Elementary Particles (dharma)

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:01 pm

All forms are composed of particles. That is, everything is made of particles, or in other words, particulates of the elemental qualities. Here, I am first going to describe elementary particles in the fundamental sense.

We all know of the four great elements, as well as their derived element of space. Number six, the consciousness element, is taught to be superior to the others. But I'm regarding the five elements presently.

Earth, solidity; it is extended and the other elements rest in it.
Water, fluidity; it is cohesive and the other elements are held together by it.
Fire, heat; it is consumptive and the other elements are preserved by it.
Wind, motion; it is expansive or distending and the other elements are propped up, or support by it.

Space, vacuity; it is limiting or binding, and the other elements are delimited (established limits) in it.

Each of the elements is interdependent upon the others. For example, earth is held together by water, preserved by heat, supported by wind and delimited in space. Likewise in all cases. Moreover, space delimits wind, which causes friction that disperses as heat, which in turn produces water and this condenses into all that is earth. Form is built in this elementary way, both gross and subtle.

In quantum mechanics, gross particles also behave according to the elementary qualities. From in the atom, protons and neutrons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and finally what is now called "dark matter." But this is not to elaborate on quantum mechanics. On the other hand, the elementary particle physics also applies to subtle composition as well, and furthermore fundamental or refined form (as in the rupaloka sphere). The elementary particles themselves, as they exist fundamentally, are what I wish to elaborate herein.

I myself have described particles through this distinctive medium. Thereby:
Hard particles that stabilize,
Soft particles that allow fluctuation,
Hot particles that disperse,
Fast particles that distend, and finally
Vacuous particles that "constrain..." (perhaps to bind, or to limit)

I came upon this specific medium after attempting to explain form, particles, and matter to my 5-year-old niece. Space particles are by far the most difficult and puzzling to picture, while the others come to me rather naturally. However, this does correspond to scientific responses regarding dark matter/energy. My disposition is that, hopefully, this will engender some nice discussion, reveal wisdom, support insight, and just be really interesting for everyone who likes learning.

Thanks,
Son

User avatar
Jyoti
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Jyoti » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:42 am


User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:48 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:15 am

You are searching for specific particles, isn't it?

Stephen hawking said universe can be said just as space, energy, and time.

These 3 things seems cover all possibility we have in this universe.

Earth, water, fire, wind can be thought as just energy.

Once they are thought as energy, your ability to divide them is already collapse. Because energy can transform to anything you can even never imagine.

Earth - energy - wind.

So earth is just wind. Wind is just earth.

The specificity between earth and wind just collapse, and you end up with big question here

What is the specific form that can be said as fundamental elements?
You then have to accept the answer that there is no such specific element, because everything can change without maintaining their identity or specificity.

You just cannot have that specificity.

And you end up with just dependent origination. In dependent origination, although it is explained as cause and effect, but actually it is beyond cause and effect. Why?

Because the cause is precisely the effect. The effect is precisely the cause.

If we think in terms of specifity, you will end up with 2 distinct feature - distinct cause and distinct effect. And to see in this way, you can start to see the mistake already.

You again end up with just 1 choice - you should accept the reality with no specific form, no distinct form.

When you think in this way, you can understand that this world can turn upside down is because the power of this lacking of distinct feature. Because we don't have this distinct feature, cause is effect, effect is cause, and dependent origination can then roll on, and the rolling of dependent origination is what I and you experience right now.

If you really can come to a strong conviction that there is nothing specific, you just can't think that this world is formed by certain mysterious substance or several mysterious elements.

There is really no idea about elemtary particle anymore, because you can see that it is completely a defect idea.

Really a defect idea and poor concept.

How defect is the idea of particle and wave can be seen here:


I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:30 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:56 am

Okay, if you think Buddhism promotes the idea of elements, whether in Theravada, Thai, or Tibetan Buddhism.

Wind is motion.
Earth is solidity.

When the solidity move, solidity is just motion, motion is just solidity.

Making a concept which is defect by itself, and defect right from the start.

It looks solid with the first glance, but with the second glance, all the mistakes simply come out vividly.

But, I respect your particle view in Buddhism, and I don't share the same opinion with you that Buddhism promote element or particle, not even as a concept, not to mention as reality.

