Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

69227Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2

Expand Messages
  • rjkjp1
    Mar 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
      >
      > Hi Robert
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
      > rjkjp1@... writes:
      >
      > Dear TG,
      > I'm no expert on science views but isn't energy a type of matter?
      > __________
      >
      > TG: What does "matter" mean to you Robert? As I said, I don't
      claim there
      > is "matter" in the traditional sense. I think its all energy
      (movement) and
      > just "appears to us" as matter.

      Dear TG,
      I had always thought terms like energy and mass included all types
      of matter but perhaps that idea is not accepted anymore? I merely use
      matter as an English term for rupa.
      Western science is so limited compared to Dhamma- so many models with
      complex abstrations like quarks and photons, but they never get to
      actual elements like tejo and vayo. And saying that I do think
      physics is an incredible considering it developed without benefit of
      Dhamma knowledge- it shows how clever lobha is.



      > >
      > > And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
      > > mentality.
      > >
      > > TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
      > not claim
      > > there is or is not matter however.)
      >
      > ______
      >
      > I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise
      and
      > pass away?
      >
      >
      >
      > TG: Nope. Not at all. I think phenomena are constantly moving.
      It is
      > this constant change which forces formations to rise, persist
      while changing,
      > and fall. "Rise and fall" is just a short hand way of saying this
      IMO. It is
      > just language trying to express a rather simple observation. To
      take it so
      > literally as to generate a theory of immediate rising and then
      immediate
      > passing away of "somethings" called rupas to me means the common
      sense
      > descriptions have been blown out of proportion.

      ________
      I see, but surely it must be that way. Even physics suggests that in
      a tiny piece of matter - say a tip of a finger - there are billions
      of incredibly tiny "atoms" which are in constant extremely rapid
      flux. With huge spaces in between.
      Why does it seem wrong that the Theravada suggests that
      these "atoms" are actually not as they seem at all. That the reality
      is much more in flux than science thinks: That it is simply elements,
      kalapas - groups of rupas- arising and passing away.

      BTW I was surpised by comment suggeting that the Theravada
      explanation of rupas is too simple to account for variety. One
      western science model of atoms posits electrons nuetrons and protons
      and still manages to account for the elements in the periodic table.



      Robert
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic