Elementary Particles (dharma)

[Son]

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

[Jyoti]

All forms are composed of particles. That is, everything is made of particles, or in other words, particulates of the elemental qualities.

All particles of matter is none other than energy (E=MC^2), energy is expressed as heat, heat is the source of life (e.g. the sun, the heat within living beings), heat and life is the form of consciousness (cf. Doctrine of mere consciousness) .

Jyoti

[Son]

All forms are composed of particles. That is, everything is made of particles, or in other words, particulates of the elemental qualities.

All particles of matter is none other than energy (E=MC^2), energy is expressed as heat, heat is the source of life (e.g. the sun, the heat within living beings), heat and life is the form of consciousness (cf. Doctrine of mere consciousness) .

Jyoti

Particles of energy, yes. Energy of particles, yes.
Nice.

[DarwidHalim]

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:

[Son]

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.

I've never thought this way. Energy is a very general word. Earth is solidity, wind is motion--these are not the same qualities.

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.

Yes, the nature of forms is emptiness. And yes, forms are also impermanent. This is the truth that Buddha taught, but he also taught that form is composed of the elemental qualities, and it is still true. Although he tells us, "earth is not me, I am not earth, earth is not myself. Wind is not me, I am not wind, wind is not myself," etc.

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.

Yes, this is true and dependent origination is dharma. On the other hand, the element teachings are subject to dependent origination. Namarupa arises conditioned from consciousness. Here, form is composed of the four great elements, the derived element, and complimented by the consciousness element. They do exist.

If we think in terms of specifity, you will end up with 2 distinct feature - distinct cause and distinct effect.

That would be misunderstanding dependent origination...

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

The Buddha taught that contemplating the elements in terms of not-self (anatta) is a viable means for nibbana... ... ...

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.

They're not mysterious elements. The Buddha described them precisely and perfectly. Their dharma is well established through traditional Buddhism.

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.

Not true... Certainly not in Theravada, Thai, or Tibetan tradition. Most Buddhists would disagree with you.

Thank you for your opinion.

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[Son]

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.

Perhaps you should read more suttas, sutras, writings on elements by venerable monks, and abhidharma texts. Because it is not my opinion that Buddhism "promotes elements." If you want to overlook specific teachings throughout Buddhist tradition, that is your opinion, but that does not change the fact that all these teachings are there and have always been there.
The six senses are just as defect as the four great elements, both are properties of our aggregates.

Form is composed of 4 great elements???? This will be a new age of chemistry.

... You should study the textual sources in Buddhism, to help you understand. Do you think the Buddha taught about the elements to disagree with his central teaching of dependent origination...? No.

[DarwidHalim]

... You should study the textual sources in Buddhism, to help you understand. Do you think the Buddha taught about the elements to disagree with his central teaching of dependent origination...? No.

So do you think that Buddha teach dependent origination as the interaction of 5 elements?

[viniketa]

... You should study the textual sources in Buddhism, to help you understand. Do you think the Buddha taught about the elements to disagree with his central teaching of dependent origination...? No.

So do you think that Buddha teach dependent origination as the interaction of 5 elements?

Son is saying, it seems, that Buddha's teaching of the great elements would not contradict his teaching of dependent-origination (co-arising).

There are many problems that arise from the translation of rūpa as 'form'. It might be better translated as 'appearance' (likeness , image , reflection). Thus, rūpa cannot be simply equated with the great elements, as is clear in the Rupa Sutta:

At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

However, the Buddha did teach that the 'physical body' is made up of the 'great elements', as in the Assutavā Sutta:

“Monks, the ordinary person, [1] unlearned in spiritual knowledge, [2] might grow weary of, might become detached from, might become released from this physical body made up of the four great elements. What is the reason for this? Because, monks, apparent are the increase and the decrease, the taking up and the putting down, [3] of this physical body made up of the four great elements. For that reason, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, might grow weary, might become detached, might become released.

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’, [4] the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released. What is the reason for this? Because for a long time, monks, that ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’ of the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, has been clung to, has been cherished, has been fondled: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’. Because of that, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released.

“Better, monks, to let the ordinary person, in all ways unlearned in spiritual knowledge, proceed from the assumption that the self is this physical body made up of the four great elements, rather than mind. [5] What is the reason for this? This physical body, Monks, comprising the four great elements, is seen standing for one rainy season, standing for two rainy seasons,... for three... four... five... ten... twenty... thirty... forty... fifty... standing for a hundred or more rainy seasons.

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’, that, by night and by day, as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases. [6] Just as, monks, a monkey in the mountain-side forests, moving itself, [7] grasps a branch, then releasing that, grasps another, then releasing that, grasps another; even so, indeed, monks, that which is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’: that, by night and by day, as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html

Along with HH 14th Dali Lama, as he explains in The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, I think Buddha's teachings are so fundamental that they do not change along with changes in 'scientific' views of the universe. So, when science teaches that there are many 'elements' made up of many 'atoms' that are quantitatively different from earlier Buddhist teachings, this does not change what Buddha taught. Rather, it confirms the strength of what Buddha taught that Buddhist thinkers came up with very similar ideas long before Western ideas of 'science' came about.

Hawkings, BTW, is one of the few hold-outs on the idea that time and space are 'opposite faces of the same coin', i.e., different 'appearance' of the same thing. Indeed, space/time and energy are the 'foundational stuff' of the universe. This does not contradict the 'qualitative' aspects of the 'appearance' of the great elements:

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.

[Son]

Son is saying, it seems, that Buddha's teaching of the great elements would not contradict his teaching of dependent-origination (co-arising).

There are many problems that arise from the translation of rūpa as 'form'. It might be better translated as 'appearance' (likeness , image , reflection). Thus, rūpa cannot be simply equated with the great elements, as is clear in the Rupa Sutta:

At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable...

However, the Buddha did teach that the 'physical body' is made up of the 'great elements', as in the Assutavā Sutta:

“Monks, the ordinary person, [1] unlearned in spiritual knowledge, [2] might grow weary of, might become detached from, might become released from this physical body made up of the four great elements. What is the reason for this? Because, monks, apparent are the increase and the decrease, the taking up and the putting down, [3] of this physical body made up of the four great elements. For that reason, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, might grow weary, might become detached, might become released.

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’, [4] the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released. What is the reason for this? Because for a long time, monks, that ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’ of the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, has been clung to, has been cherished, has been fondled: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’. Because of that, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released.

“Better, monks, to let the ordinary person, in all ways unlearned in spiritual knowledge, proceed from the assumption that the self is this physical body made up of the four great elements, rather than mind. [5] What is the reason for this? This physical body, Monks, comprising the four great elements, is seen standing for one rainy season, standing for two rainy seasons,... for three... four... five... ten... twenty... thirty... forty... fifty... standing for a hundred or more rainy seasons.

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’, that, by night and by day, as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases. [6] Just as, monks, a monkey in the mountain-side forests, moving itself, [7] grasps a branch, then releasing that, grasps another, then releasing that, grasps another; even so, indeed, monks, that which is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’: that, by night and by day, as other, indeed, arises, as other ceases.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html

Along with HH 14th Dali Lama, as he explains in The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, I think Buddha's teachings are so fundamental that they do not change along with changes in 'scientific' views of the universe. So, when science teaches that there are many 'elements' made up of many 'atoms' that are quantitatively different from earlier Buddhist teachings, this does not change what Buddha taught. Rather, it confirms the strength of what Buddha taught that Buddhist thinkers came up with very similar ideas long before Western ideas of 'science' came about.

Hawkings, BTW, is one of the few hold-outs on the idea that time and space are 'opposite faces of the same coin', i.e., different 'appearance' of the same thing. Indeed, space/time and energy are the 'foundational stuff' of the universe. This does not contradict the 'qualitative' aspects of the 'appearance' of the great elements:

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.

... ... ... ... ...



Thank you for putting my thoughts into literate phraseology.

Son of Dhamma

[viniketa]

Thank you for putting my thoughts into literate phraseology.

You are most welcome! Thank you for bringing us these very interesting thoughts!

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[catmoon]

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.

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[Son]

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.

Gross light (which consists of photonic particles/waves), is similar to subtle light or any light, ergo luminosity. The quality of consciousness/awareness is described as "luminous." The devas, which have subtler, purer forms than ours, actually glow due to the purity of their consciousness (their name means, "beings of light"). Devas are brighter the higher the realm the reside in. Furthermore, the mentally refined rupa-devas, or brahmas, are so pure that they emit luminosity all around them. The sixth element, consciousness, is indeed the quality of "light."

What's more, the sixth state of gross matter--dark--is described by the derived space element.

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[Jyoti]

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

The two truths are not constructed of concepts, it is just that one has only conventional existent (which is mere appearance, but with certainty in the continuity of dependent origination, both of these facts are to be accepted as absolute and simultaneously, not just an idea only), the other has true existence (the two aspects of consciousness or the subject and object of perceptions, mental functions, thusness, etc) .

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.

Time is relative to the process between the perfuming of the seeds, and the manifestation of the seeds as relative phenomena (dharma). In the absence of the relative phenomena, would imply also the absence of the 7 consciousnesses together with the aggregates, such as in the state of formless and/or cessation meditation, in such a formless state, the form of time which is dependence on space and objects (their movement and/or changes) will be absence, so the sense of past, present and future will be absence, only the perception of the continuity of consciousness remains. However, with the presence of conventional truth, such as after awaken from a formless meditation, time exists conventionally relative to the phenomena being perceived.

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.

The four elements are terms to describe the deeper meaning of phenomena, but it is still within the realm of mere appearance, mere appearance has no real existence, it only contain the conventional truth of dependent origination. However, as mentioned, the consciousness belongs to the realm of ultimate reality, together with the two aspects of consciousness or the subject and object of perceptions, mental functions, thusness, etc. it cannot be rendered as non-existence, cf. Doctrine of Mere Consciousness.

Jyoti

[DarwidHalim]

However, as mentioned, the consciousness belongs to the realm of ultimate reality

OK, so you don't see any mistake with the concept of consciousness isn't it?

We are talking consciousness in the conventional realm, and it is also within the same platform, this consciousness can be proven as wrong.

If there is a teaching that can show you consciousness is a mistaken concept, will you believe so and can you drop off this concept?

[viniketa]

What makes me wonder is that light was not incuded in the old lists.

Well, light is ābhā-dhātu rather than ābhā-bhūta... Perhaps not considered 'permeating' as such, and therefore not a bhūta, more 'surrounding'. Just a guess...

Another set of model that can trap us to think reality is really just light.

Yes, we are all holograms...

Dark light?

Well, there is 'Dark energy'. English is such a fun language; there is also 'Light dark matter': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_dark_matter

[DarwidHalim]

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.