Form is composed of 4 great elements???? This will be a new age of chemistry.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:01 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:30 am

I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby viniketa » Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:53 am

. ~

User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:01 am


User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby viniketa » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:23 am

. ~

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:26 am

We need to differentiate between wrong concept, but is useful, and
Correct concept, but is useful.

I know this universe can be seen as 5 groups. Because using this 5 groups as a metaphor, it can explain many things, particularly in training inner energy.

There is a discussion, which I can't remember where it is. In that discussion, it is said that people believe what scientist have founded, but ironically scientist doesn't believe what they have found.

Let's discuss time.

Time is a very useful concept. Almost no one can see that the concept of time is actually wrong when you see that from certain angle.

If we know, that whatever concept you are holding right know is essentially contains mistake, you will not hold it as a representative of reality. Because the concept that you bring to describe reality contain a hidden mistake.

When you can see your concept has hidden mistake, you lost your grip into it. You may hold it because may be useful, but if just because it is useful, you then assert that reality must be like this, it must be like this, it must contain this and that, it must consist this and that, then you have entered a wrong zone already - because at that instant you have forgotten the hidden mistake in your concept.

If a concept is true and can represent reality, that concept cannot be attacked from various angle. If even from 1 angle out of 1 billions angle, it can be attacked as false, you should know straight away that this concept cannot be reality and cannot be hold as such.

It can be used, but cannot be hold.

If you notice the framework of how Buddhist scholars attack the stand of concepts, he will welcome your concept as such and such. But he will point to you one by one, this is the mistake, this is the contradiction. If you see from this angle, this cannot be right.

By doing that, some very erroneous concepts can be throw out completely. But some concepts, although it contains mistake, it can be accepted as a valid conventional usage. However, we should always aware reality doesn't have like what you describe, because your concept contains always contain mistake.

It is very easy actually to see whether someone just use that concept or someone hold that as true. When someone challenge your concept, if you straight away also know this concept indeed contain mistakes, you will feel comfort.

But, if you straight away have a rejection in your heart, because you see what concepts is absolutely perfect, you will always and always end up with the strong believe that yes, reality really work exactly like what is described by this concept. Reality really consists of what is mentioned by this or that.

Those people are actually in a very dangerous position, because the conventional truth that they hold somehow really bring them to hold something at extreme tightness.

If you see something as true, you will hold it dearly. There is no way you can not hold it.

This a big issue in other Buddhist schools, they see something as true, by at the same time you try not to hold it.
This is like you are seeing she is your enemy, but at the same time you are seeing he is your friend.
Absolutely no way, to let go or to let it be.

When you see something as true, that instant that true will magnetize you and there is no way you can detach. You are turn on the magnet as asking the magnet not to hold the still. Impossible.

Only at the point that you can see your concept that you are usin is actually mistaken regardless how useful there are, at that point you have the ability to detach.

Reality can be explained well using this 5 elements + consciousness.
But if you believe this is then true, then you are actually digging your own grave for suffering.

Unless you can see that fundamentally it has a mistake to see in that way, you are not safe to even think reality is like that.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby catmoon » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:08 am

It is interesting that earth ,water, air and fire are examples of a solid, a liquid, a gas and a plasma, the four known states of matter today.

It is a classifaction of things along different lines from what we think of as elements. Its not like you can take three particles of earth, add nine particles of fire and get iron.

What makes me wonder is that light was not incuded in the old lists.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:14 am

Oh yes, you are right. I think these 5 model are already complete. But actually they miss light.

I just remember. But in some tantric practice, these 5 model are viewed as light.

So, wind is light with certain colour, earth with certain colour, etc.

If we are not aware, then it really can give an impression, everything is the play of light.

Another set of model that can trap us to think reality is really just light.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Son
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Son » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:20 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:26 am

Now, you have help me to see another interesting point. - darkness.

If everything is light, how come there is darkness?

Dark light?

I never see a concept free from contradiction.

Useful for certain practices, but also dangerous to jail us with this contradicting stuff.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Jyoti
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby Jyoti » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:29 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:44 am

Last edited by DarwidHalim on Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
viniketa
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby viniketa » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:45 am

. ~

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Elementary Particles (dharma)

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:50 am

Wow, they even can propose dark light concept.

When the darkness is seen as the absence of light, now darkness is seen as the manifestation of light with dark color.

Amazing.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!


Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests