2

Is there any mention of the fundamental building blocks of reality in Buddhism? Science tells us that we are made of atoms, which in turn are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and so on. Does Buddhism reveal to us the absolute fundamental building blocks of reality and the Universe? If so, then what is the nature of those building blocks? I am 100% certain that the Buddha would have known the deepest nature of physical reality and answers to all the mysteries, humans have spent pondering since millenium.

I know this question falls under the imponderable and thus doesn't aid me in relieving suffering in samsara, but still curious to know :) Peace.

Improve this question

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

So what are the fundamental building blocks of scientist?

As for the Buddha Dhamma, they are Craving and Not-knowing, the builder of everything. By removing those blocks, the unconditioned is gained.

Improve this answer
2
  • I undoubtedly agree, but just curious about the Buddha's understanding, interpretation and explanation of subatomic particles and there wave-particle nature, if he has said so, as mentioned in the texts.
    – Iowa
    May 6, 2022 at 17:20
  • Already told, good householder: avijja&tanha are the fundamental blocks creating ones world of experiances. All six elements (water, earth, fire, wind, mind, space) are insecure, conditioned, no heartwood can be found, nothing one could really relay on. Science is blind and holds on improper attention as to ever get suffering and release from it understood.
    – user23703
    May 10, 2022 at 11:49
1

I have a feeling that what you call "fundamental building blocks of reality" -- i.e. atoms -- are a matter of cultural (and technological) bias.

And that for ancient Babylonians the "fundamental building blocks of reality" might have been the details of trade routes or commercial contracts; or for ancient Polynesians the "fundamental building blocks of reality" might have been details of winds and ocean currents and seasons.

"Atoms" are an explanation of (or model derived from) various technological experiments -- starting in the 17th and 18th centuries with chemistry, and gradually going on to high-energy physics at the turn of the 20th century.

I'd argue it's not a "fundamental building blocks of reality" any more than public health is (epidemiology), and all the other branches of knowledge -- unless that's how you define the words "reality" and "fundamental" (which it seems you do).

Anyway, "atoms" are an explanation for various experimental experiences -- for example the Geiger–Marsden experiments -- and I presume that without such experiences the theory of atoms, atomic theory, doesn't arise.

Anyway, according to Buddhism the fundamental building blocks might be called dhammas; or possibly dhatus. Or others, Buddhism has many ways to analyse reality, sub-divide it into components, to find out what causes what and so on.

Subatomic particles' having a "wave-particle" nature (as you mentioned in a comment) is (I would say) not a "nature" but a view -- a model, a theory -- not wrong but not especially fundamental except for people who are trying to describe some of the observation made in Physics labs.

Improve this answer
1
  • There are actually "atoms" that are older than the 17th and 18th century experiments that you reference. There is ancient Greek atomism, and also ancient Indian atomism. They are very different notions of "an atom" than anything you'd find in a modern physics text (let alone a text from the 1800s!), and are basically quasi-magical postulated entities, but they were postulated far before "the modern atom" started to be divined during the 1800s and before, leading up to that.
    – Caoimhghin
    May 7, 2022 at 14:54
1

Understanding the origin and mysteries of the physical world is considered an unconjecturable or imponderable, and it doesn't help with ending suffering, as you already know.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
AN 4.77

Was the Buddha omniscient and knew everything? No. He definitely knew and understood everything related to the Dhamma (the teachings), but he did not know everything simultaneously.

The Buddha stated that it is not possible to be all-knowing all at once.

That means it is possible for the Buddha to know and understand all things if he tried to learn it, but not simultaneously. This means he has the capacity (the intelligence) to know all things, but it doesn't mean that he indeed knew all things.

Also please see Buddha's omniscience.

“Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: “Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”

“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”

“So how should we answer so as to repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? How should we explain in line with his teaching, with no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”

“‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.
MN 71

Then the king said to the Buddha, “I have heard, sir, that the ascetic Gotama says this: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who will claim to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception: that is not possible.’ Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”

“Great king, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.” .....

Then the king said to the Buddha, “Sir, might the Buddha have spoken in reference to one thing, but that person believed it was something else? How then do you recall making this statement?”

“Great king, I recall making this statement: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”

“What the Buddha says appears reasonable.
MN 90

Sandaka, take a certain teacher who claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: ‘Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.’ He enters an empty house; he gets no almsfood; a dog bites him; he encounters a wild elephant, a wild horse, and a wild cow; he asks the name and clan of a woman or man; he asks the name and path to a village or town. When asked, ‘Why is this?’ he answers: ‘I had to enter an empty house, that’s why I entered it. I had to get no almsfood, that’s why I got none. I had to get bitten by a dog, that’s why I was bitten. I had to encounter a wild elephant, a wild horse, and a wild cow, that’s why I encountered them. I had to ask the name and clan of a woman or man, that’s why I asked. I had to ask the name and path to a village or town, that’s why I asked.’

A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘This teacher makes such a claim, but he answers in such a way. This spiritual life is unreliable.’ Realizing this, they leave disappointed.
MN 76

Improve this answer
5
  • Just read your response above, and have a question. "The Buddha stated that it is possible to be all-knowing, but not all at once.", Isn't this contradictory? "All-knowing" and "not all at once" sounds contrasting to me. Do you mean to say, All information about a particular topic including its history, if he deems? I am not doubting that the Buddha is Omniscient, nor your response above, but trying get my understanding straight.
    – Iowa
    May 6, 2022 at 15:07
  • @Iowa I fixed my statement to "The Buddha stated that it is not possible to be all-knowing all at once."
    – ruben2020 ♦
    May 6, 2022 at 15:50
  • @Iowa The Buddha said he's not omniscient. He said he's intelligent enough to learn any subject.
    – ruben2020 ♦
    May 6, 2022 at 15:51
  • I recall reading from a sutta (not able to recollect the name of the sutta) stating that the Buddha is indeed Omniscient, which goes on to further state, that he could access entire history of a given topic, but as you rightly said not all information of everything, at once.
    – Iowa
    May 6, 2022 at 17:16
  • @Iowa Please see this answer for details. Milindapanha, a text (within Khuddaka Nikaya) written 400 to 700 years after the Buddha's passing, makes exaggerated claims of his omniscience, that the Buddha himself refuted in the Majjhima Nikaya suttas. That answer provides the references. Milindapanha can be considered a sutta as Khuddaka Nikaya is part of the Sutta Pitaka.
    – ruben2020 ♦
    May 6, 2022 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .