Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

According to the Madhyamaka long is long, because there is the short. The size of big or small is always relative to the size of another object. According to the String theory there comes a limit to how small we can get, there seems to be an absolute size which is called Planck length. It also seems to be an end to the relativity of size and length. The laws of physics become different in very small sizes. And thus there is absolute size.

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255×10−35 m. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units, developed by physicist Max Planck. The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant. It is the smallest distance about which current experimentally corroborated models of physics can make meaningful statements."
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Brian Greene has managed to make the String theory understandable in his The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory .

In the Buddhist relativity view the world is empty of absolute existence, and thus we get things like the chapter Five in Vimalakirt nirdesa sutra: Vimalakīrti summons from another distant Buddha-field 32,000 vast "lion thrones" (siṃhāsana) for Mañjuśrī and his company, without expanding his small house. Similar events take place in the Sravakayana sutras, for example in the Sarvastivada canon, Buddha visits the other three continents on three consecutive days by taking just one step in their direction. Then we have the Milarepa and the Yakhorn story, where Milarepa doesn't get smaller but he nevertheless gets inside a small yakhorn. And the whole Avatamsaka sutra view, where worlds and realms are inside the motes of dust.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4382
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

“In the higher realm of true Suchness
There is neither "self" nor "other":
When direct identification is sought,
We can only say, "Not two".

In being "not two" all is the same,
All that is is comprehended in it;
The wise in the ten quarters,
They all enter into this Absolute Reason.

This Absolute Reason is beyond time and space,
For it one instant is ten thousand years;
Whether we see it or not,
It is manifest everywhere in all the ten quarters.

Infinitely small things are as large as large things can be,
For here no external conditions obtain;
Infinitely large things are as small as small things can be,
For objective limits are here of no consideration.”

Excerpt from:
ON BELIEVING IN MIND (J: SHINJIN-NO-MEI)
by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an (J: Sosan),
Third Zen Patriarch
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Contact:

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Tao »

Just a minor correction:

Planck value was posited by Planck looooong ago before string theory.

Planck value is the core of the whole quantum mecanics since their first day. Quantum mecanics was born a century ago thanks to it.

It also applies to string theory of course, but string theory hasent been proved, and Planck value has been.

But this doesnt change your main point.

Quantum mecanics says there's a limit in how little energy can be, so energy comes in "small packs".

So time and space does... Time is also not continuous
Dgj
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Dgj »

Sorry, but zero Buddhist schools particle physics hold up to any modern theories. Some with strong religious bias will explain them in ways that sound like they are in accord, but this is always only on a superficial level and ultimately mere coincidence. No serious physicist today will say that Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist philosopher had exactly the correct model of the quantum world.

Many will argue that the way they see it so and so ancient thinker, or philosophy, or religion, or whatever is the same as modern physics. They'll even bring up some physicist either modern or from like 1930 who agrees with them. To that I reply (in bold because it is probably the strongest argument against the "ancient scientist(s) had already figured out modern physics" idea, and so the main thing that should be noticed in this thread):

If nothing else, modern physics is inextricably bound with mathematics that were entirely unknown to ancient thinkers. So from that point alone it is impossible that any of them could have been truly in sync, and so all of them are invalidated by modern physics. Or at the very least, all of them fail to sync up with modern physics, including string theory.

One of his most fundamental propositions and critical to his position - that everything, without exception, even the tiniest particles, is dependently originated - went out the window a long time ago when it was shown that things, on the smallest scale, can appear literally for no reason, and out of nothing whatsoever (Luckily this poses no problem for traditional Buddhism, which all later Buddhism is based on. This is because the Buddha of the suttas never went into any great detail on sub atomic particles or even the workings of the atomic world. This type of teaching and further elaboration is found strictly in the Abhidhamma/Abhidharmas of each school and their respective commentaries. So, in the suttas, it is up to interpretation and cannot be invalidated because it is too vague to do so firmly.).

That said, since there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to compare modern quantum physics (nor string theory) to ancient thinkers, might we see Nagarjuna's points strictly from a macro perspective?

If so, and if we skip the "all is mind" subjective idealist interpretation and the "all is nothing" anti realist interpretation (because they are both riddled with self contradictions and other incoherencies) and see his teaching as Chandrakirti and Jay Garfield did/do, then it is a perfectly reasonable position and nothing short of a miracle could invalidate it.

In short: Nothing that is ultimate exists. Anything that is examined is always composite. So there's no ultimate entity known as "table", as when we break it down we find wood, nails, glue, varnish, etc. but no "table".

Conventionally we have "tables", but not ultimately. This goes for everything.

