to the global. Furthermore, by filling the âontological gapsâ of reality with the Divine, the methodology of transdisciplinarity functions as the Completeness Axioms for Reality. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, much like the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbersâwhich enables conceptual leaps into the consideration of multidimensional spaces, thereby revitalizing mathematical knowledge systemsâthe Completeness Axioms for Reality facilitate both intellectual and ontological leaps into the exploration of the Divine and the multiple dimensions of reality, thereby advancing the development of transdisciplinary human knowledge systems, grounded in an axiomatic foundation as rational, rigorous, realistic, and credible as that of mathematics. The move toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculum, therefore, holds profound significance that extends beyond the field of curriculum itself. As Weislogel (2006) observed, the central challenge of the 21st century will be to integrate or synthesize the increasingly specialized and rapidly growing body of human knowledge into a meaningful whole.52 He expressed concern that âthere are no longer any guiding threads to tie 216 together the various disciplines or even the classical divisions between the natural, social, and human sciencesâ (Weislogel, 2006, p. 1). Referring to the growing hyper-specialization in higher education, he emphasized that it is not specialization itself that needs to be overcome, but that we need to develop complementary means and regain our ability to take the whole into our deepest concern, both intellectually and existentially. Echoing the concerns of Nicolescu, Musil, Pinar, and Grant, as discussed in Section 1.2, he indicated that, the failure to provide a means for doing this has {1} caused the deterioration of the humanities, {2} decreased the effectiveness of undergraduate (and secondary) science education, {3} created obstacles to sound critical thinking, and {4} driven colleges and universities to be more like job training programs, which {5} still cannot draw the relationship between working life and every other aspect of a fully human existence. The result is the fragmentation of the human person, the human soul. (Weislogel, 2006, p. 1) Drawing on Gregorian (2004), he underscored that âunderstanding the nature of knowledge, its unity, its varieties, its limitations, and its uses and abuses is necessary for the success of democracyâ¦. We must reform higher education to reconstruct the unity and value of knowledgeâ (as cited in Weislogel, 2006, p. 1). Reynhout (2007) recognized this appeal as a call to expand transdisciplinary work in the academy, and emphasized the crucial skill of interpretation for navigating transdisciplinary realms. Their concerns and appeals highlight the urgent need to cultivate transdisciplinary literacy and the capacity to engage in transdisciplinary hermeneutics in both schools and higher education. This need calls for a move toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculumâunderstanding curriculum transdisciplinarily. Given that understanding curriculum as a symbolic representation 217 has been profoundly and comprehensively articulatedâand that it both originates from and conveys the definitive meaning of human nature and realityâthe task of understanding curriculum transdisciplinarily becomes primarily hermeneutical. It seeks to elucidate and justify the implicit or esoteric philosophical underpinnings, existential concerns, and spiritual wisdom that underlie the existential discourses of understanding curriculum through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spiritualityâa synergy in which the two mutually embrace, inform, and enrich one another, fostering both intellectual and ontological leaps, as well as the development of coherent transdisciplinary knowledge systemsâas illustrated in this study. In previous chapters, through a transdisciplinary hermeneutics of spirituality, I presented an understanding of the nature of human existence and realityâcharacterized by the presence of the Divine, the metaphor of mental self-simulation for the universe, and an understanding of human existence as play. If this argument is considered valid, then discrediting, distorting, or disregarding the timeless spiritual wisdom and self-knowledge carefully preserved by long-standing religious traditionsâthereby hindering genuine play and perpetuating imprisonment in a suffering-laden mental self-simulationâwould, in my view, be the most insidious existential harm to humanity. Yet, regrettably, this is precisely what we have been doing for centuries, ever since the division of knowledge (see Section 1.4). The primary goal of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculum, from my perspective, is therefore to restore the place of spirituality in education through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, thereby fostering genuine and meaningful play. In the following sections, drawing on the transdisciplinary self-knowledge developed in earlier chapters, I present an understanding of curriculum as playâone that restores 218 the place of spirituality in education and nurtures authentic playersâserving as an initial theoretical instance of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculum. 7.4 Understanding Currere as Play As discussed in Chapter 1, the shift in the concept of curriculum from a focus on school materials to an understanding of curriculum as symbolic representation reflects scholarly endeavours to understand curriculum from diverse perspectivesâhistorical, political, racial, autobiographical, aesthetic, theological, institutional, and internationalâas well as through phenomenology, gender, postmodernism, and poststructuralism (Pinar, 2008; Pinar et al., 1995). Such situated curricular inquiriesâframed âin terms of life history and self-formationâ (Pinar, 2012, p. 30)âmay be understood as efforts to understand curriculum as educational experience. Educational experience, as a vital aspect of cultural experience, is, in Winnicottâs theory of play discussed in Chapter 6, a natural extension of infantâmother playâone that involves an in-between state of being, a third zone of human experience between subjectivity and objectivity, or between the individual and the educational environment. Educational environment is understood here in a broad sense to include all environmental components, both physical and psychological, that interact with and elicit responses from the student, while also recognizing the studentâs and societyâs temporality or historicity, as well as the studentâs transcendental possibilities as a being-in-the-world (Huebner, 1967/1999). With built-up love, trust, and reliabilityâwhether in relation to humans or the Divineâthat transform the educational environment into a non-dual holding environment, where the holder is simultaneously holding and being held, this in-between potential space can become a relaxing and non-purposive playground of formlessness, wherein creative playing emerges (Winnicott, 1971). This understanding of educational experience as 219 play serves as an illuminating conceptual tool for recognizing the dialogical and dialectical potential of curriculum and enables us to understand curriculumâparticularly its verb form, currereâas play. Curriculum, as Pinar (2012, 2015) reconceptualized, is not merely a set of course objectives but a complicated conversation. It is not only academic but also subjective and social (Pinar, 2012). The lived experience of curriculum is enacted and experienced in currereâthe Latin infinitive of curriculum, meaning âto run the courseâ or âthe running of the courseââthrough multiply referenced and, therefore, complicated conversations, including not only classroom discourse but also dialogue among students and teachers, as well as conversation within oneself (Pinar, 2012, 2015, 2019). Since âthe running of the course occurs socially and subjectively through academic study, the concept of currere forefronts the meaning of the curriculum as a complicated conversation, encouraging educational experienceâ (Pinar, 2015, p. 110), which is play. The method of currere can thus be understood as a method for cultivating authentic players. Devised by William Pinar in 1975 to explore the inner space of subjective non-concordance with both the past and futureâwhich may hinder the ongoing transitional process of becomingâthe method of currere consists of four phases: regressive, progressive, analytical, and synthetical (Pinar, 1975/1994, 2019; Winnicott, 1971). Aiming to illuminate the complex relationship between the temporal and the conceptualâfor instance, to capture and unravel how the biographical past becomes the unconscious and the habitual, which complexly contribute to the biographical present, superimposing past issues, situations, and persons onto the presentâthis method encompasses both the temporal and the conceptual while fostering a developmental 220 perspective that hints at the trans-temporal and trans-conceptual (Pinar, 1975/1994). By bringing repressed or forgotten events into oneâs current awareness, the method of currere fosters indwelling in the literal present, as opposed to the conceptual or subjective present, which is tantamount to dwelling in the biographical past (Pinar, 1975/1994). It invites us to have âsecond thoughts,â which âconjures images of returning, as if for the first time, to review and rearticulate meanings long taken for granted, â¦ freeing ourselves from memories that entangle us so that they can be reconsideredâ (Phelan, 2015, p. 5). It helps overcome lingering fear, de-crystallize reified presumptions and preconceptions, encourage the expansion of subjectivity, and open space for new interpretative and transcendental possibilities that were previously dismissed or neglected (Pinar, 2019). Ultimately, as Pinar (1975/1994, 1985/1994, 2019) elucidated, it seeks to guide one toward higher levels of being, to realize oneâs evolutionary temporalâconceptual relationship with the Self, and to pull oneself togetherâbecoming congruent with the Self, becoming whole, and becoming an authentic self (see also Note 7). In other words, becoming an authentic player in the sacred game of creation. Referring to the Self in the Jungian sense, Pinar (1985/1994) described it as âthe totality of which ego, personality, animus, anima, and so on, are constituent partsâ (p. 201), and as roughly equivalent to the soul or essence (Pinar, 1974, 1985/1994). He also emphasized the ontological primacy and non-conceptual nature of the Self, as well as the emergent nature of the intellect53 (residing in the physical form), stating: âThe Self is not a concept the intellect has of itself. The intellectual is an appendage of the Self, a medium, like the body, through which the Self and the world are accessible to themselvesâ (Pinar, 1975/1994, p. 27). The Self can therefore be seen as coterminous with the Hidden Third or the Divineâthe shared ontological matrix of which all 221 sentient beings are integral parts. The ultimate goal of the method of currereâbecoming congruent with the Selfâis of profound existential and educational significance. As Pinar (1974, 1985/1994) suggested, if the ego (or, in Buddhist terms, kliṣṭamanas, the seventh or manas consciousness) is somehow severed from or disjunctive with the Selfârepresenting a denial, distortion, or perversion of the Selfâthen the person becomes only partially self-aware, not fully oneself; the person becomes dehumanized. In Heideggerâs terms, this person is inauthentic (see Note 51). The problem of this dehumanization, as Pinar (1974) observed, is that severance from the Self tends to compel one to seek dignity and satisfaction outside oneself: âIgnoring the inner regions, intrigued by the elaborate labyrinthine exterior world, many of us spend our lives searching for meaning outside ourselvesâ (p. 3). Such outward symbolic searching fosters what Pinar (1974) called âmovie consciousness,â characterized by absorption at the levels of personality (the tip of the iceberg) and a preoccupation with the observable and external, accompanied by a relative ignorance of what lies beneath the surfaceâour inner lives and essence (pp. 4â5). As a sign of our uprootedness from the Self, âwe tell stories as if they were true, as if they portrayed an ultimate realityâ (Pinar, 1974, p. 5). Such telling, in contrast to the complicated conversation that enables educational experience and fosters authentic players, belongs to what Heidegger called idle talk (Gerede)âa superficial and groundless form of discourse that, being existentially uprooted, creates the illusion of understanding without genuine engagement, closes off authentic inquiry, and covers up the entities being discussed, thereby restricting Daseinâs openness to Being-in-the-world and discouraging further questioning (Heidegger, 1927/1962, pp. 211â214; see also Note 51). As long as we remain alienated from self-knowledgeâessential for 222 developing âheightened consciousnessâ or a âtranscendental perspectiveâ (Pinar, 1974, p. 5), or the sober spectator's mode of awareness in addition to the absorbed actor's (see Section 5.4)âcomplicated conversation, or genuine play, becomes impossible, and we risk remaining ignorant prisoners in Platoâs cave, watching endless movies of our own projections, unaware of their source, and continuing to respond in ways that only generate further cognitive and afflictive obstructions, thereby hindering transcendental possibilities (see Section 4.3). The above discussion reveals how the method of currere is profoundly grounded in and conveys the definitive meaning of human nature and reality, while also aligning with transdisciplinarity and spirituality. This highlights its transdisciplinary significance in fostering transdisciplinary conversation that is also trans-religious. As Pinar (2012) emphasized, currere, or curriculum as a complicated conversation, is characterized by communication that is both informed and spirited. From a transdisciplinary perspective, currere, understood as playâa third zone of human existence in the recursive transitional processes of becomingâfosters the courage to overcome fear and venture into the formless realms of the Hidden Third or the Self in search of new possibilities and meaningfulness. By allowing the interplay between flows of information and flows of consciousnessâmanifesting as informed and spirited communicationâthe Hidden Third transforms knowledge into understanding through the fusion of knowledge and being, thereby unifying subject and object, from which the new emerges (see Sections 2.6 and 3.2). As James Carey defined it, communication is âa symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformedâ (as cited in Pinar, 2012, p. 1). This definition of communication deepens our understanding of currere as playâa creative transitional process of playing and becoming, wherein ideas, serving as transitional objects, afford the symbolic 223 continuity of meaningfulness. Without transitional objects that carry symbolic continuity in the transitional process of communication, neither genuine play nor educational experience can occur. Clearly, not all ideas become transitional objects. As discussed in Chapter 6, a transitional object is co-created through an individualâs objective perception of the object (e.g., academic knowledge, planned curriculum) and their subjective projection in relating to it (e.g., lived experiences, lived curriculum). Referring to Winnicott, Pinar (2012) indicated that when ideas are informed by both academic knowledge and lived experiences, they become transitional objects that communicate both private (subjective) and public (shared, objectively perceived) meanings, thereby reconstructing both. Lived curriculum, in addition to planned curriculum, is therefore indispensable to the running of the course, which is currere. 7.5 The Necessity of Lived Curriculum: Creative Play vs. Annihilating Conformity In the absence of lived experience that imbues subjective meaning, the necessary transitional objects will be missing, and communicationâa symbolic process intended to produce, maintain, repair, and transform inner and outer realitiesâwill be reduced to the mere transmission of information rather than a transitional process of playing and becoming. Moreover, as Huebner (1985b/1999) pointed out, knowledge is a form detached from the vitality and dynamics of life and the spirit; it remains inert until it is reintegrated into the individualâs knowing process, âinto the living form of the human being, into the form that embodies the transcendentâ (p. 351). His insight reaffirms the critical role of subjectivity and the necessity of lived experience in the curriculum. As Pinar (2012) emphasizes, âeducation requires subjectivity to give it voice, to make it concrete, to actualize it. Without the agency of subjectivity, education dissipates, replaced by conformity driven by scripted curricula and standardized testsâ (p. 43). As a result, 224 study has been reduced to mere test preparation rather than self-cultivation and social democratization (Pinar, 2012). The annihilating effects of conformity and compliance on existential well-being are addressed by Winnicott (1971). He emphasized that the potential spaceâa space corresponding to the Hidden Third or the Divineâis sacred as it is the realm in which the individual engages in play and experiences creative living. Creativity, for Winnicott, is a disposition that imbues oneâs entire attitude toward external reality, extending beyond the celebrated works of art and creation. In consonance with Pinar, he argued that âit is in playingâand only in playingâthat the individual, whether child or adult, can be creative and engage the whole personality; it is only through creativity that the individual discovers the selfâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 54)âthe authentic self, congruent with the Self or the Divine, of which all sentient beings are integral parts. Aligned with Gadamer (1960/2004) and Huizinga (1949), who emphasized the existential significance of play as a source of meaning, Winnicott (1971) argued that âit is creative apperception [which is possible only in playing], more than anything else, that makes the individual feel that life is worth livingâ (p. 65). He contrasted creative livingâengaging the whole personality and fostered by the unfailing love of the Self or the Divineâwith compliance, a mode of relating to rigid external control characterized by conformity or adaptation, imprisoned in anotherâs repressive ideology and irrelevant constraints, or subjugated by a lifeless machine, leading to fixity and lifelessness. He linked compliance to a sense of futility, in which life feels meaningless and not worth living, and argued that âeither individuals live creatively and feel that life is worth living, or they cannot live creatively and are doubtful about the value of livingâ (Winnicott, 1971, p. 71). 225 This exploration reveals the profound existential significance of playing, or creative living, in enabling individuals to engage their whole being, discover the authentic self, and experience life as worth living. It also sheds light on Dr. Smithâs statement, âScience must be taught as a humanity,â which Aoki (1993b/2004) regarded as less a statement than a question (p. 201). It reveals that for science to be truly felt as worth learning, it must be reintegrated into the transitional processes of creative living and becomingâengaging the whole being, fostered by the loving presence of the Divineâwhich imparts higher purpose and meaning. In other words, science indeed needs to be taught as a humanity. This, however, cannot be achieved through the interdisciplinary approach of STEAM, primarily due to its restricted ontological assumptions. Teaching science as a humanity demands the methodology of transdisciplinarity, which, by acknowledging the presence of the Divine, fosters an understanding of both the power and limitations of science and the scientific method, their uses and misuses, the broader existential implications of scientific theories for humanity, and the meaningfulness of engaging with scientific inquiries. Moreover, Winnicottâs insights point to the importance of transdisciplinary self-knowledge and make clear that as long as religionsâthe most profound sources of self-knowledgeâremain disengaged from transdisciplinary hermeneutics and interfaith conversation and continue to be marginalized in education, we may continue to foster inert, disoriented, dehumanized, or even wicked prisoners in the Platonian cave, rather than mindful, virtuous, compassionate, and creative players. This, in turn, would heighten the need for rigid external control and pave the way for authoritarianism, which further suppresses genuine play, hinders meaningful self-cultivation and transformation, and resultantly provokes resistance, thereby perpetuating a vicious cycleâtransforming the playground into either a prison or a battlefield. 226 To disrupt this vicious cycle, a transdisciplinary STREAM programâintegrating Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematicsâwithin Nicolescuâs methodological framework, aimed at cultivating transdisciplinary and interfaith self-knowledge while fostering the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems, offers, in my view, a promising direction for further research. Winnicottâs (1971) insights reveal the annihilating consequences of intellectual conformity and echo Huebnerâs (1985/1999) concern that âif the student is brought into the deadness of inert knowledge, the student is also deadened, alienated from the vitality that co-creates the worlds of self and othersâ (p. 351). Pinar (2012) similarly expressed concern that, rather than striving to understand themselves as subjectively existing beings in the world through the curriculum, many students have become mere âconsumersâ of educational services, familiar only with the business model of schooling. Revitalizing both knowledge and students (and teachers), however, does not entail denying the necessity or value of a well-planned curriculum. Instead, it calls for recognizing the significance of both the being and non-being of planned and lived curricula, and reintroducing them into the recursive, transitional processes of creative playingâor, in Huebnerâs (1985b/1999) words, âinto the eternal cycle of openness, love, and hopeâ (p. 351), as explored below. 7.6 The Being and Non-Being of the Planned and the Lived In the preceding exploration, I demonstrated the necessity of lived experiences, alongside planned curriculum, in enabling the recursive transitional processes of playing and becoming. To further understand the interplay between the being and non-being of both planned and lived 227 curricula, this section explores Aokiâs insights from a transdisciplinary perspective. Like Winnicott, paradoxical logic and ternary thinking are prominent features of Aoki's curriculum scholarship. To illustrate the spinning of an inspirited image amidst planned and lived curriculaâan in-between state of formlessness, corresponding to the Divine, and marked by the coexistence of all possibilitiesâAoki (1996/2004) juxtaposed the ideograph and the calligraphy of the Chinese character for âpoetryâ (詩), highlighting the vibrant tension of in-betweenness and the coexistence of multiple meanings of this word as a signifier. Starting here, like Pinar and Huebner, Aoki sought to disturb the singular meaning of the word âcurriculumââcurriculum-as-plan (ideograph-like)âa sole meaning resulting from political legitimating acts, under the hold of technological rationality, replete with performative language, and reflective of instrumentalism. Aoki (1996/2004) described curriculum-as-plan as linear, preset, and repetitive, marked by an overconcern with sameness. He likened it to a dominating single tree in the landscape, under the shadow of its hegemony: ââTeachingâ becomes âimplementation,â and âinstructionâ becomes in-structuring students in the image of the givenâ (Aoki, 1996/2004, pp. 417â418); âlearning is reduced to âacquiring,â and â¦ âevaluatingâ is reduced to measuring the acquired against some preset standardized norm,â with students tending to be reduced to nameless learners (p. 418). By live(d) curriculum (calligraphy-like), Aoki (1996/2004) referred to the situated and lived educational experiences of students and teachers, encompassing both past (lived) and ongoing (live or living) experiences. What matters about experiences in the live(d) curriculum landscape, however, is that âexperience is divided and deferredâalways behind us as something to be recovered, yet still before us as something to be producedâ (Culler, 1982, as cited in Aoki, 1996/2004, p. 419). This recovered-produced paradox echoes Pinarâs method of currere and Winnicottâs encouragement to accept and use the foundâcreated paradox. 228 To engage with this paradox in the live(d) curriculum landscape is to creatively play with time and space, which correspond to a historical process and a dialectical process, respectively (see Section 4.1). On one hand, it involves traveling through time to find (recover, associate) experiences relevant to informed knowledge, while simultaneously creating (producing) themâideas informed by both knowledge and experienceâas transitional objects that maintain symbolic continuity in the transitional process of creative playing. On the other hand, it involves to-and-fro movements within the potential space between self and world, engaging in recursive transitional processes to negotiate and reconstruct the subjective and objective meanings of both experience and knowledge. As Winnicott (1971) noted, playing takes timeâplaying is doing, and doing takes time; playing also takes spaceâpotential space is the only place where play (educational experience) can begin. Since potential spaceâthe sacred place of educational experience or playâvaries greatly from individual to individual and its existence depends on lived experiences, the number of live(d) curricula is as numerous as the total number of teachers and students, and this multiplicity of curricula is dynamic and grows in between. As Aoki reminded us, quoting Gilles Deleuze, âmultiplicity is not a noun,â and âin a multiplicity, what counts are not the elements, but what there is betweenâ¦ Every multiplicity grows in the middleâ (as cited in Aoki, 1996/2004, pp. 419â420). Aoki (1996/2004) called this live(d) curricular landscape ârhizomeanâ (p. 419). This dynamic multiplicity and relationality of live(d) curriculum, for Aoki (1990/2004), are like improvising in situational momentsâno two are exactly alike. In this curricular landscape, 229 instead of the language of curriculum implementation, Aoki (1990/2004) suggested, âhow about âcurriculum improvisionâ?â (p. 369). After delineating the being of two curricular landscapes, Aoki (1996/2004), however, did not dwell in the noun-oriented world (the world of forms, things, and fixities)âhe did not focus solely on two things: planned curriculum and live(d) curriculum. Nor did he adopt the binary either/or logic and linear meansâends thinking to conceive a linear process from the planned curriculum to the live(d) curriculum through implementation (Aoki, 1996/2004). Rather, to loosen our habitual attachment to things (forms, fixities), binary logic, and linear meansâends thinking, Aoki (1996/2004) introduced the East Asian word ç¡ (âwu,â in Chinese; âmu,â in Japanese), meaning nothing or no-thing (formlessness or emptiness), and shifted our focus from two things (the phenomenal) to the non-thing (the ultimate, the Hidden Third, or the Divine), to the âandâ in-betweenâthe thirdness in the middleâan ambivalent space, or potential space, associated with the language of both conjunction (and) and disjunction (not and)ââa space that may allow generative possibilitiesâ (p. 420). To emphasize the complementarity (see Section 5.3) between thing (the phenomenal) and nothing (the ultimate), Aoki (1996/2004) noted that âwhat I find in the word nothing is that âthingâ is already inscribed, almost to say paradoxically that ânothingâ cannot be without âthingâ and, as well, a âthing cannot be without nothingââ (Aoki, 1996/2004, p. 420). Aokiâs explication echoes Winnicott's ternary thinking and demonstrates the exertion of the logic of the included middleâwhich includes a third state, T, that is simultaneously A and non-Aâwhere the concepts of thing and nothing, or the being and non-being of things, are not only antagonistic but also complementary. At the same time, it reflects the ancient Taoist wisdom embodied in the Yin-Yang symbolâa symbolic illustration of how 230 the universe creates itself through the recursive and generative interplay between Yin and Yangââa creative-destructive forceâ (Clark & Phelan, 2017, p. 16), where both Yin (nothing, formlessness, destruction, negativity, mentality, the implicit, the absent) and Yang (thing, form, creation, positivity, materiality, the explicit, the present) carry the seed of the other and complement each other. In this mutual imbrication, neither the positive (thing, being) nor the negative (nothing, non-being, in-betweenness) alone is sufficient for the emergence of the newness (Clark & Phelan, 2017). Through the shift of focus from thingness to its complementâthe non-thing or the in-betweenâAoki liberated us from the confinement of forms to an intermediate area of formlessnessâa potential space that is neither the planned nor the live(d), but an in-betweenness, embodied as evolving transitional objects, to which both the planned and the live(d) contribute. In Aokiâs (1996/2004) words, this âis a space that knows planned curriculum and live(d) curriculum, a space of generative interplay between planned curriculum and live(d) curriculumâ (p. 420). In this potential space, which corresponds to the Hidden Third, with the aid of transitional objects (ideas informed by both planned and live(d) curricula) that afford symbolic continuity, the individual negotiates and reconstructs the subjective and objective meanings of both knowledge and experience, thereby (re-)discovering the authentic self in the recursive transitional processes of playing and becoming. As Aoki (1996/2004) described, âit is a site wherein the interplay is the creative production of newness, where newness can come into being. It is an inspirited site of being and becomingâ (p. 420). Post-colonialist Homi Bhabha called it âthe third spaceâ of ambivalent construction, where newness enters the world; for postcolonial feminist Trinh Minh-ha, it is âa hybrid placeâ (Aoki, 1996/2004, 2003/2004). 231 The above exploration makes clear that, for educational experience, or play, to take place, both the being and non-being of both planned and live(d) curricula are indispensable. As discussed earlier, the existence of potential space and transitional objects relies on the being (or presence) of both planned and live(d) curricula in the first place. For the transitional process to proceed, however, both planned and live(d) curricula must cease to be and give way to creative playing in-between, which, with the aid of transitional objects, would eventually fill the potential space with meaningful newness. Applying the verse of Lao-Tzu, âvases are fabricated with clay, but their usefulness depends on their internal emptinessâ (Reid, 2015, p. 130), the potential space where play takes place is shaped by the being of planned and live(d) curricula, but the usefulness of this space depends on the non-being or emptiness of both curricula. 7.7 A Retrospective Conclusion: Understanding Curriculum as Play The aim of this study is to articulate a conception of curriculum as play. This aim finds expression in the preceding three sections, where I explored significant concepts in understanding curriculum from a transdisciplinary perspective, presenting an understanding of curriculum as play, grounded in an explicit and exoteric exposition of the Divine and a transdisciplinary understanding of human existence as play, engaging in a sacred game of creation. Each of these concepts embodies an inspirited language of play growing in the sacred middleâan in-between state of formlessness, where the Divine indwells and infinite possibilities coexistâillustrating âthe belonging together of knowledge and wisdomâ (Aoki, 1993b/2004, p. 214). Serving as an initial theoretical instance of the transdisciplinary stage of curriculumâunderstanding curriculum transdisciplinarilyâthis understanding of curriculum as play 232 instantiates how we might restore the place of spirituality in education through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, and, in doing so, fosters genuine and meaningful play and cultivates authentic players. As this study draws to a close, it beckons reflection, inviting a return. Returning to the Prologue, I recall expressing concern about the tendency to treat religion as a no-go area in most educational contexts, at times functioning as a divisive force despite the shared doctrines of universal love and compassion. Tensions, as discussed in Chapter 1, also exist between religion and science. The dominance of technoscience, along with the omission or marginalization of religion in education, has left significant existential questions largely unexplored. The consequent lack of self-knowledge, as discussed earlier in this chapter, has rendered human beings dehumanized or inauthenticâoblivious to the Self or the Divine, absorbed in narcissistic movie consciousness and idle talk, ultimately transforming playgrounds into battlefields. Recognizing the crucial role of a transdisciplinary and trans-religious understanding of spirituality, particularly the hidden aspects of human existence and reality, in addressing these issues, I approached them through the synergy of transdisciplinarity and spirituality, grounded in the validity of the Divineâs presence as an ontological axiom. Recognizing the urgency of restoring the place of spirituality in education, I challenged the hidden assumptions underlying the secular approach to educationâincluding the incompatibility of religion and science, the irreconcilability of diverse religions, the incredibility of religious doctrines, and the dispensability of religionâand concluded in Chapter 7 that these assumptions are indeed untenable within a transdisciplinary framework. This realization removed the obstacles, paving the way for the move toward a transdisciplinary stage of curriculumâa stage marked by explicit 233 and exoteric expositions of the Divine, as well as the complementarity of religion and scienceâand the articulation of a conception of curriculum as play. Throughout this study, we have also witnessed an inspirited language of transdisciplinarity growing in the middle of transdisciplinarity and spiritualityâone that offers the humanities a robust axiomatic foundation as rational, rigorous, and realistic as that of mathematics, along with a methodological framework more credible and applicable than the scientific method. Looking back at the path charted in âthe running of the courseâ (Pinar, 2012, p. 44), we find hope. The hope lies in the possibility that, by offering science and the humanities a shared methodological framework, the language of transdisciplinarity may legitimize, empower, and enrich diverse forms of inspirited languageâlanguage that transcends subjectâobject duality and affirms infinite possibilities in the sacred middle, transforming sites of tension into playgrounds rather than battlefields. By enabling âthe âbelonging togethernessâ of science and the humanitiesâ (Aoki, 1993b/2004, p. 201), it reveals how and why science canâand mustâbe taught as a humanity. Through fostering complicated conversations and transformative resonances between science and the humanities (Aoki, 1993b/2004; Pinar, 2012, 2015), it supports the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems vital to a harmonious and sustainable future for all sentient beings on Earth. The language of transdisciplinarity may therefore be one that our friendsâthose lingering with our scientist (a person of knowledge) and novelist (a person of wisdom) at the café in the French Quarter, listening to and joining their conversation on whether âscience must be taught as a humanityâ (Aoki, 1993b/2004, p. 214)âwould delight in embracing, playing with, improvising, and allowing to grow in the middle. 234 Despite signaling hope, it is important to note that transdisciplinarity does not guarantee a solution or improvement. Similar to the Completeness Axiom for the Real Numbers, the methodology of transdisciplinarityâserving as the Completeness Axiom for Realityâopens up possibilities for intellectual and ontological leaps, yet the development of transdisciplinary knowledge systems ultimately depends on collective effort. Moreover, like scienceâwhich can inform our judgments but cannot make them for us (Phelan, 2024)âtransdisciplinary self-knowledge, as exemplified in this study, can inform our practice but cannot replace the specificity of self-knowing. Merely knowing the game as a game, and understanding its rules, does not make one an authentic player. Authenticity requires âthe art of complicatingâ (Phelan, 2024, p. 258), which âdraws law and life togetherâ (p. 252), through engagement in âthe complicated conversation that is the curriculumâ (Pinar, 2012, p. 56)âthat is, play. My hope, therefore, is that this conclusion may serve as a closure that opens, an ending that begins, for both myself and the readers. 235 Endnotes1 While the Tang dynasty (åæ) officially spanned from 618 to 907, there was a brief interregnum between 690 and 705 when Empress Wu Zetian (æ­¦åå¤©) established the Zhou dynasty (å¨æ), temporarily interrupting the Tang line. 2 Robert Musil (1880â1942) was an Austrian-German novelist, once named the most important German-language writer of his time (Pinar, 2015). For him, the synthesis of reason and religion (understood as mysticism) was humanityâs most urgent task in the twentieth century, and composing a language capable of articulating the inner life became Musilâs all-consuming challenge (Pinar, 2015). 3 Naïve realism (also known as direct realism) is the belief that the world is exactly as we perceive it, presupposing a clear subjectâobject dichotomy, holding that objects possess inherent properties (such as color, shape, and solidity) and exist independently of our perception, and treating perception as a passive, unmediated reception of reality (Schwitzgebel, 2011; Putnam, 1990). 4 Scientific realism is the philosophical stance that well-established scientific theories offer approximately true descriptions of both observable and unobservable entitiesâsuch as atoms or forcesâasserting that these entities exist independently of our observations or theoretical frameworks and that science progressively approximates truth through empirical validation and theoretical refinement (Chakravartty, 2017; Boyd, 1983). 5 Scientific naturalism is the worldview that all phenomenaâincluding human consciousness and moralityâcan be fully explained through natural causes and scientific laws, without recourse to supernatural or spiritual explanations, assuming that reality is fundamentally physical and that science is the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge about it (De Caro & Macarthur, 2004; Papineau, 2023). 6 The term beings-in-the-world is used here in the Heideggerian sense, referring to human existence as inherently situated within and inseparable from its world (Heidegger, 1927/2010). The notion that a subject is always a subject-in-a-world is discussed in Section 4.4 from the perspective of the Three Natures theory in YogÄcÄra philosophy of Buddhism. 7 As Pinar and Grumet (in press) emphasized, self-knowing is fundamentally distinct from narcissism. They underscored that subjectivity is not a prison cellâas it may be for narcissistsâbut a passage to the external world, not only to empirical and practical reality but also to a reality tinged with unreality (see Section 7.4). Self-knowledge, therefore, as they suggested, remains open and perpetually elusive, continually reshaped by experience and urging us to see both ourselves and the world as provisionalâeach constantly informing and enriching the other. To fully grasp their insights, as this study argues, requires a transdisciplinary inquiry into the nature of human existence and reality. The existential and soteriological significance of self-knowledge is illuminated in Section 4.3 from a Buddhist perspective. 236 8 The term undeniable is used here in a sense analogous to ânot disprovableâ in mathematics. Just as mathematical axioms cannot be proven or disproven, the undeniable presence of the Hidden Third indicates its resistance to disproof, affirming its status as a valid ontological axiom. 9 The idea that information is physical and equivalent to massâenergy may sound like science fiction, yet my lived experiences leave no room for doubt. During my first Informatics Qigong healing session with Master Xue-Zhong Zhaoâa distinctive, non-contact healing practice in which I lay relaxed while his hands emitted Qi and moved gracefully above my body, sweeping downward to the feet to clear stagnant energyâI not only felt subtle flows of Qi during the healing but also experienced a profound lightness the very moment I stood at the end of the session, as if an invisible weight had been lifted and released from deep within. Beyond this encounter with the âmassâ of information, my lived experience of the âenergyâ of information is described in a previous essay (Chu, 2024). 10 Enactivism of cognitive science highlights the idea that cognition arises from the dynamic interaction between an organism and its environment, rather than through internal representations or computations alone (Thompson, 2007; Varela et al., 1991/2016). 11 According to Thompson (2007), âmany philosophers of mind today believe that a profound difference exists between consciousness and mere biological lifeâ (p. 222). In this belief, consciousness, or more precisely, phenomenal consciousness, âis thought to be an internal, subjective, qualitative, and intrinsic property of certain mental statesâ (Thompson, 2007, p. 222), while life, or living being, âis thought to be an external, objective, structural, and functional property of certain physical systemsâ (p. 222). This line of thinking that conceptualizes consciousness and biological life as intrinsically excluding one another, for Thompson (2007), is what generates and makes unsolvable the hard problem of consciousness: âhow is consciousness, as experienced from the inside by an individua conscious being, related to the natural life of that being, as observed and understood from the outside?â (p. 222). 12 These include creature consciousnessâe.g., sentience, wakefulness, self-consciousness, what it is like, subject of conscious state, transitive consciousnessâand state consciousnessâe.g., mental states one is aware of, qualitative states, phenomenal states, what-it-is-like states, access consciousness, narrative consciousness (Thompson, 2007; Van Gulick, 2022). Here, sentience refers to âthe feeling of being alive. Being sentient means being able to feel the presence of oneâs body and the worldâ (Thompson, 2007, p. 221). 13 According to the Buddhaâs prophecy, MahÄyÄna Buddhism would dwindle until it nearly vanished, but two individuals would then re-establish it. NÄgÄrjuna (circa 150â250), the founder of the Madhyamaka school, would revive the teachings on emptiness, while Asaá¹ ga (375â430), the founder of the YogÄcÄra school, would restore the practical methods of MahÄyÄna practice (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Sopa, 2017). The Buddhaâs prophecy that NÄgÄrjuna would clearly explicate the profound reality that is free of the extremes of eternalism and nihilism has been found in many sutras and tantras (Sopa, 2017, pp. 35â36). Given the Buddhaâs prophesies as well as the fact that NÄgÄrjuna had written excellent commentaries on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (PrajñÄpÄramitÄ Sutras), Tsongkhapa (1357â1419), the founder of the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition, affirmed that we can rely on NÄgÄrjunaâs system to understand the nature of reality and the profound meaning of the Buddhaâs teaching (Sopa, 2017). 