In terms of current quantum physics, this is either Pauli’s exclusion principle, which holds up neutron stars from collapsing into black holes or electromagnetic repulsion, for the normal everyday hardness, solidity we experience in touching.
Cohesion is the 4 fundamental forces, their carrier particles, one of which is electromagnetic, photon, which we also call light. So in a physical sense, solidity and cohesion has overlap in the same one particle.
We may need molecules to waft into our nose in order for humans to smell them, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be scent all the way on the level of kalāpas; it just means that our olfactory systems are not built to detect scent (odor) at that level. Likewise with color, various spectrums of light are absorbed into an object, and the spectrum of light that reflects off the object is actually what we see as the color of the object (essentially, it’s just the spectrum that it doesn’t absorb), and perhaps color on the level of kalāpas has something to with what spectrums of light rūpa absorbs, at least with beings who have eyes like ours perceive them. We don’t know exactly how light works, so when certain spectrums are absorbed and some reflected, this may be all part of the same “color”, perhaps.
R
Yes, and many of them haven’t read this excellent 2020 book:
R
Hi, Ven. @Dhammanissita . But if it is only phenomenological, then it would be the case that mind takes itself as object, no?
Hello Robert K.,
Thank you for your kind gesture in replying to me here.
Yes, I agree with you. Merely believing in traditional or learned ways of thinking is a significant obstacle to deepening, or even entering, the Middle Way. This includes explanations and terms that are labeled as ‘scientific.’
The fundamental problem that arises when trying to visualize the four elements through physical equations and their associated concepts is that one withdraws from one’s own sensory experience. For example, Richard Feynman (a prominent physicist) explains that matter or solidity is only possible because of electromagnetic fields.
While (so-called scientific) explanations like these—suggesting that even our own bodies potentially extend ‘to the edge of the cosmos’ via their own specific electromagnetic fields—might be helpful for some in consolidating Dhamma knowledge through reflection, they are clearly not practically applicable to meditation on the earth element or solidity (and the actual experience of that sensory impression). In such conceptualizations, one loses the connection to the body and the senses through which solidity is actually felt; we experience ‘the firm,’ not electromagnetic waves.
The basic problem with speaking about forms in physical terms is usually that these terms are merely ‘read about.’ They do not stem from one’s own process of insight, which is precisely what one must rely on when applying them. Yet, this is exactly what is required on the Middle Way: to personally establish the evidence of what is taught in the discourses and to deepen or strengthen this personal realization. This is difficult to achieve using terms whose deeper implications one does not know, oversee, or has not personally fathomed. And this very problem exists even among physicists. There are fundamental and as-yet-unresolved questions, and certain fundamental concepts in physics have evidently not been explored deeply enough.
In addition to the incompatibility of these terms with one’s own reflective exploration of the four elements (as explained, for example, in MN 28), there is a second reason to remain skeptical of these concepts.
I thought to myself: it’s not a bad idea to say ‘hello’ to everyone here in this way. Please don’t think I am trying to lecture you specifically. It was simply a good and fitting opportunity to write a little something in the spirit of the Dhamma as I know it. In that sense, thank you for your comment on my previous text. I would also like to point out to you and others that I had both my last post and this one translated from German into English by an AI.
Kind regards
If rūpa is reduced to a mere phenomenological construct, one is forced to posit a self-reflexive consciousness.
From Abhidhamma perspective, every citta is a discrete act of cognition that necessarily requires a distinct object, right?
Should rūpa-kalāpas lack independent existence, citta would either remain objectless or be compelled to take itself as its own object. Does Abhidhamma accepts this?
I find it difficult to accept the premise that colours and sounds do not exist independently of cittas; surely, denying their objective existence collapses the essential distinction between nāma and rūpa? Why the universe of discrete dhammas without cittas should have to be coloursless?
@RobertK , @bksubhuti , @RobertK , please I would like to read the insight of yours about this topic if possible.
And physics says they are the same. Just like water H2O can be experienced as hot steam, wet water or cold ice, but the underlying molecules are the same. Inference is a valid source of knowledge according to Buddhism and science is a lot of inferences.
極微 - 維基百科，自由的百科全書 It was also a major doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda
yes sure.
yes . The causes for rupa are 4 - Kamma Citta Utu (temperature / heat) and Āhāra** (nutriment / food).
For instance, the kalapas that comprise what is called the refrigerator in the kitchen are caused by utu. Even I can’t see the refrigerator they keep arising and ceasing.
Saraputo, independent existence.
Don’t forget that electrons (like protons and neutrons) are fermions. Fermion effects, such as the Pauli exclusion principle, are crucial to generating the hardness (and many other properties such as magnetism, conductivity, and so on) of “everyday matter”.
If rūpa is reduced to a mere phenomenological construct, one is forced to posit a self-reflexive consciousness.
From Abhidhamma perspective, every citta is a discrete act of cognition that necessarily requires a distinct object, right?
Should rūpa-kalāpas lack independent existence, citta would either remain objectless or be compelled to take itself as its own object. Does Abhidhamma accepts this?
I find it difficult to accept the premise that colours and sounds do not exist independently of cittas; surely, denying their objective existence collapses the essential distinction between nāma and rūpa? Why the universe of discrete dhammas without cittas should have to be coloursless?
I have written and researched extensively on this topic. You are correct. External reality is mind independent. Also reflexive consciousness does not exist and is incoherent.
From a post of mine on dhammawheel:
Points from the suttas and Kathavatthu:
Consciousness that is aware strictly of itself is impossible and an incoherent notion compared to saying when a sword cuts it cuts cutting, or washing off impurity washes off impurity with impurity (Kv 5.9).
Consciousness depends on a dyad. One is strictly able to be conscious of a form if the form makes contact with the eye first, ditto for the other senses (SN 35.93, MN 28). Only after the eye meets the form can we be conscious of it.
The external world exists even when unobserved (implicit by SN 35.93, explicitly stated in SN 22.94, MN 99 and MN 28). Even if contact is made between the eye and a form sometimes no consciousness arises, and the external world is explicitly stated to exist even for a blind person, thus the form still exists independent of consciousness. Also, consciousness and forms do not arise together in a dependency while neither exist independently as in the Mahayana. Again, it is explicitly stated that the eye and a form can both exist without consciousness coming into play in MN 28, and that the external world exists for a blind man in MN 99. Forms exist independently of consciousness.
Land is not generated by kamma (Kv 7.7).
Matter is not subjective (Kv 9.3).
Conclusion:
Thus there is no such thing as a correct dhamma interpertation where the mind makes all of reality without any external input. This requires reflexive consciousness, which doesn’t exist, and would negate and contradict the above referenced suttas, and others. The external world does in fact exist regardless of whether or not we perceive it.
In A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:
These dhammas include color as it is part of what a kalapa is that arises along with other elements.
Reading Bhikkhu Bodhi’s work will clear everything up for you.
If you have any more questions on this topic please let me know. I have a great deal of sources and quotes at hand.
These kinds of attacks on Theravāda theory seem to follow a pattern. First, they push the dating to a later period. The Visuddhimagga is usually the main target. The claim is that all Theravāda doctrines were created by the Visuddhimagga, and that they were influenced by Hinduism. This is the most typical form. Sometimes this happens out of ignorance, and sometimes it is done knowingly.
So you have chosen that the senses detected is not the same as gross human senses. In a way, given that current science still cannot detect devas (unless they are UFOs), there’s some valid possibility there.
Here’s another thought, does the texts say that the kalāpa in the stomach for food, when digestion happens split into many other kalāpas?
If so, then there’s a possibility that the notion of smallest used by the ancient and the notion of smallest in science is different. Smallest in science means cannot be split into smaller parts, which is what the atom is originally supposed to mean until we found out that there’s subatomic particles.
Smallest in ancient classical Theravada then could mean smallest functional unit, not smallest part of all things. Molecules then fit the description of smallest functioning unit. As many of the subatomic world interactions are decoupled from the chemical reactions which directly affect us, but molecules and atoms are the smallest unit which participates in chemical reactions which affects us directly.
There’s of course the split of some subatomic particles into each other like muons into electrons, but I don’t think this plays any role in our digestion.
It is not baffling really. One is a set of qualities that consciousness experiences and consciousness is bigger than atoms. Kalapas are a mental perception and not the same as particles in science.
One of my favorite quotes from the world of science:
Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means.… Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.
Sutherland, S. (1995). The Macmillan dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Macmillan.
ok but does consciousness have size at all..
Good question. Maybe it is the size of its object field. How big is the sense of self? How big is a thought?
Citta is so different from rupa, materiality.
No shape, no color, no sound, no weight and no size..it is simply the chief in experiencing an object. Rupa can’t experience anything..
The dhammas are not mental perceptions. They are objective, mind independent reality.
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions……
…the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…
…concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.-A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi
It should be noted that the atomic theory prevailed in India in the time of the Buddha. Paramanu was the ancient term for the modern atom. According to the ancient belief one ratharenu consists of 16 tajjaris, one tajjari, 16 anus; one anu, 16 paramanus. The minute particles of dust seen dancing in the sunbeam are called ratharenus. One paramanu is, therefore, 4096th part of a ratharenu. This paramanu was considered indivisible.
With His supernormal knowledge the Buddha analysed this so-called paramanu and declared that it consists of paramatthas—ultimate entities which cannot further be subdivided.-A Manual of Abhidhamma, Narada Maha Thera
So 4 elements have a quality of hard, rough, heavy, soft, smooth, lightness, (Earth). Flowing cohesion (water), hot, cold (Fire). Supporting and pushing (Air Element). All of these are perceived by the mind mostly through the sense of touch and some by inference in the case of the water element. They are perceptions. They are used to train the mind to see that what it experiences is impermanent ( a perception), dukkha ( a perception) and not self ( a perception).
Our consciousness of touch cannot go any further than that. Our perception is capable of creating a lot is things. Maybe if you meditate on it you will see what is going on. Maybe you won’t.