If divine eye capable of seeing rupa kalāpas are actually seeing the gross materiality same as physics, chemistry, etc, I would think the best match for rupa kalāpa is molecules, and the claim that it’s the smallest is just due the meditators to not smashing atoms together to produce subatomic particles.
This fits in with the claim that rupa kalāpas split into more of them in digestion. complex carbohydrates split into simple ones.
Subatomic particles is so far removed from chemical digestion that it doesn’t seem to have any casual effect on it.
And visible light is limited to 400 nm wavelength. an atom is about 1 nm in size. what can be seen is surely not subatomic particles. what if it’s higher wavelength em wave? then the rupa kalāpas need to lose a lot of energy all the time? we would be bathed in uv, x ray, gamma ray and the like…
Divine eye is abhiñña. But seeing kalapa is merely vipassana knowledge.
You should ask your ebt teacher (Ven Ariyadhammika) about the difference and as it relates to kalāpas… He will be able to tell you the Classical way they are different.
I suggest you learn abhidhamma first and watch some videos by Ven Maggavihari on rupa. I also suggest you refrain from writing books until you get more educated in Classical Theravāda. Why not wait 5 years?
it’s on pause because indeed, the more I learn, the more I know I need to learn a lot more. I had some basic abhidhamma class before, but certainly still need a lot more study into it.
So interesting, I would had thought that any claim to be the smallest would involve supernormal powers to verify, not just Vipassana.
Actually, the whole of the pa-auk course (besides the jhāna dhammas) can be done with “near to upacāra samādhi” . This includes knowledge of past lives, but at the vipassana level. If you are at Na-Uyana, you should be tapping into ven Ariyadassana’s mind and asking him many questions… He has many answers to clear doubts… or those who come from doubt inducing traditions (suttanta or ebt). Nevertheless, ven ariyadhammika also knows the difference between vipassana and abhiñña knowledge.
Best to ask ven ariyadassana though.
Vipassana knowledges do not count as uttarimanussadhammas but it is not good to speak even of a basic nimitta to lay people, or even fellow monks since most monks disrobe and then become lay people. Furthermore, the vsm warns about “protecting the sign” and not speaking to others about it. (it explains why too).
Greetings in Dhamma! According to the Atthakatha, it’s barely possible, since all abhiññas are done with the fourth (fifth) rupa jhana as their basis and proximate cause.
If you are calling this abhiñña then I agree with you.
However, seeing the five khandas in past life is vipassana knowledge. It is documented in the meditation manuals. This would require a new topic and we copy some of the old conversation there rather than split.
Well, in Visuddhimagga, for example, seeing those of past lives is called abhiñña (see Ch. XIII, 13 and further), and is attained by the last rupa jhana, as well as the others abhiññas
Hello, Venerable. Could you please tell me: how small are kalapas, versus how small are protons and other subatomic particles? Also, how big are subatomic particles when they are in the wave state? I’ve read a little about these topics, but don’t know the details.
I haven’t read enough of the commentaries, or wherever the concept of kalapa comes from to know their size.
As for science, there’s wikipedia.
the size can be taken as the charge radius.
Current model also is compatible with electrons and quarks being of zero size. 0 dimensional dot.
In quantum gravity theories, smaller than planck length is meaningless.
Do search Wikipedia for all the terms that you don’t know.
Energy of particles, including adding kinetic energy to it is E=hf, and can convert f to wavelength via how fast the particle is moving. f*wavelength= velocity of particle.
h is Planck’s constant, f is frequency. This is just very rough maths, likely Wikipedia might list better maths for them.
Generally, the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wavelength. Which is how electron microscope works. Search the wikipedia for electron microscope.
Our eyes sees things becouse light with perticular wavelength hit to cone cells …and then brain analyse thos signals…
This phenomenon can be explained by physics…
How will you explain dream by physics…to see dreams we do not need external signals. All we need is cell biology.
Seeing things in meditation is also work same i think…
Seeing things with mental eyes do not need extranal signals…
This is what I think …plz explain me if i am wrong
Indeed, this supports the notion of subtle materiality, that the devas don’t use photons to see, or molecules to smell, that could be a solution to make classical Theravada compatible with current known science.
Thank you Venerable. One thing I’m not seeing answered on Wikipedia is clarifying what the size of the wave is.
I read a book on quantum mechanics that talked about the wave state “disappearing from all of space” when it collapses from a wave to a particle. For some reason this made me think that the wave was massive, and then collapsed down to a particle. But, from what you’re saying, it sounds like the wave, too, is very small? Are the waves also of zero dimensional size?
Hi Bhante, I would be careful about making too much of possible connections between Physics (or Science in general) and Dhamma. The boundaries and interpretations of Physics change - that’s the nature of science.
Back in the 70s there were a couple of books talking about connections between Physics and Eastern ideas: The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wuli Masters. I recall mentioning to one of my professors the model that The Tao of Physics made a lot of (the “Bootstrap Model”) and he pointed out that it had been superseded by what is currently called “The Standard Model”. There are some details on the The Tao of Physics Wikipedia page: The Tao of Physics - Wikipedia
Since then we have had the Inflationary Model of cosmology, and more recently the idea of Dark Energy to reconcile more recent observations. It’s a safe bet that these models will continue to evolve…
In my experience, most books about Physics and Dhamma are written by people who, at best, are experts on one or the other. The only book I’d recommend (of course there may be others) is B. Alan Wallace’s book “Choosing Reality”. It’s been a while since I read it, but as I recall, Wallace emphasises the meta-similarities rather than details. Both Quantum Mechanics and Dhamma challenge our assumptions about the world.
I met Wallace briefly when he toured NZ recently. I started telling him about my experience with The Tao of Physics. I didn’t need to finish - he knew exactly where I was going…
Interpreting Quantum Mechanics is tricky - it was almost 30 years after Einstein’s (“EPR”) paper Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox - Wikipedia that Bell showed that what Einstein wanted from a theory was not possible. The 2022 nobel prize was awarded for experiments relevant to this issue. My fourth-year students still struggle with the details of these ideas…
That the model for cosmology changes and that any comparison now is more tentative and would have disclaimers.
I wouldn’t be as super sure like the older books, but also, would make assumptions and be willing to go into details.
Physics has been stuck more or less in current standard form for decades, despite the discovery of higgs, gravitational waves and so on, it’s relatively safe to write on those. The frontiers like interpretations of quantum, the quantum gravity theories, etc are also things I would go into and warn clearly that these are frontiers. The readers might really get frustrated after a while if they are patient enough to read: what if this interpretation is true, what does it mean for Buddhism? For so many interpretations.
I trust it wouldn’t make people be attached to specific theories, but appreciate the parallels beyond the general metaphysics.
I think there’s a bit of misunderstanding on your part of what are waves.
Waves as can be seen on water waves, have no specific location, as the whole ocean is waving. Particles have location.
Wavelength is the measure of the distance between successive peaks of the wave.
Small wavelength means it’s very tightly packed together and has a lot of energy. Like gamma rays from radioactive decay. Large wavelength like radio can be of many meters to infinity long. They are of low energy.
Wavefunction in quantum doesn’t live in normal space, but in a special mathematical thing called Hilbert space, which easily can have a lot of dimensions, even to infinity of them.
When physicists says it disappears from everywhere and localize in a particle, it just refers to that wavefunction absolute squrared is the probability of possibly finding the particle anywhere in space where it’s non-zero probability. But once the particle is detected at anywhere, the possibility that it could be anywhere else is zero. That’s wavefunction collapse. It’s just a fancy word for people who believe wavefunction is a real thing, and not just a mathematical construction to help us explain the experiments.
Now switch gears, think of how we see small things. Light wavelength is not small enough. We could shoot X rays and try to see it reflect, then can see smaller things. Or just use electrons which has variable energy. As mentioned, large energy, small wavelength. So to see atoms, we need electron microscopes.
Now as we put in more and more energy to the subatomic particles, we can probe ever smaller distances. This is why Large hadron collider exists, the challenge is to pack the energy to the subatomic particles. We are at a limit of how small we know about reality, based on how much energy we can put into these particles.
Beyond that, we cannot say for sure. You can try to search what’s the energy limit and thus the smallest distance LHC probes.
Modern physics and the teaching of kalapas aren’t compatible. Neither is the general Buddhist idea of the 4 elements. That’s ok though, because Buddhism isn’t doing science.
Indeed. Lots of religious people want to justify their beliefs through science, but aren’t willing to then abandon said beliefs when the science changes.