237 14 An arhat is a Buddhist saint who has overcome all the emotions of attachment (greed), aversion (hatred), and ignorance (delusion), thus ending the cycle of rebirth (Pettit, 1999). While this is the highest of the four levels of Buddhist saints in early mainstream Buddhism, MahÄyÄna texts indicate that although arhats have overcome the afflictive obstructions and achieved personal liberation from samsara, they have not yet fully overcome the cognitive obstructions (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Thus, an arhat is distinct from a Buddha, who, over innumerable lifetimes, has strived as a bodhisattva to attain perfect, omniscient Buddhahood for the liberation of all sentient beings (Pettit, 1999). While the MahÄyÄna sutras praise Bodhisattvas over arhats, arhats play a significant role in these texts (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). East Asian monasteries where MahÄyÄna Buddhism predominates often contain a shrine for those arhats who were chosen by the Buddha to stay in the world until the coming of the future Buddha Maitreya (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). 15 Bodhicitta is composed of two elements, bodhi and citta. Bodhi means âawakeningâ or âenlightenment,â and citta means âmindâ or âconsciousness.â Bodhicitta refers to âthe aspiration to enlightenmentââthe intention to attain the perfect, complete enlightenment of the Buddhas in order to liberate all sentient beings from suffering (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). As the generative cause leading to the attainment of Buddhahood and all it represents, bodhicitta is a pivotal concept in MahÄyÄna Buddhism, and its realization marks the beginning of the bodhisattva path (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). 16 According to the 2010 World Religion Database, MahÄyÄna is the largest Buddhist tradition globally, comprising 53.2% of practitioners, compared to 35.8% for TheravÄda and 5.7% for VajrayÄna (Johnson & Grim, 2013). 17 In contemporary Buddhist studies, the origin of MahÄyÄna has been a preoccupation for several decades (Allon & Salomon, 2010). The most important new discovery might be the collection of GÄndhÄrÄ« manuscripts that has come to light since the 1990s (Allon & Salomon, 2010; Karashima, 2013). Written in the language of GÄndhÄra (now the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan), this collection contains a manuscript that is radiocarbon dated back to between 23â127 CE, and its content is astonishingly similar to the first and fifth chapters of the oldest Chinese translation of the MahÄyÄna sutra Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines (Aá¹£á¹­asÄhasrikÄ PrajñÄpÄramitÄ Sūtra; å «åé è¬è¥ç¶; éè¡è¬è¥ç¶) translated by Lokakṣema in 179 CE (Allon & Salomon, 2010; Falk & Karashima, 2012, 2013; Karashima, 2013). This GÄndhÄrÄ« manuscript becomes the earliest MahÄyÄna sutra manuscript in any language with firm dating (Allon & Salomon, 2010). In their meticulous study of this manuscript together with other manuscripts, Falk and Karashima (2012) reasoned that this manuscript should be a copy of an exemplar that dated even earlier. The significance of this discovery is that it proves a long-cherished hypothesis: Many of the early MahÄyÄna scriptures were originally transmitted in the language of Middle Indic (e.g., GÄndhÄrÄ«) or in a mixed language of Middle Indic with Sanskrit elements, and later gradually translated and emerged as (Buddhist) Sanskrit versions (Karashima, 2013). 18 The earliest known textual fragments of the Pali Canon were discovered in the Pyu city-states of Burma, dating back to the mid-5th to mid-6th century CE (Stargardt, 2000). 238 19 The Pure Land, or Buddha-field (Buddhakṣetra), of a Buddha is a realm that has been purified of all transgressions and suffering by a Buddha, making it an ideal and favorable place for rebirth (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 683). In Buddhist cosmology, the Pure Lands are distinct from the celestial heavens (svarga). While the realm of heaven (svarga) is one of the six realms of saá¹sÄra (the endless cycle of rebirth), the Pure Lands are beyond samsara, the cyclic forms of mundane existence. 20 AmitÄbha (Infinite Light) Buddha, also known as AmitÄyus (Infinite Life), is revered as the King of all Buddhas. AmitÄbha symbolizes infinite wisdom, while AmitÄyus represents infinite compassion (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003). AmitÄbha Buddha is mentioned in over two hundred sutras, with the Infinite Life Sutra (also known as the Larger Sutra) being particularly significant (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003). According to this sutra, AmitÄbha Buddha began his spiritual journey as a monk named DharmÄkara, who made Forty-Eight Great Vows and fulfilled these vows through countless eons of bodhisattva practices. His profound wisdom and compassion are embodied in the fulfilment of these Great Vows. 21 This promise excludes those who have committed the five grave offensesâmatricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, wounding a Buddha, and causing a schism in the Sanghaâand abused the Dharma (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003; Pruden, 1991). 22 As revealed by the Buddha in the Infinite Life Sutra (The Longer SukhÄvatÄ«vyÅ«ha Sūtra; ä½èªªç¡éå£½ç¶), among all the Pure Lands, AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Pure Landâan optimization of 21 billion Pure Landsâis exalted by all the Buddhas as the best and easiest to attain (Inagaki & Stewart, 2003). 23 For bodhisattvas, the stage of non-retrogression (avaivartika)âthe seventh of the ten bodhisattva stagesâmarks a crucial transition on the bodhisattva path. This stage occurs at various points, such as during the path of application (prayoga-mÄrga)âthe second of the five paths, following the path of accumulation and before the path of seeingâwhere the risk of reverting to a HÄ«nayÄna mindset is eliminated, ensuring that the bodhisattva will continue on the path to complete and perfect enlightenment (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Achieving the stage of non-retrogression is challenging through self-power alone. According to NÄgÄrjunaâs Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom (å¤§æºåº¦è«), ÅÄriputra, one of the Buddhaâs foremost disciples, once abandoned the bodhisattva path in a past life after donating his eye to a beggar who despised his offering, threw the eye on the ground, and trampled it underfoot. 24 The Pure Land method consists of four main types of practice: mindfully reciting the Holy Name (while attentively listening to oneâs own sound), contemplating the holy image, visualizing, and contemplating reality. Among these four practices, mindful recitation or chanting of the Holy Name is most highly recommended by Master Yinguang (å°å æ³å¸«), the Thirteenth Patriarch of the Pure Land School, and others. 25 In the first turning of the Dharma Wheel (the Dharma Wheel of the Four Truths), the Buddha taught from a conventional affirmative point of view to those of the ÅrÄvaka (listeners) vehicle (i.e., disciples of the Buddha who have the capacity to awaken via listening to the Buddhaâs teachings) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Sopa, 2017). While teaching the selflessness (anatman) of persons, the Buddha presented the general teachings of dependent-arising, impermanence, the five aggregates, the four noble truths, the eightfold path, karma, samsara, nirvana, and so forth as though things are truly existent (Blumenthal, 239 2008; Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Sopa, 2017). Then the Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma a second time (the Dharma Wheel of Signlessness) and introduced a more subtle and profound description of reality in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (PrajñÄpÄramitÄ Sūtras; å¤§è¬è¥ç¶) to those who had entered the MahÄyÄna path (Blumenthal, 2008; Buswell & Lopez, 2014,; Sopa, 2017). Referring to the ultimate perspective, the Buddha stressed that not only the persons, but all phenomena are characterized by emptiness (ÅÅ«nyatÄ)ââeverything is utterly empty of, or lacking, any independent, unchanging essence, absolute nature, or any own way of being in and of itselfâ (Blumenthal, 2008, p. 19). In this second turning of the Dharma Wheel, although the Buddha taught that all phenomena are empty of intrinsic nature, unproduced, unextinguished, originally quiescent, and their nature is nirvÄá¹a, these were taught in an esoteric way and from the side of the object (Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Cleary, 1995; Garfield & Newland, n.d.; CBETA T16, n.d.). The apparent contradiction between the teachings of existence and non-existence from the first and second turnings of the wheel of Dharma had troubled some of the Buddhaâs disciples (Sopa, 2017). For all vehicles, the Buddha then turned the wheel of Dharma the third time (the Dharma Wheel for Ascertaining the Ultimate), explained the teachings from the second turning of Dharma Wheel in an exoteric manner, from the side of the subject, and explicated the three natures (svabhÄva) and their corresponding non-natures or naturelessnesses (asvabhÄva) of phenomena to show the ways in which things exist and do not exist (Blumenthal, 2013; Buswell & Lopez, 2014; Cleary, 1995; Garfield & Newland, n.d.; Sopa, 2017; CBETA T16, n.d.). 26 The first turning represents the earliest historical period of Buddhism, these teachings are fundamental to all schools of Buddhism, and almost all of the contents of the Pali canon are considered by Tibetans as teachings from the first turning of Dharma Wheel (Blumenthal, 2008, p. 18). The public emergence of The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (during around the 2nd century when NÄgÄrjuna retrieved these sutras from the nÄgas) is marked as the beginning of the second turning of the Dharma Wheel (Blumenthal, 2008, p. 18). The profound philosophical description of reality in The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras was commented and systematized by NÄgÄrjuna, known as the Madhyamaka school, which is generally upheld by Tibetans as the highest philosophical presentation of reality (Blumenthal, 2008, p. 18). The third turning of the Dharma Wheel starts from the 4th century or so when a group of sutras became publicly known and was systematized by Asaá¹ ga, known as the YogÄcÄra school (Blumenthal, 2008, pp. 18â19). 27 For instance, Flower Garland Sutra (Avataá¹saka Sutra;è¯å´ç¶), Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puá¹á¸arÄ«ka Sūtra; å¦æ³è®è¯ç¶) (Kubo & Yuyama, 2007) and The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom (MahÄprajñÄpÄramitÄupadeÅa; å¤§æºåº¦è«). 28 Such experiences are not uncommon in Taiwanese Buddhist and Daoist culture, where the sudden presence of sandalwood-like scents without a physical source is often regarded as a sign of divine presence, spiritual resonance, or blessings from benevolent deities or the Holy Ones. 29 In contrast, hell-beings exist in a receptacle world distinct from the human realm, where they experience torture inflicted by demons as a result of their collective karmic projectionsâkarmic retributions stemming from similar negative karma (Mackenzie, 2018). Similarly, in the Vimalakīrti Sutra (ç¶­æ©è©°ç¶), the Buddha explained to ÅÄriputra that sentient beings born in the same Buddhaâs Pure Land 240 would perceive the splendor of this Buddha-fieldâs virtues in accordance with their own levels of mental and karmic purity (Thurman, n.d.). 30 Karma is a concept prone to misunderstanding. Common misconceptions include conflating it with rigid determinism, viewing it as an immediate reward-punishment system, misusing it to justify social inequalities, or associating it only with negative consequences, ignoring its positive aspects (Pruden, 1991). The order in which diverse wholesome (kuÅala) and unwholesome (akuÅala) karmic seeds ripen is briefly sketched by Tsong-kha-pa (1402/2000) as follows: 1. Whichever karma is weightiest will ripen first. 2. If weights are equal, whatever karma is manifest at the time of death will ripen first. 3. If this also is the same, whatever karma you have predominantly become habituated to will ripen first. 4. If this also is the same, whatever karma you have done first will ripen earliest. (p. 242) A detailed exposition on karma, including formulations regarding the mechanisms of fruition and retribution, is provided by Vasubandhu in the KoÅa (AbhidharmakoÅabhÄá¹£ya; ä¿±èè«) (Lamotte, 1987; Pruden, 1991). The Buddhaâs teachings on karma are found in various sutras, such as Sutra on the Distinction Between Good and Evil Karma and Its Results (åå¥åæ¡æ¥­å ±ç¶), The Path of the Ten Good Karma Sutra or Sutra on the Ten Good Deeds (ååæ¥­éç¶), Sutra on the Investigation of Good and Evil Karma and Its Results (å å¯åæ¡æ¥­å ±ç¶), Sutra on the Good and Evil Karma and Its Results as Spoken by the Buddha (ä½èªªåæ¡å æç¶), and the âChapter on Karma and Its Effectsâ (æ¥­å ±å) in the Avatamsaka Sutra (è¯å´ç¶). 31 For further details, please refer to the entry âdharmadhÄtusvabhÄvajñÄnaâ (Buswell & Lopez, 2014, p. 245). 32 Other secondary afflictions include mÄna (arrogance or conceit), Ä«rá¹£yÄ (jealousy or envy), and vicikitsÄ (doubt, indecision, or skepticism). 33 As Mipham (1877/2005) indicated, NÄgÄrjunaâs (Madhyamaka) and Asaá¹ gaâs (YogÄcÄra) understandings of the ultimate nature of person and reality are the same in essence; their portrayals of emptiness differ because NÄgÄrjunaâs view of the ultimate refers to the state of meditative equipoise and Asaá¹ gaâs view refers to post-meditation insights. NÄgÄrjunaâs YogÄcÄra thinking has famously revealed in verse 34 of Sixty Stanza of Reasoning (Yuktiá¹£aá¹£á¹­ikÄ; Yuktishashtika), which reads: When the elements and so forth are explained, All is perfectly included in the mind, And when one understands this mind, then all will disappearâ Does this not show them as false imputations? (Mipham, 1877/2005, p. 119) Mipham commented that, in the first two lines of this verse, NÄgÄrjuna declared that the Buddha explained the four elements and whatever is formed from these elements as not apart from consciousness. The Buddha understood these elements âto be consciousness itself appearing in the aspect of phenomena. He thus included phenomena within consciousnessâ (Mipham, 1877/2005, p. 119). Whether we postulate these phenomena to exist as extramental realities or as mental projections, once the nature of consciousness is directly experienced, these phenomena would cease to appear to perfectly authentic 241 primal wisdom; this implies that these phenomena are no more than false imputations (Mipham, 1877/2005). 34 For instance, in the KÄ«tÄgirisutta of the MajjhimanikÄya (a collection of medium length scriptures of early Buddhism), the Buddha described seven types of enlightened disciples, or noble ones (Äryas) who have entered the noble path of personal liberation (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). Listed in ascending order of spiritual maturity, the seven types are: (1) follower of faith (ÅraddhÄnusÄrin); (2) follower of the Dharma (dharmÄnusÄrin); (3) one liberated through faith (ÅraddhÄvimukta); (4) one who has formed right view (dá¹á¹£á¹­iprapta), by developing both faith and wisdom; (5) the bodily witness (kÄyasÄksin), who develops meditative concentration and has bodily testimony; (6) one who is freed by wisdom (prajñÄvimukta), by freeing oneself through analytical insights; and (7) one who is freed both ways (ubhayatobhÄgavimukta), by freeing oneself through both meditative absorption and wisdom (Åamatha and vipaÅyanÄ) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). 35 The profound compassion underlying the soteriological means of Holy Name chanting is more readily appreciated through the dream or mental self-simulation metaphor, rooted in YogÄcÄra idealism. Just as caring parents strive to help their childrenâwho are deluded and trapped in a virtual reality gameâcompassionate and wise Holy Ones, serving as both saviors and teachers, employ countless skillful means to assist and awaken sentient beings in a simulation-like world, liberating them from samsara, which the Buddha, in the Lotus Sūtra, likened to a house on fire. 36 In a scientific investigation into childrenâs finger-reading capacityâwhere words or images are read using fingers rather than eyesâLee et al. (2002) conducted over 3,000 tests spanning nine years. They found that approximately 40% of children aged 6 to 13 can be trained in finger-reading. Using transcranial Doppler and EEG, they identified specific physiological responses, including the brain areas associated with this extrasensory perception. After several years of experimentation, in 1999, they unexpectedly discovered some intriguing phenomena: When certain special words related to religionâsuch as Buddha, Bodhisattva, or Jesus (in [Traditional] Chinese), âI am that I amâ (in Hebrew, meaning God)âwere presented for finger-reading, these youngsters saw extraordinary phenomena, including bright light, a bright and smiling person, a temple, the Christian cross, or heard the sound of laughter. These responses are completely different from responses to other, ordinary, non-religious words. It seems that these keywords act as âaddressesâ connecting to an âinformation fieldâ (spiritual world) which behaves like an internet world. If you click on the correct address, you connect to a spiritual page. (Lee et al., 2002, pp. 1â2) Lee et al. suggested that this provides scientific evidence for an additional âinformation fieldâ beyond our four-dimensional spacetime and the known four fundamental energy fieldsâa spiritual realm corresponding to the Hidden Third. 37 The Three Saints of the Western Pure LandâAmitÄbha Buddha, Guanyin Bodhisattva, and MahÄsthÄmaprÄpta Bodhisattvaâare central figures in Pure Land Buddhism. Together, they descend to guide and safeguard faithful devotees, ensuring their rebirth in AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Land of Bliss either at the moment of death or during the bardo. 242 38 Bardo (AntarÄbhava) refers to the intermediate, liminal, or transitional state between death and rebirth. 39 Details of the Land of Bliss can be found in the Infinite Life Sutra (The Longer SukhÄvatÄ«vyÅ«ha Sūtra; ä½èªªç¡éå£½ç¶) and the AmitÄyus Contemplation Sutra (ä½èªªè§ç¡éå£½ä½ç¶). Recognizing the enormous difficulty of embracing the Pure Land teaching, the Buddha, in the AmitÄbha Sūtra (Shorter SukhÄvatÄ«vyÅ«ha Sūtra; ä½èªªé¿å½éç¶), emphasized that innumerable Buddhas from all directions reverently protect this teaching, encouraging sentient beings to aspire to rebirth in AmitÄbha Buddhaâs Land of Bliss, the supreme and most accessible Pure Land (FGSITC, 2017). After attaining rebirth in the Land of Bliss, one acquires extraordinary powers to assist sentient beings in samsara and to freely access any Buddhaâs Pure Land. 40 This experience is reminiscent of the gravitational waves directly observed in 2015, which, as discussed in Section 3.3, signify ripples in the structure of space-timeâsomething that transports energy and generates ripples (Kembhavi & Khare, 2020). 41 The Three Natures theory is taught by the Buddha in the Sutra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets (Saá¹dhinirmocana Sūtra; è§£æ·±å¯ç¶) (CBETA T16; Cleary, 1995). 42 The actual ultimate can be attained through introspective meditation that unites analytical insights (vipaÅyanÄ) with serene one-pointed concentration (Åamatha) (Sopa, 2016, 2017). 43 In the AriyapariyesanÄ-sutta (ç¾ æ©ç¶), the Buddha revealed that before attaining Buddhahood, under the training of two meditation masters, he had attained the highest two levels of meditative absorptionsânonperception (asamjñÄsamÄpatti; ç¡æ³å®, ç¡ææèå®) and neither perception nor nonperception (naivasaá¹jñÄnÄsaá¹jñÄyatan ; éæ³ééæ³å®), the two kinds of meditation that are free of mental activityâwhich would lead to rebirth as a divinity (deva) in the two highest celestial heavens (svarga) of the immaterial realm with sixty thousand eons and eighty thousand eons (kalpas) of life spans, respectively (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). However, since both states of being are still subject to rebirth and both heavens remain part of samsara, the Buddha eventually relinquished the two pathsâbecause both paths lead to neither wisdom, nor enlightenment, nor nirvana (ä¸è¶£æº, ä¸è¶£è¦º, ä¸è¶£æ¶ æ§) (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). The Buddhaâs disciple Åuddhipanthaka (å¨å©æ§ç¹ä¼½, å°è·¯, æè·¯), before attaining arahantship, was known for being the most dim-witted of the Buddhaâs disciples. In MÅ«lasarvÄstivÄda Vinayapiṭaka (æ ¹æ¬èªªä¸åæé¨æ¯å¥è¶ å·ä¸åä¸), the Buddha revealed that one of the four karmic causes of Åuddhipanthakaâs dullness was that he had been reborn and had dwelled for eons in the heaven corresponding to the equipoise of nonperception (asamjñÄsamÄpatti)âa meditative state in which no mental activity remainsâwhich severely undermined his mental faculties (CBETA T23, n.d.). 44 For example, in his spiritual autobiography Wild Ivy, Hakuin Ekaku (1686â1768), one of the most influential monks in 18th-century Japanese Zen Buddhism who revived the Rinzai school, addressed the dangerous teaching of âthink nothing and do nothingâ as the path to liberation (Waddell, 1999). By recounting real-life stories from his time, he illustrated the severe karmic consequences of preaching and practicing Do-Nothing Unborn Zenââdoing nothing but sitting lifelessly like wooden blocksâ (Waddell, 243 1999, p. 2)âwhich, he lamented, had led countless youngsters to their ruin. A similar situation had occurred in 8th-century Tibet. Sopa (2008) elucidated that, truly, at certain times, we think nothing and do nothing. These are times during the meditative direct realization of emptiness, or when attempting to tame a wild mind. To stabilize the mind, some sutras teach techniques to stop thinking or hold the mind to a single object. However, âthese instructions are like a skillful doctorâs recommendations to do certain things and avoid other things at a particular timeâ (Sopa, 2008, p. 199), and simply stopping thinking is far from the sum total of the method to attain full enlightenment. Also, he emphasized that spending prolonged periods sitting without thinking can, at times, be harmful. This type of meditation, known as equipoise of nonperception (asamjñÄsamÄpatti), can be used for rest or recovery from illness. However, it is merely a temporary suppression of mental activities and is often negatively described as a nihilistic state of mental dormancy, which some mistakenly view as ultimate liberation (Buswell & Lopez, 2014). As Buswell and Lopez (2014) noted, some ânon-Buddhist meditators were reported to mistake this vegetative state for the ultimate, permanent quiescence of the mind and become attached to this state as if it were liberationâ (p. 67). Sopa (2017) underscored that âit is impossible to attain liberation from cyclic existence without developing the wisdom realizing selflessness through analytical reasoningâ (p. 27). Quoting the Scriptural Collection of the Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva-piṭaka; è©è©è), he indicated that the Buddha has clearly specified that the mere emptying of the mind is not enough: âBeing satisfied by mere meditative concentration, without realizing reality as explained in the scriptures, gives rise to prideâthinking that you have attained the path cultivating the profound meaning. Thus you will not be liberated from cyclic existenceâ (Sopa, 2017, p. 27). The Buddha underscored that, while the liberating non-dualistic direct experience of emptiness is itself non-conceptual, it is not attained through the cessation of all mental activity but, as previously mentioned, through the union of Åamatha (calm abiding, meditative stability; 止) and vipaÅyanÄ (clear seeing, insights; è§) (Newland, 2009; Sopa, 2016). The union of Åamatha and vipaÅyanÄ for eradicating deep-seated egoistic views are integral to practices such as the Three Trainings (TriÅiksÄ), or Six Perfections (PÄramitÄ), each of which is supported by the others. Therefore, the mere union of Åamatha and vipaÅyanÄ is not sufficient on its own. 45 For instance, in the Treatise on the Foundation for Yoga Practitioners (YogÄcÄrabhÅ«mi), Asaá¹ ga listed details of One Truth, Twofold Truths, Threefold Truths, and so on, up to Tenfold Truth, illustrating that there are potentially innumerable ways of naming truths (Lusthaus, 2010). 46 Subhuti (Subhūti) is one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, considered foremost in understanding emptiness. 47 The contributions of ÅÄntaraká¹£ita (725â788) to the early dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet include founding its first Buddhist monastery, serving as its first abbot, ordaining the initial seven Tibetan monks, and establishing a rigorous system of philosophical study modeled after the esteemed Indian Buddhist monastic universities like Nalanda and VikramaÅÄ«la (Blumenthal & Apple, 2018). 244 48 Reflexive awareness is closely linked to the self-illumination (svaprakÄÅa) theory of consciousness. In Indian and Tibetan literature, the metaphor of luminosity (prakÄÅatÄ) is central to the discussions of consciousness (MacKenzie, 2015). MacKenzie (2015) explained that âjust as light reveals those objects upon which it falls, consciousness has the unique capacity to make experientially present those objects to which it is directed. It is that by which there can be any phenomenal appearanceâ (p. 278). In Indian accounts of the luminosity of consciousness, however, there has been a division between other-illumination (paraprakÄÅa) and self-illumination (svaprakÄÅa) theories (MacKenzie, 2015). The self-illumination (svaprakÄÅa) theory of consciousness maintains that consciousness is of a reflexive or self-illuminating nature, meaning âconsciousness presents itself in the process of presenting its object. Moreover, just as light does not need a second light in order to be revealed, so consciousness does not need a distinct state to present itselfâit is self-intimatingâ (MacKenzie, 2015, p. 278). Consciousness thus âis like a source of light which, in addition to illuminating whatever other things fall within its scope, renders itself visible as well (Frankfurt, 1987, as cited in MacKenzie, 2015, p. 282). Self-illumination, therefore, does not involve an agentâactionâobject (kartrâkrÄ«yÄâkarman) structure (MacKenzie, 2015). 49 Quenched disorder is one of the criteria that define a complex system. As Theise and Kafatos (2013a) explained, âthere must be limited randomness or âquenched disorderâ in the system: too much [disorder] yields no capacity to self-organize, too little does not allow for exploration of new organizational strategies in response to changing conditionsâ (p. 13). 50 The concept of âholarchyâ is explained in Subsection 5.3.2. 51 This feature of an authentic player recalls Heideggerâs notions of inauthenticity and authenticity, which describe two dynamic modes of Being specific to Daseinâa German term meaning âbeing thereâ or âpresence,â used to capture the human beingâs unique mode of existence: one that is conscious of its own being and capable of questioning and relating to that existence. âIn its very Being, that Being is an issue for it,â and âUnderstanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Daseinâs Beingâ (Heidegger, 1927/1962, p. 32). Inauthenticity is marked by falling (Verfallen), a mode of absorption in the distractions and concerns of everydayness, and idle talk (Gerede), in which Dasein engages in superficial, conformist discourseâboth of which evade genuine understanding and avoid confrontation with Daseinâs own individuality, mortality, freedom, and existential possibilities (pp. 211â214). Authenticity, by contrast, involves Daseinâs resolute Being-oneâs-Self, wherein it assumes responsibility for its potentiality-for-Being, faces its finitude through being-toward-death, and lives in alignment with its individualityâdistinct from the anonymous âtheyâ (das Man), the collective norms or prescribed ways of interpreting the world and being-in-the-world that obscure higher existential awareness (pp. 164â168). Dasein continually shifts between these intertwined modes, with authenticity generally remaining a fleeting achievement. From this perspective, an authentic player is one who engages existence both playfully and resolutely, moving recursively between these two modes of Being. 52 Taking into consideration the subjectâobject interaction, from which new knowledge and experience continually emerge, for the whole to be considered a âmeaningful whole,â it must be an open whole, which enables the coexistence of open unity and complex plurality. In the methodology of transdisciplinarity, this ideal is made possible by its ontological axiom, particularly the presence of the Hidden Third, or the Divine. 245 53 Pinarâs concept of the intellect or the intellectual may be roughly likened to the sixth consciousness (manovijñÄna; mental or mind-consciousness) in the YogÄcÄra classification of consciousness, which is responsible for cognitive processes, although the Jungian and YogÄcÄra frameworks diverge in many respects. 246 References Ã Beckett, C. (2017). Making life worth living: Theories of play enlivened through the work of Donald Winnicott. In S. Lynch, D. Pike, & C. Ã Beckett (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on play from birth and beyond (pp. 25â37). Springer. Ã Beckett, C., Lynch, S., & Pike, D. (2017). Playing with theory. In S. Lynch, D. Pike, & C. Ã Beckett (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on play from birth and beyond (Vol. 18, pp. 1â22). Springer. Allon, M., & Salomon, R. (2010). New evidence for Mahayana in early Gandhara. The Eastern Buddhist, 41(1), 1â22. Anderson, N. G., & Piccinini, G. (2024). The physical signature of computation: A robust mapping account. Oxford University Press. Aoki, T. T. (2004). Toward understanding curriculum: Talk through reciprocity of perspectives. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 219â228). Routledge. (Original work published 1981) Aoki, T. T. (2004). Inspiriting the curriculum. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 357â365). Routledge. (Original work published 1987) Aoki, T. T. (2004). Sonare and videre: A story, three echoes and a lingering note. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 367â376). Routledge. (Original work published 1990) 247 Aoki, T. T. (2004). Humiliating the Cartesian ego. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 291â301). Routledge. (Original work published 1993a) Aoki, T. T. (2004). Legitimating lived curriculum: Toward a curricular landscape of multiplicity. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 199â215). Routledge. (Original work published 1993b) Aoki, T. T. (2004). Spinning inspirited images in the midst of planned and lived curricula. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 413â423). Routledge. (Original work published 1996) Aoki, T. T. (2004). Locating living pedagogy in teacher âresearchâ: Five metonymic moments. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 425â432). Routledge. (Original work published 2003) Apostel, L. (1972). Introduction. In L. Apostel et al. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities (pp. 77â81). OECD. Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. (Eds.). (1972). Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. OECD. Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336(6083), 855â857. Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures, 70(3â4), 233â247. Baesler, E. J. (2001). The prayer of the Holy Name in eastern and western spiritual traditions: A theoretical, cross-cultural, and intercultural prayer dialogue. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 38(2/3). 248 BaÅkent, C. (2013). Some topological properties of paraconsistent models. Synthese, 190(18), 4023â4040. Becker, A. (2022, February 1). What is spacetime really made of? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of/ Beraldo-de-Araújo, A., & Baravalle, L. (2017). The ontology of digital physics. Erkenntnis, 82, 1211â1231. Bergen, D. (2014). Foundations of play theory. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp. 9â20). SAGE. Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), R1. Bitbol, M. (2008). Is Consciousness primary1?. NeuroQuantology, 6(1), 53â72. Blumenthal, J. (2008, October). Three Turnings of the Wheel of the Dharma. Mandala, 18â19. https://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2008/october/three-turnings-of-the-wheel-of-the-dharma/ Blumenthal, J. (2009). Dynamic and syncretic dimensions to ÅÄntaraká¹£itaâs presentation of the two truths. Asian Philosophy, 19(1), 51â62. Blumenthal, J. (2013). Indian MahÄyÄna Buddhism. In S. M. Emmanuel (Ed.), A companion to Buddhist philosophy (pp. 86â98). John Wiley & Sons. Blumenthal, J., & Apple, J. (2018). ÅÄntaraká¹£ita. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/saantarak-sita/ Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy of Science, 4(3), 289â298. 249 Bohr, N. (1948). On the notions of causality and complementarity 1. Dialectica, 2(3â4), 312â319. Bostrom, N. (2003). Are we living in a computer simulation?. The philosophical quarterly, 53(211), 243â255. Bouchard, G., & Taylor, C. (2008). Building the future: A time for reconciliation. Gouvernement du Québec. Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe?. Philosophical studies, 170, 465-500. Bourget, D. & Chalmers, D. J., (2023). Philosophers on philosophy: The 2020 philpapers survey. Philosophers' Imprint, 23. Boyd, R. N. (1983). On the current status of the issue of scientific realism. Erkenntnis, 19(1-3), 45â90. Brabazon, T. (Ed.). (2016). Play: A theory of learning and change. Springer International Publishing. Bressi, G., Carugno, G., Onofrio, R., & Ruoso, G. (2002). Measurement of the Casimir force between parallel metallic surfaces. Physical review letters, 88(4), 041804. Buckingham, J. E. (2014). Fighting over God: A legal and political history of religious freedom in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. Burghardt, G. M. (2010). Defining and recognizing play. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. xxâxx). Oxford University Press. Burn, R. P. (1992). Irrational numbers in English language textbooks, 1890â1915: constructions and postulates for the completeness of the real numbers. Historia mathematica, 19(2), 158â176. 250 Burnard, P., Colucci-Gray, L., & Sinha, P. (2021). Transdisciplinarity: Letting arts and science teach together. Curriculum Perspectives, 41(1), 113-118. Buswell, R. E., & Lopez, D. S. (2014). The Princeton dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton University Press. Butler, S. (2010). Idealism in YogÄcÄra Buddhism. The Hilltop Review, 4(1), 6. Carnielli, W. A., & Coniglio, M. E. (2016). Paraconsistent logic: Consistency, contradiction and negation (Vol. 40). Dordrecht: Springer. CBETA T16. (n.d.). è§£æ·±å¯ç¶ [Sutra unravelling the profound secret meaning; Saá¹dhinirmocanasÅ«tra]. https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/en/T0676_002 CBETA T23. (n.d.). æ ¹æ¬èªªä¸åæé¨æ¯å¥è¶å·ä¸åä¸ [The Vinaya, volume 31, of the SarvÄstivÄda school]. https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T23n1442_p0794a22 CBETA T0278. (n.d.). å¤§æ¹å»£ä½è¯å´ç¶ è³¢é¦è©è©åç¬¬å « [The Avataá¹saka Sūtra, chapter 8, the Bodhisattva Xian Shou]. https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T0278_006 CBETA T0384. (n.d.). è©è©èèç¶ [Bodhisattva dwelling in the womb sutra]. https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T0384_002 CBETA T0670. (n.d.). æ¥ä¼½é¿è·å¤ç¾ å¯¶ç¶ [The sutra on the descent of the true Dharma into Laá¹ kÄ]. https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T0670_002 Center for Astrophysics. (n.d.). Dark energy and dark matter. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/dark-energy-and-dark-matter Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific realism. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism/ Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. 251 Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2020). Representationalism. In A dictionary of media and communication. Retrieved 12 May, 2023, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198841838.001.0001/acref-9780198841838-e-2318 Chittick, W. C. (1989). The Sufi path of knowledge: Ibn al-âArabiâs metaphysics of imagination. State University of New York Press. Chu, E. L. (2019). Curriculum as an experience of consciousness transformation. Palgrave Macmillan. Chu, E. L. (2024). Laying down a path in playing. In M. Bussey et al. (Eds.), Passion and purpose in the humanities: Exploring the worlds of early career researchers (pp. 60â71). Routledge. Chu, J. (2025, July 28). Famous double-slit experiment holds up when stripped to its quantum essentials. MIT News. https://news.mit.edu/2025/famous-double-slit-experiment-holds-when-stripped-to-quantum-essentials-0728 Clarke, M., & Phelan, A. (2017). Teacher education and the political: The power of negative thinking. Routledge. Cleary, T. (Trans.). (1995). Buddhist yoga: A comprehensive course. Shambhala. Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & Flage, D. E. (2016). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Routledge. Crocker, R. K. (2022). Religion and schooling in Canada: The long road to separation of church and state. University of Ottawa Press. Daneshpour, H., & Kwegyir-Afful, E. (2022). Analysing transdisciplinary education: A scoping review. Science & Education, 31(4), 1047â1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00254-x 252 Davis, E. B. (1991). Newtonâs rejection of the âNewtonian world viewâ: The role of divine will in Newtonâs natural philosophy. Science & Christian Belief, 3(1), 103â117. De Caro, M., & Macarthur, D. (Eds.). (2004). Naturalism in question. Harvard University Press. Deutsch, E. (1980). Advaita Vedanta: A philosophical reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press. Dhamma.com. (n.d.). Biography of Luangpor Pramote Pamojjo. https://www.dhamma.com/biography/ Doll, M. A. (2016). Excavating the self: The archaeologies of Pinar and Hillman. In M. Aswell Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies (pp. 50â58). Routledge. Doll, W. E. Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. Teachers College Press. Doll, W. E. Jr. (2012). Revisiting Aokiâs âinspiriting the curriculum.â In N. Ng-A-Fook (Ed.), Reconsidering Canadian curriculum studies (pp. 165â174). Palgrave Macmillan. Eckhart, M. (2009). The complete mystical works of Meister Eckhart (M. O'C. Walshe, Trans. & Ed.). The Crossroad Publishing Company. Eckholt, M. (2019). The âworld as the body of Godâ (Sallie McFague): The cosmic Christ as the measure of the body of God. In A. Jax & S. Wendel (Eds.), Envisioning the cosmic body of Christ: Embodiment, plurality and incarnation (pp. 77â90). Routledge. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024, November 15). Maya. https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy Esposito, M. (2018). Landauer principle stands up to quantum test. Physics, 11, 49. Falk, H., & Karashima, S. (2012). A first-century PrajñÄpÄramitÄ manuscript from GandhÄra â parivarta 1 (Text from the Split Collection 1). åµä¾¡å¤§å­¦å½éä»æå­¦é«ç­ç ç©¶æå¹´å ± [ARIRIAB], 15, 19â61. 253 Falk, H., & Karashima, S. (2013). A first-century PrajñÄpÄramitÄ manuscript from GandhÄraâparivarta 5. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, 16, 97â169. Fedoseev, V., Lin, H., Lu, Y. K., Lee, Y. K., Lyu, J., & Ketterle, W. (2025). Coherent and Incoherent Light Scattering by Single-Atom Wave Packets. Physical Review Letters, 135(4), 043601. FGSITC. (2006). The lotus sutraâs universal gate chapter on Avalokitesvara Bodhisattvaå¦æ³è®è¯ç¶è§ä¸é³è©è©æ®éå. Fo Guang Shan International Translation Center (FGSITC ). https://www.fgsitc.org/the-lotus-sutras-universal-gate-chapter-on-avalokitesvara-bodhisattva/ FGSITC. (2017). The Amitabha sutra as discoursed by the Buddha ä½èªªé¿å½éç¶. Fo Guang Shan International Translation Center. https://www.fgsitc.org/the-amitabha-sutra/ Fleener, M. J. (2019). Dynamics of a scholarly life: Conversational complexity in pursuit of the mysterium tremendum. In M. Quinn (Ed.), Complexifying curriculum studies (pp. 21â28). Routledge. Frank, A., Gleiser, M., & Thompson, E. (2024). The blind spot: Why science cannot ignore human experience. MIT Press. Fuller, P. (2005). The notion of Ditthi in Theravâda Buddhism. Routledge. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960). https://mvlindsey.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/truth-and-method-gadamer-2004.pdf Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A âhistoricalâ sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4â10. 254 Garfield, J., & Newland, G. (n.d.). The three turnings of the wheel of Dharma: A wisdom academy online course with Jay Garfield and Guy Newland. Wisdom. https://wisdomexperience.org/courses/three-turnings/ Garfield, J. L., & Westerhoff, J. (Eds.). (2015). Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or rivals? Oxford University Press. Garisto, D. (2021, October 7). Why the physics Nobel honored climate science and complex systems. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-physics-nobel-honored-climate-science-and-complex-systems/# Garisto, D. (2022, October 6). The universe is not locally real, and the physics Nobel Prize winners proved it. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/ Gemmell, W. (1912). The Diamond Sutra (Chin-Kang-Ching) Or Prajna-Paramita: Translated from the Chinese with an introduction and notes. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Gertler, B. (2021). Self-knowledge. In E. N. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/self-knowledge/ Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Scott, P., Schwartzman, S., & Nowotny, H. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage. Gleiser, M. (2022, July 6). The simulation hypothesis is a dangerous illusion. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/13-8/simulation-hypothesis-escapism/ 255 Gleiser, M. (2023, February 8). The weirdness of quantum mechanics forces scientists to confront philosophy. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-mechanics-philosophy/ Goguen, J. A. (2002). Consciousness studies. In Encyclopedia of science and religion. Gohd, C. (2024, February 5). What is dark energy? Inside our accelerating, expanding universe. NASA Science. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/the-universe-is-expanding-faster-these-days-and-dark-energy-is-responsible-so-what-is-dark-energy/ Goodman, J. W. (2005). Introduction to Fourier optics (3rd ed.). Roberts & Company Publishers. Goto, K., Nosaka, T., & Nozaki, M. (2022). Probing chaos by magic monotones. Physical Review D, 106(12), 126009. https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.126009 Gray, P. (2019). Evolutionary functions of play: Practice, resilience, innovation, and cooperation. In P. Smith & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 84â102). Cambridge University Press. Greene, B. (2004). The fabric of the cosmos: Space, time, and the texture of reality. Alfred A. Knopf. Greene, B. (2011). The hidden reality. Alfred A. Knopf. Gregorian, V. (2004). Colleges must reconstruct the unity of knowledge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(39), B12. Hamilton, D. (1989). Toward a theory of schooling. Falmer. Hamilton, D. (1990). Curriculum history. Deakin University Press. 256 Harrison, C., & Robinson, C. (2017). Looking deeper: Play and the spiritual dimension. In S. Lynch, D. Pike, & C. Ã Beckett (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on play from birth and beyond (pp. 61â78). Springer. Hayes, R. (2019). Madhyamaka. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/madhyamaka/ Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180â197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797 Hebor, J. (2013). Classical and quantum realism. In A. L. Runehov, L. Oviedo, & N. P. Azari (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sciences and religions. Springer Netherlands. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1927) Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). SUNY Press. (Original work published 1927) Henricks, T. S. (2019). Classic theories of play. In P. Smith & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 361â382). Cambridge University Press. Heuman, L. (2014, Fall). The embodied mind: An interview with philosopher Evan Thompson. Tricycle. https://tricycle.org/magazine/embodied-mind/ Hoffman, D. D. (2019). The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. W. W. Norton & Company. Hoffman, D., Singh, M., & Prakash, C. (2015). The Interface Theory of Perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1480â1506. 257 Hollaender, K., Loibl, M. C., & Wilts, A. (2008). Management. In G. H. Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, & E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 385â397). Springer. Hopkins, J. (2017). The heart of meditation: Discovering innermost awareness. Shambhala Publications. Hsing-Yu. (2017). The complete works of venerable master Hsing Yu (æé²å¤§å¸«å ¨é). Fo Guang Publications. https://books.masterhsingyun.org/ArticleDetail/artcle15169 Hua, Z. & Gao, Z. (2014). Curriculum studies in China: Retrospect and prospect. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed., pp. 118â133). Routledge. Huebner, D. E. (1999). Curriculum as concern for manâs temporality. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 131â142). Routledge. (Original work published 1967) Huebner, D. E. (1999). Curriculum field: Its wake and our work. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 241â256). Routledge. (Original work published 1976) Huebner, D. E. (1999). Religious metaphors in the language of education. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 358â368). Routledge. (Original work published 1985a) Huebner, D. E. (1999). Spirituality and knowing. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 340â352). Routledge. (Original work published 1985b) 258 Huebner, D. E. (1999). Education and spirituality. In V. Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 401â416). Routledge. (Original work published 1993) Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Routledge. IAS. (2018). Black holes, quantum information, and the structure of spacetime: A conversation with Juan Maldacena. https://www.ias.edu/ideas/maldacena-quantum-black-holes Inagaki, H., & Stewart, H. (2003). The three pure land sutras. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Irwin, K., Amaral, M., & Chester, D. (2020). The self-simulation hypothesis interpretation of quantum mechanics. Entropy, 22(2), 247, 1â26. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020247 Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological economics, 79, 1â10. James, W. (1917). Varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Longmans, Green, And Co. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/621/pg621-images.html Jantsch, E. (1972). Toward interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In L. Apostel et al. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity problems of teaching and research in universities (pp. 97â121). OECD. Jardine, D. W. (1992). The fecundity of the individual case: Considerations of the pedagogic heart of interpretive work. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(1), 51â61. Jennings, S., & Holmwood, C. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge international handbook of play, therapeutic play and play therapy. Routledge. 259 JÅdo Shinshū. (n.d.). NÄgÄrjunaâs commentary on the ten Bodhisattva stages â Chapter on easy practice. https://jodoshinshu.faith/nagarjunas-commentary-on-the-ten-bodhisattva-stages-chapter-on-easy-practice/ Johnson, J. E., & Han, M. (2019). Introduction. In M. Han & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Play and curriculum: Play & culture studies (pp. 1â8). Hamilton. Johnson, S. (2021, March 2). âA glitch in the matrixâ documentary explores the dark side of simulation theory. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/high-culture/glitch-in-the-matrix/ Johnson, T. M., & Grim, B. J. (2013). The worldâs religions in figures: An introduction to international religious demography. John Wiley & Sons. Kaku, M. (1994). Hyperspace: A scientific odyssey through parallel universes, time warps, and the tenth dimension. Oxford University Press. Karashima, S. (2013). Was the Aá¹£á¹­asÄhasrikÄ PrajñÄpÄramitÄ compiled in GandhÄra in GÄndhÄrÄ«? Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 16, 171â188. Kay, A. (2022). Number systems: A path into rigorous mathematics. CRC Press. Kembhavi, A., & Khare, P. (2020). Gravitational waves: A new window to the universe. Springer. Kim, J. (2003). The American origins of philosophical naturalism. Journal of Philosophical Research, 28 (Supplement), 83â98. Klein, J. T. (2001). The discourse of transdisciplinarity: An expanding global field. In J. T. Klein (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society (pp. 35â44). Birkhäuser. Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515â526. 260 Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In J. T. Klein, C. Mitcham, & R. Frodeman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (1st ed., pp. 16â30). Oxford University Press. Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & R. C. D. S. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 21â34). Oxford University Press. Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media. Kliebard, H. M. (1975). The rise of scientific curriculum making and its aftermath. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 27â38. Kok, P. (2018). A first introduction to quantum physics. Springer. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3â58. Kreis, T. M. (2005). Handbook of holographic interferometry: Optical and digital methods. Wiley-VCH. Kubo, T., & Yuyama, A. (Trans.). (2007). The lotus sutra. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Lamotte, Ã. (1987). Karmasiddhiprakarana: The treatise on action by Vasubandhu (L. M. Pruden, Trans.). Asian Humanities Press. Lamotte, Ã. (2001). The treatise on the great virtue of wisdom of NÄgÄrjuna (G. K. M. Chodron, Trans.). (Original work published 1944). Unpublished translation. https://terebess.hu/english/Volume%201.pdf 261 Landauer, R. (1961). Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5(3), 183â191. Landauer, R. (1996). The physical nature of information. Physics Letters A, 217(4â5), 188â193. Latta, M. M. (2013). Curricular conversations: Play is the (missing) thing. Routledge. Lee, S. C., Tang, D., Chen, C. T., & Fang, S. C. (2002). Finger-reading: Exploring the information field. The International Journal of Healing and Caring, 2(2), 1â25. Lewkowich, D. (2024). Unavoidable middles: Dilatory methods of reading and comics creation in teacher education. In A. M. Phelan & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum studies in Canada: Present preoccupations (pp. 166â188). University of Toronto Press. Lipner, J. J. (2022). A God at play? Reexamining the concept of LÄ«lÄ in Hindu philosophy and theology. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 26(3), 283â326. Lloyd, S. (2007). Programming the universe: a quantum computer scientist takes on the cosmos. Vintage. Lokanga, E. (2020). A special relationship between matter, energy, information, and consciousness. International Journal of Recent Advances in Physics, 9(1), 1â3. Louth, A. (Ed.). (2022). Panentheism. In A. Louth (Ed.), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199642465.001.0001/acref-9780199642465-e-5347 Lupu, I. C., Elwood, F., Davis, E., Masci, D., Tuttle, R. W., David, R., & Berz, S. K. (2019, October 3). Religion in the public schools. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/03/religion-in-the-public-schools-2019-update/ 262 Lusthaus, D. (2002). Buddhist phenomenology: A philosophical investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun. Routledge. Lusthaus, D. (2010). The two truths (Saá¹vá¹ti-satya and ParamÄrtha-satya) in early YogÄcÄra. Journal of Buddhist Studies, 7, 101â152. Lynch, S., Pike, D., & Ã Beckett, C. (Eds.). (2017). Multidisciplinary perspectives on play from birth and beyond (Vol. 18). Springer. MacKenzie, M. (2010). Enacting the self: Buddhist and enactivist approaches to the emergence of the self. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 75â99. MacKenzie, M. (2013). Enacting selves, enacting worlds: On the Buddhist theory of karma. Philosophy East and West, 63(2), 194â212. MacKenzie, M. (2015). Reflexivity, subjectivity, and the constructed self: A Buddhist model. Asian Philosophy, 25(3), 275â292. MacKenzie, M. (2018). The YogÄcÄra theory of three natures: Internalist and non-dualist interpretations. Comparative Philosophy, 9(1), 18â31. MacKenzie, M. (2021). Dual-aspect reflexivism in ÅÄntaraká¹£ita's philosophy of mind. Journal of Buddhist Philosophy, 3(3), 97â120. McGregor, S. L. (2023). Transdisciplinarity and public policy: Nicolescuian, Zurich, and Brazilian approaches. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 14, 47â63. Maharaj, N. (1973). I am that. Chetana. Maldacena, J., & Susskind, L. (2013). Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortschritte der Physik, 61(9), 781â811. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533 Malewski, E. (Ed.). (2010). Curriculum studies handbook: The next moment. Routledge. 263 Manitoba Education and Training. (2019). Grade 12 world of religions: A Canadian perspective. Government of Manitoba. Marin, P., & Lindeman, M. (2021). How do people perceive the relationship between science and religion? The roles of epistemic and ontological cognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1146â1157. Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5â16. McFague, S. (1987). Models of God: Theology for an ecological, nuclear age. Fortress Press. McFague, S. (1993). The body of God: An ecological theology. Fortress Press. McGann, M., De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2013). Enaction and psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 203â209. McGregor, S. L. (2015). The Nicolescuian and Zurich approaches to transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership Review, 15(2), 6â16. Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy after the 1960s. SUNY Press. Mingyur, Y. (2007). The joy of living: Unlocking the secret and science of happiness. Harmony. Mipham, J. (2005). The adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshitaâs Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgon Mipham (Padmakara Translation Group, Trans.). Shambhala Publications. (Original work published 1877) Morey, M. W. (2012). Sri Aurobindoâs Lila: The nature of divine play according to integral Advaita. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary & Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, & Praxis, 8(1), 68â84. Murillo, F., & Pinar, W. (2019). William Pinar responding to Elliot Eisner. Encounters in Theory and History of Education, 20(1), 159â164. 264 Musser, G. (2020, October 29). The most famous paradox in physics nears its end. Quanta Magazine. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/ MZI. (n.d.). Introduction. https://www.masterzhao.com/mzi.html Nagatomo, S. (2000). The logic of the Diamond Sutra: A is not A, therefore it is A. Asian Philosophy, 10(3), 213â244. NASA Science. (n.d.). Dark energy. Universe, NASA Science. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/dark-energy/ National Geographic. (n.d.). Dark matter and dark energy. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/dark-matter Newland, G. (2009). Introduction to emptiness: As taught in Tsong-kha-pa's great treatise on the stages of the path (2nd ed.). Snow Lion Publications. Nickle, T. (2005). Positivism. In M. C. Horowitz (Ed.), New dictionary of the history of ideas (Vol. 5, pp. 1852â1857). Charles Scribnerâs Sons. Nicolescu, B. (1991). Science, meaning, & evolution: The cosmology of Jacob Boehme (R. Baker, Trans.). Parabola Books. https://jacobboehmeonline.com/assets/docs/Science_Meaning_and_Evolution_1.347155043.pdf Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity (K. Voss, Trans.). SUNY Press. (Original work published 1996). Nicolescu, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity as a methodological framework for going beyond the science-religion debate. Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, 2(2007), 35â60. 265 Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity: Levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19â38. Nicolescu, B. (2014a). From modernity to cosmodernity: Science, culture, and spirituality. SUNY Press. Nicolescu, B. (2014b). Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3â4), 186â199. Nicolescu, B. (2015a). The hidden third and the multiple splendor of being. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Transdisciplinarnost'v filosofii i nauke: podkhody, problemy, perspektivy (pp. 62â79). Nicolescu, B. (2015b). Transdisciplinary methodology of the dialogue between people, cultures, and spiritualities. Human & Social Studies: Research and Practice, 2(4), 15â28. Nicolescu, B. (2021). Transdisciplinary realism. In C. Vidales & S. Brier (Eds.). Introduction to cybersemiotics: A transdisciplinary perspective (pp. 97â103). Springer. Niikawa, T. (2020). A map of consciousness studies: Questions and approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 530152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.530152 Noddings, N. (2008). Spirituality and religion in public schooling. Teachers College Record, 110(13), 185â195. Noë, A. (2010). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. Hill and Wang. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity. 266 Null, J. W. (2008). Curriculum development in historical perspective. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 478â490). Sage Publications. Papineau, D. (2023). Naturalism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/naturalism/ Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31â43. Perry, P. (2020, January 21). There is no dark matter. Instead, information has mass, physicist says. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/hard-science/dark-matter-theory/ Pettit, J. W. (1999). Miphamâs beacon of certainty: Illuminating the view of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection (Vol. 2). Wisdom Publications. Phelan, A. M. (2015). Curriculum theorizing and teacher education: Complicating conjunctions. Routledge. Phelan, A. M. (2024). Epilogue: Curriculum studies in the shadowlands. In A. M. Phelan & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum studies in Canada: Present preoccupations (pp. 251â263). University of Toronto Press. Piaget, J. (1972). The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In L. Apostel et al. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 97â121). OECD. Pinar, W. F. (1974). Heightened consciousness, cultural revolution, and curriculum theory. In The Proceedings of the Rochester Conference (pp. 1â15). McCutchan Publishing Corporation. 267 Pinar, W. F. (1994). The method of currere. Counterpoints, 2, 19â27. (Original work published 1975) Pinar, W. F. (1994). Autobiography and an architecture of self. Counterpoints, 2, 201â222. (Original work published 1985) Pinar, W. F. (2007). Intellectual advancement through disciplinarity: Verticality and horizontality in curriculum studies. Sense Publishers. Pinar, W. F. (2008). Curriculum theory since 1950: Crisis, reconceptualization, internationalization. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 491â513). Sage Publications. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? Routledge. Pinar, W. F. (2013). Curriculum studies in the United States: Present circumstances, intellectual histories. Palgrave Macmillan. Pinar, W. F. (2015). Educational experience as lived: Knowledge, history, alterity: The selected works of William F. Pinar. Routledge. Pinar, W. F. (2019). Currere. In J. Wearing et.al (Eds.), Key concepts in curriculum studies: Perspectives on the Fundamentals (pp. 50â52). Routledge. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang. Pinar, W. F., & Grumet, M. R. (in press). Toward a poor curriculum (4th ed.). Educatorâs International Press. Pitt, A. J. (2000). Hide and seek: The play of the personal in education. Changing English, 7(1), 65â74. 268 Pohl, C. (n.d.). What is transdisciplinarity? Network for Transdisciplinary Research. https://transdisciplinarity.ch/en/transdisciplinarity/was-ist-td/ Pradhan, R. C. (2020). Metaphysics of consciousness: The Indian Vedantic perspective. Springer Nature. Prado, I. (2006). History of naturalism. Naturalism.Org. https://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism/history-of-naturalism#toc-the-renaissance-and-enlightenment-nf29-QLY Prentner, R., & Hoffman, D. D. (2024). Interfacing consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1429376. Pruden, L. M. (Trans.). (1991). AbhidharmakoÅabhÄá¹£yam of Vasubandhu. Asian Humanities Press. Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face (J. Conant, Ed.). Harvard University Press. Racorean, O. (2018). Spacetime manipulation of quantum information around rotating black holes. Annals of Physics, 398, 254â264. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491618302586 Radhakrishnan, S. (1914). The Vedanta philosophy and the doctrine of Maya. The International Journal of Ethics, 24(4), 431â451. Rangwala, S. A. (2022). Local realism and its experimental test: Nobel prize for physics 2022. Physics News, 52(4), 13â18. Reid, W. (2015). The use of an object: Winnicott and ternary thought. In G. Saragnano & C. Seulin (Eds.), Playing and reality revisited (pp. 127â144). Routledge. Reynhout, K. A. (2007). The hermeneutics of transdisciplinarity: A Gadamerian model of transversal reasoning. Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, 2(2007), 77â101. 269 Rigolot, C. (2020). Quantum theory as a source of insights to close the gap between mode 1 and mode 2 transdisciplinarity: Potentialities, pitfalls and a possible way forward. Sustainability Science, 15(2), 663â669. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155â169. Rohr, R. (2019). The universal Christ: How a forgotten reality can change everything we see, hope for, and believe. Convergent Books. Roser, M. (2023). How many animals get slaughtered every day? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-get-slaughtered-every-day Scholem, G. (1941). Major trends in Jewish mysticism. Schocken Books. Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part Iâtheoretical foundations. Sustainability science, 10, 527â544. Schwitzgebel, E. (2011). Perplexities of consciousness. MIT Press. Seager, W. (2014). Why physicalism? Mind and Matter, 12(2), 143â195. Shastri, P. D. (1911). The doctrine of MÄyÄ in the philosophy of the VedÄnta. Luzac. Shulman, E. (2015). NÄgÄrjuna the YogÄcÄrin? Vasubandhu the MÄdhyamika? On the middle-way between realism and antirealism. In J. L. Garfield & J. Westerhoff (Eds.), Madhyamaka and YogÄcÄra: Allies or rivals? Oxford University Press. Siderits, M., & Katsura, S. (2013). NÄgÄrjunaâs middle way. Wisdom Publications. Silberman, I. (2005). Religion as a meaning system: Implications for the new millennium. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 641â663. Simon, S. B., & Kirschenbaum, H. (Eds.). (1973). Readings in values clarification. Harper San Francisco. 270 Smith, D. G. (2000). The specific challenges of globalization for teaching and vice versa. The Alberta Journal of Education Research, 46(1), 7â26. Smith, H. (1986). The worldâs religions: Our great wisdom traditions. Perfect Bound. Smith, P., & Roopnarine, J. (2019). Editorial introduction. In P. Smith & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 1â7). Cambridge University Press. Sopa, L. (2005). Steps on the path to enlightenment: A commentary on Tsongkhapaâs Lamrim Chenmo. Volume II: Karma. Wisdom Publications. Sopa, L. (2008). Steps on the path to enlightenment: A commentary on Tsongkhapaâs Lamrim Chenmo. Volume III: The way of the bodhisattva. Wisdom Publications. Sopa, L. (2016). Steps on the path to enlightenment: A commentary on Tsongkhapaâs Lamrim Chenmo. Volume IV: Samatha. Wisdom Publications. Sopa, L. (2017). Steps on the path to enlightenment: A commentary on Tsongkhapaâs Lamrim Chenmo. Volume V: Insight. Wisdom Publications. Stargardt, J. (2000). Tracing thought through things: The oldest Pali texts and the early Buddhist archaeology of India and Burma. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Sullivan, J. W. N. (1931, January 25). Interviews with great scientists. VI. Max Planck. Observer, p. 17. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/25590070/max_planck_observer_12531/ Sullivan, L. E. (2009). Positivism (education). In L. Sullivan (Ed.), The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences (p. 395). Sage Publications. Susskind, L. (1995). The world as a hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377â6396. 271 Susskind, L. (1997). Black holes and the information paradox. Scientific American, 276(4), 52â57. Susskind, L. (2008). The black hole war: My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics. Hachette UK. Suzuki, D. T. (Trans.). (1978). The Laá¹ kÄvatÄra Sūtra: A MahÄyÄna text. PrajñÄ Press. Tavassoly, I., Goldfarb, J., & Iyengar, R. (2018). Systems biology primer: The basic methods and approaches. Essays in Biochemistry, 62(4), 487â500. https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20180028 Taylor, J. B. (2006). My stroke of insight: A brain scientistâs personal journey. Viking Press. Taylor, J. B. (2019, May). Patient perspective. World Neurosurgery, 125, 72â73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.176 Tegmark, M. (2007). The multiverse hierarchy. In B. Carr (Ed.), Universe or multiverse? (pp. 99â125). Cambridge University Press. Theise, N. D. (2005). Now you see it, now you don't. Nature, 435(7046), 1165. Theise, N. D., & Kafatos, M. C. (2013a). Complementarity in biological systems: A complexity view. Complexity, 18(6), 11â20. Theise, N. D., & Kafatos, M. (2013b). Sentience everywhere: Complexity theory, panpsychism & the role of sentience in self-organization of the universe. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 4(4), 378â390. Theise, N. D., & Kafatos, M. C. (2016). Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy, and metaphysics. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 9(3), e1155010. 272 Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press. Thompson, E. (2015). Waking, dreaming, being: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy. Columbia University Press. Thompson, E. (2023). Buddhist philosophy and scientific naturalism. Sophia, 62(1), 71â86. Thompson, E., & Cosmelli, D. (2011). Brain in a vat or body in a world? Brainbound versus enactive views of experience. Philosophical Topics, 39(1), 163â180. 't Hooft, G. (1993). Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:gr-qc/9310026. Thurman, R. A. F. (Trans.). (n.d.). The teaching of Vimalakīrti. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. https://84000.co/doc/vimalakirti/Vimalakirti%20Book_E_screen-170724.pdf Tsong-kha-pa. (2000). The great treatise on the stages of the path to enlightenment (Vol. 1, The Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee, Trans.). Snow Lion Publications. (Original work published 1402) Tyson, N. D. (2017, June 7). Neil deGrasse Tyson: Dark matter, dark gravity, ghost particles, & the essence of all objects [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/lr-DB3Z_5_c University of Portsmouth (Executive Producer). (2022, October 19). Is information the fifth form of matter? Ft. Dr. Melvin Vopson [Audio podcast episode]. In Life Solved. University of Portsmouth. https://podfollow.com/uoplifesolved/episode/d90ea2e0966b17e7a93eb2b8d550c42fa5e31a1e/view 273 Van der Veken, J. (1999). In search of an integrated view on the whole of reality: Introducing the worldview project. In D. Aerts, H. Van Belle, & J. Van der Veken (Eds.), World views and the problem of synthesis: The Yellow Book of âEinstein Meets Magritteâ (pp. 1â10). Van Gulick, R. (2022). Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/consciousness/ Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press. (Original work published 1991) Vistarini, T. (2019). The emergence of spacetime in string theory. Routledge. Volckmann, R. (2007). Transdisciplinarity: Basarab Nicolescu talks with Russ Volckmann. Integral Review, 4, 73â90. Vopson, M. M. (2019). The massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle. AIP Advances, 9(9). Vopson, M. M. (2021). Estimation of the information contained in the visible matter of the universe. AIP Advances, 11(10). Vopson, M. M. (2022). Experimental protocol for testing the massâenergyâinformation equivalence principle. AIP Advances, 12(3). Vopson, M. M. (2023a). Reality reloaded: The scientific case for a simulated universe. IPI Publishing. Vopson, M. M. (2023b). The second law of infodynamics and its implications for the simulated universe hypothesis. AIP Advances, 13(10). Waddell, N. (Trans.). (1999). Wild ivy: The spiritual autobiography of Zen master Hakuin. Shambhala. 274 Walshe, M. O. (Trans.). (2007). KaccÄyanagotta sutta: KaccÄyana [On right view]. Access to Insight. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html Walker, J. (2021). The infinite life sutra: The way of Buddha mindfulness. Public Domain Pure Land Sutra Translations. https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/buddhism/Infinite_Life_Sutra-Walker.pdf Wallerstein, I. (1999). The structures of knowledge, or how many ways may we know? In D. Aerts, H. Van Belle, & J. Van der Veken (Eds.), World views and the problem of synthesis (pp. 71â77). Springer. War. (2021, October 17). In The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/138514 Weed, L. E. (2002). Kant's noumenon and sunyata. Asian Philosophy, 12(2), 77â95. Wei, T. (1973). Introduction. In Hsuan-Tsang, Châeng Wei-shi Lun: The doctrine of mere-consciousness (T. Wei, Trans.). The Châeng Wei-shih Lun Publication Committee. (Original work published 659) Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25â41). University of Toronto Press. Weislogel, E. (2006). Whatâreallyâis the âscience and religion dialogueâ all about. Global Spiral. https://metanexus.net/what-really-science-and-religion-dialogue-all-about/ Wheeler, J. A. (2018). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In W. H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information (pp. 3â28). CRC Press. (Original work published 1990) 275 Wiebe, S., Yallop, J. J. G., Fels, L., Snowber, C., Richardson, P., Honein, N., ... & Leggo, C. (2016). Poetic inquiry of and on play. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de lâéducation, 39(3), 1â26. Williams, P. (2009). Mahayana Buddhism: The doctrinal foundations. Routledge. Wilson, A., & Robinson, N. M. (2002). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In M. Hersen & W. Sledge (Eds.), Encyclopedia of psychotherapy. Elsevier Science. Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock Publications. https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/D.-Winnicott/4716123 Wong, S., & Logan, H. (2016). Play in early childhood education: An historical perspective. In T. Brabazon (Ed.), Play: A theory of learning and change (pp. 7â26). Springer. Yasri, P., Arthur, S., Smith, M. U., & Mancy, R. (2013). Relating science and religion: An ontology of taxonomies and development of a research tool for identifying individual views. Science & Education, 22, 2679â2707. Yasri, P., & Mancy, R. (2014). Understanding student approaches to learning evolution in the context of their perceptions of the relationship between science and religion. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 24â45. Yuan, Z. (2010). Tao Te Ching: Original text and a modern interpretation. Authorhouse. Zagorin, P. (2003). How the idea of religious toleration came to the West. Princeton University Press. æº«éæ¯. (2013). æèª¦èå: æ¥å¸¸æè­èç¦ªä¿®çéç [Recitation of the Sacred Name: Between Everyday Consciousness and Meditative Practice.]. æ°ä¸ç´å®æç 究, 12(2), 49â79. èæ©å®®. (2019). èæ©å®®ç·£èµ· [The origin of Sheng-En Temple]. http://www.shengengong.org.tw/about.aspx
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Curriculum Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Phelan, Anne M.
Understanding curriculum as play : transdisciplinarity, spirituality, and consciousness
Text