All that exist

[Quintessence]

Since there tends to be a lot of confusion about the Four, let's start with some basics. First, it's important to remember that the Four Elements were an answer to a philosophical question. That question was "what is arche?" or "what is the root substance(s) behind all things?" There are three basic responses to that question: substance monism, substance dualism, and substance pluralism. Substance pluralism (Four Elements) was the standard for centuries, but was succeeded by substance dualism and substance monism. Those models are so pervasive that few really know much about substance pluralist models like the Four. The Four are present in modern culture mainly in a pop fashion, with television shows like Avatar or schools of magic in fantasy games. Or people dismiss it as spurious proto-chemistry, which really isn't what it was either.

So... I guess the question is... how much do you want to know? Because I've done enough research on this to fill a book.

 

[crossfire]

I do not mean to sound rude or be an A...s here, but does not space time contain the 4 elements i talk about? I may ofcourse be wrong

See my edit

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I have no doubt in Buddha or the teaching. But i understand you come from a science background, and that is ofcourse very good We just walk different paths

Yes, one path of knowledge and one path of superstition.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Since there tends to be a lot of confusion about the Four, let's start with some basics. First, it's important to remember that the Four Elements were an answer to a philosophical question. That question was "what is arche?" or "what is the root substance(s) behind all things?" There are three basic responses to that question: substance monism, substance dualism, and substance pluralism. Substance pluralism (Four Elements) was the standard for centuries, but was succeeded by substance dualism and substance monism. Those models are so pervasive that few really know much about substance pluralist models like the Four. The Four are present in modern culture mainly in a pop fashion, with television shows like Avatar or schools of magic in fantasy games. Or people dismiss it as spurious proto-chemistry, which really isn't what it was either.

So... I guess the question is... how much do you want to know? Because I've done enough research on this to fill a book.

As you know i follow buddhist teaching, and it is teaching that everything in the physical world can be broken down to the four element i stated in OP. I still belive this is the truth. But i will not state that i hold the only truth to this question. so i dont try to convince others that the buddhist view is the only correct one

 

[Spirit of Light]

Space-time would most definitely be a physical property, imo. I can't see how it could not be, because you can't have solid-liquid-gas-energy without physical space-time to contain them, imo. (Unless, of course, you are just thinking of the concepts, then you need consciousness to contain the ideal concepts.)

Not far from where i stand in this question

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, one path of knowledge and one path of superstition.

Substance pluralism - of which the natural philosophy of Four Elements is one example of - isn't superstition, though. That's not to say it can't be treated that way, but then... anything can be treated that way. Being dismissive of it is no way to go about a path of knowledge. There's a lot to learn about the classical Four Elements and its development through history. Same with anything that is brusquely dismissed as superstition, really.

 

[Quintessence]

As you know i follow buddhist teaching, and it is teaching that everything in the physical world can be broken down to the four element i stated in OP. I still belive this is the truth. But i will not state that i hold the only truth to this question. so i dont try to convince others that the buddhist view is the only correct one

I never really looked into the Eastern angle on things. I came across so much just looking at Western that I had more than enough to research with just that. I wasn't aware that Buddhism incorporated the Four in any way. Do you have any resources or references I could poke at? I would suspect that the elements may mean something very different in Eastern traditions than they do in the West.

 

[crossfire]

Not far from where i stand in this question

Maybe the split between the dhatus might have something to do with the jhanas of infinite space and infinite consciousness? (Not that you can't have jhana experience meditating on infinite fire, or infinite water, or infinite earth or infinite wind. I just haven't had any related to these.)

 

[Spirit of Light]

I never really looked into the Eastern angle on things. I came across so much just looking at Western that I had more than enough to research with just that. I wasn't aware that Buddhism incorporated the Four in any way. Do you have any resources or references I could poke at? I would suspect that the elements may mean something very different in Eastern traditions than they do in the West.

I am reading a book written by a Theravada buddhist monk Ajhan Chah. i give you the link to the pdf and page number you can read .

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/teachings_chah.pdf
Read page 31-32 staring from bottom 6 lines in page 31 and down page 32. i will try to find more directly from the sutta (teachings)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Maybe the split between the dhatus might have something to do with the jhanas of infinite space and infinite consciousness? (Not that you can't have jhana experience meditating on infinite fire, or infinite water, or infinite earth or infinite wind. I just haven't had any related to these.)

The closer one get to the 4th Jhana the more you see everying in physical realm disapear and the only i can say i found was breath. Air but i am not finish study the 4 jhanas

 

[BSM1]

You forgot space-time.

Beat me to it...

 

[Brickjectivity]

So... I guess the question is... how much do you want to know? Because I've done enough research on this to fill a book.

Here's a page that tells me what certain 17th century philosophers think about it
https://www.iep.utm.edu/substanc/

Are they going somewhere with all of this talk about substance? Is it part of an ontological argument? Are they interested merely in formulating ideas of what things are made of?

In this physical world we live all that exist is 4 elements

Earth
Water
Fire
Air

How can this be? If you brake down everything all around us including our self is made up by this four elements. Human body is only made up by four elements.

What is your thought?

I have the same question for you. Where is this idea of 4 elements supposed to take us? Physically we can measure air, earth, fire and water. There are fires that burn water if you add some hydrogen. There is earth that contains air in it etc. There are things made of earth, such as clays, which if we heat them very hot will turn into gases. There are fires which occur in solids. I guess what I am asking is what are the lessons drawn from the words about the 4 elements. Why does it matter if there are 6 elements or 10 or 4 ?

 

[ChristineM]

According to Buddhist teaching they are But why do you say they are not elements?

Its a little thing called science. An element is a substance that cannot be broken down into simpler substances.

Earth, air and water and are fire molecules made of a combination of elements and can be broken down

A water molecule for example is 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (hydrogen and oxygen are elements)

Air is mostly nitrogen, some oxygen and several other elements in small quantities.

Earth can be any combination of several elements, different elements produce different types of earth

Fire is a combination of elements that are heated to form a hot, usually carbon based gas.

 

[ChristineM]

They are in the classical sense of what the word means. It was since co-opted by modern chemistry to mean something a bit different. I'll get into that in a follow-up post.

The classical sense, as in before they knew any better

 

[Spirit of Light]

Here's a page that tells me what certain 17th century philosophers think about it
https://www.iep.utm.edu/substanc/

Are they going somewhere with all of this talk about substance? Is it part of an ontological argument? Are they interested merely in formulating ideas of what things are made of?

I have the same question for you. Where is this idea of 4 elements supposed to take us? Physically we can measure air, earth, fire and water. There are fires that burn water if you add some hydrogen. There is earth that contains air in it etc. There are things made of earth, such as clays, which if we heat them very hot will turn into gases. There are fires which occur in solids. I guess what I am asking is what are the lessons drawn from the words about the 4 elements. Why does it matter if there are 6 elements or 10 or 4 ?

I can not say the answer to the 4 elements take us anywhere except for understanding that everything in this physical world is something that arise and fall (start to exist then dies/ stop existing) And when looked at it what we can see is that everything contain the 4 elements

 

[Spirit of Light]

Its a little thing called science. An element is a substance that cannot be broken down into simpler substances.

Earth, air and water and are fire molecules made of a combination of elements and can be broken down

A water molecule for example is 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (hydrogen and oxygen are elements)

Air is mostly nitrogen, some oxygen and several other elements in small quantities.

Earth can be any combination of several elements, different elements produce different types of earth

Fire is a combination of elements that are heated to form a hot, usually carbon based gas.

But still they contain the 4 elements even how far you want to brake them down, you will always end up with even the tiniest particle contain the 4 elements But again your view is not wrong either

 

[Polymath257]

We could go deeper and talk about electrons, up quarks, down quarks, and photons. Pretty much everything we ever experience is made from those (although gravity would need to be added in).

But no, water is a *compound*. It is made from two other *elements*: hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen are, in turn, made from protons,neutrons, and electrons. And the protons and neutromade of up and down quarks.

Air is a *mixture*. Among other things, it has oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and various trace compounds.

Earth is usually also a mixture, but a frightfully complex one.

Fire is mostly a plasma mixture.

Now, instead of talking about *elements*, we could talk about *phases* of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Those correspond nicely to earth, water, air, and fire. But, for example, ice is a solid made from water. Steam is a gas made from water. Dry ice is a solid made from carbon dioxide, which is a gas when in our atmosphere.

The ancient view of four elements (sometimes five: add in quintessence) is problematic at many different levels. Except as a description of phases of matter, it fails in doing what it set out to do.

Now, the 120 *elements* are all made from a single type of *atom*. All of those atoms are made from protons, neutrons, and electrons, and thereby from electrons, up and down quarks.

Light is made from photons.

 

[Polymath257]

But still they contain the 4 elements even how far you want to brake them down, you will always end up with even the tiniest particle contain the 4 elements But again your view is not wrong either

Simply false. An electron does not have any of the four elements you listed.

 

[ChristineM]

But still they contain the 4 elements even how far you want to brake them down, you will always end up with even the tiniest particle contain the 4 elements But again your view is not wrong either

He tiniest 4 would be hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium

 

[Spirit of Light]

Simply false. An electron does not have any of the four elements you listed.

As i said earlier in a answer, I do not reject science but i follow the teaching of Buddha sakyamuni. And according to the teaching everything contain the 4 elements.
Before you say Buddha is wrong ( you may think he is) The teaching have worked for many buddhist since buddhas time And personally i have no doubt in the teaching (probably like you have no doubt in science)