So, the only way to invalidate such a common sense position would be for an entity that is irreducible to suddenly appear, for example, like one called "table". This is highly improbable, maybe even impossible.

On the macro scale, everything is dependent on something else, and no such thing as anything that is ultimate exists. On the micro scale, though:
The law of nature itself tell us that not only could the universe have popped into existence without any assistance, like a proton, and have required nothing in terms of energy, but it is also possible that nothing caused the Big Bang. Nothing.
-Stephen Hawking
So, let's just drop the whole trying to equate Buddhism with serious physics thing. Ditto for all ancient "science" that attempted to present a theory of the atomic or sub atomic world. There are plenty of similarities, sometimes even striking ones, but not one single ancient "science" of particle physics actually holds up to any accepted modern theory beyond a few coincidental, superficial similarities.

But, again, Nagarjuna's position holds on the macro scale, and that's all we consciously interact with on a daily basis anyway and what causes our suffering is bound up with the macro world. Unless you're a theoretical physicist that is lol!
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by FiveSkandhas »

"Religion is poertry-plus, not science-minus.'
-Stendahl

Comparing religion and science is never a good idea IMHO. Apples and oranges.

To Hungry Ghosts, what we perceive as a river of water they see as a flow of molten lava. Buddhist cosmology is intimately related to one's perceptions and to the task of liberation; it is not meant to be an objective statement on the absolute physical nature of reality, as with physics.

And one more thing: since there is no hard evidence yet to back up sting theory it is still technically in the realm of conjecture. Thus, being unproven itself, it can neither prove nor disprove anything else (yet).
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6396
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by kirtu »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:48 am And one more thing: since there is no hard evidence yet to back up sting theory it is still technically in the realm of conjecture. Thus, being unproven itself, it can neither prove nor disprove anything else (yet).
:rolling:
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3242
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Dan74 »

Why take the Dharma as anything other than a guide to liberation?

Then we actually use it as intended and not tie ourselves in unnecessary knots over these apparent contradictions.
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1282
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aryjna »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the Madhyamaka long is long, because there is the short. The size of big or small is always relative to the size of another object.
Is that what got out of it? This is not the Madhyamaka, it is a fact of common sense.
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the String theory there comes a limit to how small we can get, there seems to be an absolute size which is called Planck length.
Even if this theory is at some time proven to be the case, it does not change the fact that short and long are relative, in our experience, but also in relation to the "Planck length".
Bristollad
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Bristollad »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am It is the smallest distance about which current experimentally corroborated models of physics can make meaningful statements.
In other words, it's not the smallest possible unit, merely the currently smallest it's possible to corroborate. Conceptually, we can easily think that one Planck length is longer than half a Planck length and so on.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Bristollad wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:25 am
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am It is the smallest distance about which current experimentally corroborated models of physics can make meaningful statements.
In other words, it's not the smallest possible unit, merely the currently smallest it's possible to corroborate. Conceptually, we can easily think that one Planck length is longer than half a Planck length and so on.
What is "corroborate" in this case? It is true that Max Planck found out long before the String theory that when we see an object it is by means of photons that are reflected or emitted from the object, but when the object gets smaller than photons, what do we then see? How could we "see" anything at that scale, that is independent of our seeing? Because photons affect small bodies like particles, we cannot see anything that is "objectively" there.

String theory is interesting, highly recommend devoting some time to it.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:30 am
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the Madhyamaka long is long, because there is the short. The size of big or small is always relative to the size of another object.
Is that what got out of it? This is not the Madhyamaka, it is a fact of common sense.
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the String theory there comes a limit to how small we can get, there seems to be an absolute size which is called Planck length.
Even if this theory is at some time proven to be the case, it does not change the fact that short and long are relative, in our experience, but also in relation to the "Planck length".
The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum, -as the Indian Madhyamikas reasoned when they were 'refuting' the Buddhist atomists. Therefore, in this respect the Madhyamaka has been proven wrong long ago.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1282
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aryjna »

Aemilius wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:11 am
Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:30 am
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the Madhyamaka long is long, because there is the short. The size of big or small is always relative to the size of another object.
Is that what got out of it? This is not the Madhyamaka, it is a fact of common sense.
Aemilius wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:46 am According to the String theory there comes a limit to how small we can get, there seems to be an absolute size which is called Planck length.
Even if this theory is at some time proven to be the case, it does not change the fact that short and long are relative, in our experience, but also in relation to the "Planck length".
The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum, -as the Indian Madhyamikas reasoned when they were 'refuting' the Buddhist atomists. Therefore, in this respect the Madhyamaka has been proven wrong long ago.
This is leading nowhere, as long as you make claims without any evidence. First, demonstrate that this is what Madhyamaka says/is based on. Second, demonstrate how atoms have been established.
Bristollad
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Bristollad »

Aemilius wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:11 am The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum,
Why? What you posted did not say there was nothing smaller than a Planck length, only that something smaller cannot yet be corroborated by science. When science develops further, I’m sure that boundary will shift, as have many others. While the search for the building blocks of the universe is interesting, I think it is also a fool’s errand to think we will ever find the fundamental ones because imho there are none.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:24 am
Aemilius wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:11 am
Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:30 am
Is that what got out of it? This is not the Madhyamaka, it is a fact of common sense.


Even if this theory is at some time proven to be the case, it does not change the fact that short and long are relative, in our experience, but also in relation to the "Planck length".
The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum, -as the Indian Madhyamikas reasoned when they were 'refuting' the Buddhist atomists. Therefore, in this respect the Madhyamaka has been proven wrong long ago.
This is leading nowhere, as long as you make claims without any evidence. First, demonstrate that this is what Madhyamaka says/is based on. Second, demonstrate how atoms have been established.
The Buddhist non-atomists include Vasubandu, -who admittedly is not generally held to be a Madhyamika, but his views on atoms are available in English translation, in Twenty Verses with Commentary (found in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, by Stephen Anacker). Vasubandhu says that an atom has six sides: up, down, left, right, front and back, otherwise it could not be a building block of material things, and therefore it has six sides and is divisible into six parts, (that are again divisible into six parts and so on..)

Thrangu Rimpoche has presented this same reasoning against the existence of atoms in early 1990's in a public teaching. I can't remember in what textual context Thrangu Rimpoche presented this reasoning, but I have understood it to be a common Indian and Tibetan buddhist way of reasoning. I can't remember if Nagarjuna and his commentators mention atoms, but they mention big and small, or long and short.

The atoms are mentioned atleast in the Lalitavistara sutra and Avatamsaka sutra. The same list of different measures of length, that ends in the length of atoms, (as is in the Lalitavistara) is also found in Abhidharma literature.
Last edited by Aemilius on Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Bristollad wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:48 pm
Aemilius wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:11 am The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum,
Why? What you posted did not say there was nothing smaller than a Planck length, only that something smaller cannot yet be corroborated by science. When science develops further, I’m sure that boundary will shift, as have many others. While the search for the building blocks of the universe is interesting, I think it is also a fool’s errand to think we will ever find the fundamental ones because imho there are none.
There are experimental grounds for the existence of these building blocks, they are not merely a flight of fancy. This is a real theory with experimental backing. It has a power of explaining the universe in a convincing and elegant manner. Without this capacity the String theory would not have existed for several decades now.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1282
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aryjna »

Aemilius wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:58 pm
Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:24 am
Aemilius wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:11 am

The point is that you cannot go on breaking things in to smaller things ad infinitum, -as the Indian Madhyamikas reasoned when they were 'refuting' the Buddhist atomists. Therefore, in this respect the Madhyamaka has been proven wrong long ago.
This is leading nowhere, as long as you make claims without any evidence. First, demonstrate that this is what Madhyamaka says/is based on. Second, demonstrate how atoms have been established.
The Buddhist non-atomists include Vasubandu, -who admittedly is not generally held to be a Madhyamika, but his views on atoms are available in English translation, in Twenty Verses with Commentary (found in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, by Stephen Anacker). Vasubandhu says that an atom has six sides: up, down, left, right, front and back, otherwise it could not be a building block of material things, and therefore it has six sides and is divisible into six parts, (that are again divisible into six parts and so on..)
These are not really relevant to Madhyamaka, though.

In the end, atoms or no atoms, it makes absolutely no difference. Arriving at some scientifically relatively accurate view of matter etc. is the opposite of the point of Madhyamaka.

Edit:
Scientific discoveries related to atoms are as relevant as the scientific fact that humans exist. The existence of human beings is an absolute certainty scientifically, yet still a human is only a concept, as demonstrated by Madhamaka, and other schools. Does the scientific fact that humans exist invalidate Madhyamaka? The "existence" of atoms theorized by Planck is as relevant to the discussion as the proof of the existence of humans or walls. It simply misses the point completely.

The planck theory is also equally irrelevant to Vasubandhu's works.
GrapeLover
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by GrapeLover »

Aryjna wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:19 pm
Aemilius wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:58 pm
Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:24 am
This is leading nowhere, as long as you make claims without any evidence. First, demonstrate that this is what Madhyamaka says/is based on. Second, demonstrate how atoms have been established.
The Buddhist non-atomists include Vasubandu, -who admittedly is not generally held to be a Madhyamika, but his views on atoms are available in English translation, in Twenty Verses with Commentary (found in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, by Stephen Anacker). Vasubandhu says that an atom has six sides: up, down, left, right, front and back, otherwise it could not be a building block of material things, and therefore it has six sides and is divisible into six parts, (that are again divisible into six parts and so on..)
These are not really relevant to Madhyamaka, though.

In the end, atoms or no atoms, it makes absolutely no difference. Arriving at some scientifically relatively accurate view of matter etc. is the opposite of the point of Madhyamaka.
It was relevant to Madhyamaka at the time because the argument (from eg a Sautrantika perspective) was that atoms are ultimately existent and that only groupings of atoms and the imputations placed upon them are relative. So it was somewhat a debate over the nature of the two truths rather than being purely material. Nāgārjuna therefore spent some time refuting atoms as ultimate existents. Searching this document for “atom” gives some idea of it: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29362/1/10731457.pdf

But Nagarjuna’s general philosophical argument would still hold against any scientifically-discovered particle (either it is partless and therefore couldn’t form an object with parts or it has parts and therefore can’t be ultimate). But I think it’s a less relevant problem unless people are trying to hold such a particle as ultimately existent.
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1282
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aryjna »

GrapeLover wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:02 pm
Aryjna wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:19 pm
Aemilius wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:58 pm

The Buddhist non-atomists include Vasubandu, -who admittedly is not generally held to be a Madhyamika, but his views on atoms are available in English translation, in Twenty Verses with Commentary (found in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, by Stephen Anacker). Vasubandhu says that an atom has six sides: up, down, left, right, front and back, otherwise it could not be a building block of material things, and therefore it has six sides and is divisible into six parts, (that are again divisible into six parts and so on..)
These are not really relevant to Madhyamaka, though.

In the end, atoms or no atoms, it makes absolutely no difference. Arriving at some scientifically relatively accurate view of matter etc. is the opposite of the point of Madhyamaka.
It was relevant to Madhyamaka at the time because the argument (from eg a Sautrantika perspective) was that atoms are ultimately existent and that only groupings of atoms and the imputations placed upon them are relative. So it was somewhat a debate over the nature of the two truths rather than being purely material. Nāgārjuna therefore spent some time refuting atoms as ultimate existents. Searching this document for “atom” gives some idea of it: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29362/1/10731457.pdf

But Nagarjuna’s general philosophical argument would still hold against any scientifically-discovered particle (either it is partless and therefore couldn’t form an object with parts or it has parts and therefore can’t be ultimate). But I think it’s a less relevant problem unless people are trying to hold such a particle as ultimately existent.
Yes, I guess it is relevant to the conversation with someone who has become an "atoms-eternalist", though I doubt this is a common viewpoint these days.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Does the String theory invalidate the Madhyamaka?

Post by Aemilius »

Aryjna wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:19 pm
Aemilius wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:58 pm
Aryjna wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:24 am
This is leading nowhere, as long as you make claims without any evidence. First, demonstrate that this is what Madhyamaka says/is based on. Second, demonstrate how atoms have been established.
The Buddhist non-atomists include Vasubandu, -who admittedly is not generally held to be a Madhyamika, but his views on atoms are available in English translation, in Twenty Verses with Commentary (found in Seven Works of Vasubandhu, by Stephen Anacker). Vasubandhu says that an atom has six sides: up, down, left, right, front and back, otherwise it could not be a building block of material things, and therefore it has six sides and is divisible into six parts, (that are again divisible into six parts and so on..)
These are not really relevant to Madhyamaka, though.

In the end, atoms or no atoms, it makes absolutely no difference. Arriving at some scientifically relatively accurate view of matter etc. is the opposite of the point of Madhyamaka.

Edit:
Scientific discoveries related to atoms are as relevant as the scientific fact that humans exist. The existence of human beings is an absolute certainty scientifically, yet still a human is only a concept, as demonstrated by Madhamaka, and other schools. Does the scientific fact that humans exist invalidate Madhyamaka? The "existence" of atoms theorized by Planck is as relevant to the discussion as the proof of the existence of humans or walls. It simply misses the point completely.

The planck theory is also equally irrelevant to Vasubandhu's works.
It is relevant to the Madhyamaka "whole and parts" argument. Particle Science and Chemistry have proved that matter can't be reduced to it's parts infinitely, without there occurring new phenomena, that Madhyamaka and Vasubandhu were totally unaware of. For example, if you reduce water to its parts of oxygen and hydrogen, water disappears completely, there is no water anymore. And so on... with regard to oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen atoms can be changed by nuclear science into something else.

The aim of Madhyamaka is at least to some extent similar to the aim of Science. That is to know the nature and essence of the universe, what it is made of? How does it appear?
Last edited by Aemilius on Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”