All that exist

[Polymath257]

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)

Nobody prior to 1800 had the modern theory of atoms (there was an ancient one, but it was quite different). Nobody prior to 1900 knew anything about nuclei.

One reason alchemy failed is that it had the wrong basic philosophy: that of 4 elements. When the modern concept of elements was formulated, the science of chemistry was produced.

When did buddhists look inside of an atom?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The hard and solid parts of our body make up the earth element; the liquid and flowing parts, the water element. Winds that pass up and down our body make up the wind element, and the heat in our body, the fire element. Taken together, they compose what we call a “human being”. However, when the body is broken down into its component parts, only these four elements remain. The Buddha taught that there is no “being” per se, no human, no person, but that ultimately, there are only these four elements

Where do electrical signals fit?

Into what category of your 4 elements would you place something like the human mind/consciousness?

Do you realize that gases (air/wind) are only a phase of matter that can be attained by a great many substances? For example... steam is gaseous water. Water become "wind."

How about the sun? Made up of a dense collection of gases that are so pressurized by the mass/gravity of the sun that they are undergoing fusion and appear to burn like fire. Things like this entirely blur the lines between your 4 elements. If you would normally categorize "gas" (like air, which is composed of helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) into "wind", then the sun should also be categorized as "wind" - however I would bet a nice sum of money that you would have placed the sun in the "fire" category.

 

[Polymath257]

Where do electrical signals fit?

Into what category of your 4 element would you place something like the human mind/consciousness?

Do you realize that gases (air/wind) are only a phase of matter that can be attained by a great many substances? For example... steam is gaseous water. Water become "wind."

How about the sun? Made up of a dense collection of gases that are so pressurized by the mass/gravity of the sun that they are undergoing fusion and appear to burn like fire. Things like this entirely blur the lines between your 4 elements. If you would normally categorize "gas" (like air, which is composed of helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) into "wind", then the sun should also be categorized as "wind" - however I would bet a nice sum of money that you would have placed the sun in the "fire" category.

Well, the sun *is* more of a plasma than a gas.

 

[crossfire]

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

I seem to experience them a bit differently. Here's an article I wrote about my take on the jhanas written for westerners. (Individuation means "Jungian individuation--fully incorporating it into consciousness.)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nobody prior to 1800 had the modern theory of atoms (there was an ancient one, but it was quite different). Nobody prior to 1900 knew anything about nuclei.

One reason alchemy failed is that it had the wrong basic philosophy: that of 4 elements. When the modern concept of elements was formulated, the science of chemistry was produced.

When did buddhists look inside of an atom?

Buddha was an enlighten being who had abilities to see what we can not see with our physical eyes. so even he did not have super mircoscope he could see. ( that is ofcourse something science of today will reject, and that is ok) But when Buddha did cultivate up to buddhahood he developed what we today call superhuman abilities and one of them is to see deep in to every physical object.
I do not have this abilities my self so even i wanted to explain how they actually do work, i can not, But i still belive it is how it works,

 

[Spirit of Light]

I seem to experience them a bit differently. Here's an article I wrote about my take on the jhanas written for westerners. (Individuation means "Jungian individuation--fully incorporating it into consciousness.)

It is natural that you will experience it differently So that do not surprise me.
I will look at the document you sendt

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, the sun *is* more of a plasma than a gas.

Yes, you're obviously right. However, I was more going for the fact that things have different phases, and that things that may be "gas" or "air" under what we deem "normal" conditions, are actually active in other ways under different conditions. Like liquid water vs. steam - take a cup of what is lake water under "normal" conditions and boil it, and you change it into a gas. The sun is composed of the same stuff as the air around us under "normal" conditions, but place that air inside the sun and it is plasma.

I just figured that citing "plasma" might be going a step too far... and I feared I was already over the line of being comprehended.

 

[exchemist]

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?

This ancient idea is useless for understanding how the physical world works. For that, you need the concept of the chemical elements, something that most people who have been to school have come into contact with. So if you persist in talking in terms of Earth, Air, Fire and Water, everyone will assume you are speaking in a figurative or literary sense and will not take what you have to say at face value.

If you are content with that outcome, that's fine.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I seem to experience them a bit differently. Here's an article I wrote about my take on the jhanas written for westerners. (Individuation means "Jungian individuation--fully incorporating it into consciousness.)

I took a look at it (will read more in detail soon) But my first impression is that it is a very good document and very easy to read. it make a difficult subject of 4 jhanas to be more understandable

 

[crossfire]

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

Actually, now that I think about it, the 5 dhyani buddhas are related to each of the elements: water, earth, fire, air, and space. It's a Mahayana thing, though.
Five Tathagatas - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

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?

You are about 3000 years out of date.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Actually, now that I think about it, the 5 dhyani buddhas are related to each of the elements: water, earth, fire, air, and space. It's a Mahayana thing, though.
Five Tathagatas - Wikipedia

Not only a Mahayana thing in my experience as a Theravadin Sometimes both theravada and Mahayana has similar teaching but told in different way (in my experience)

 

[Audie]

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

Good. That pretty much kills the credibility of
anything they "teach".

 

[Quintessence]

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'm not going to speak for the Eastern traditions, but as far as Western traditions go, it's very important to understand that the Four Elements are not actually tangible things. Elemental Fire is not fire, Elemental Air is not air, and so on. They're abstract principles that underly all reality, and everything in reality is Quintessence, or all Four in varying proportions (yes, this is where my username comes from). There are four of them in the classical Western approach because each Element is defined through a pair of opposing qualities: Hot, Dry, Moist, and Cool. Again, these do not refer to physical properties but principles. Each element has a primary and secondary quality. In simple terms:

• Moist (passive quality) - characterized by being limited not by itself, but only by surroundings; somewhat analogous to the gaseous state of matter and the primary quality of Elemental Air
• Dry (passive quality) - characterized by being limited by itself, rather than by its surroundings; somewhat analogous to the solid state of matter and the primary quality of Elemental Earth
• Hot (active quality) - the action of separating unlike things out of a mixture (aka, diversifying, individuating); the primary quality of Elemental Fire
• Cold (active quality) - the action of unifying like things that were once distinct (aka, homogenizing, subsuming); the primary quality of Elemental Water

Per Aristotle, who laid out most of the framework for the Four that carried through until a couple centuries ago, opposing qualities cannot coexist in the same Element. Thus, with four qualities, we get four possible combinations of qualities and four Elements. We get Air (moist and hot), Fire (hot and dry), Earth (dry and cool), and water (cool and moist). These also can transform into one another through a rotation, the usual cycle of which goes Air -> Fire -> Earth -> Water.

Some suggest aether as a fifth element, but this was never really established as part of the natural philosophy of the Four Elements in antiquity. It's something contemporary occultists, New Agers, and Pagans latched onto and made part of their cannon, so to speak. In any case, none of this is to say there must be four, but there are good reasons why the number is four when it comes to the classical philosophy of the Four Elements. It's not just arbitrary.

The classical sense, as in before they knew any better

Have you spent any time at all studying ontology or natural philosophy? Your response to this really doesn't make any sense. Philosophical ideas aren't a matter of "knowing any better" given there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

Have you spent any time at all studying ontology or natural philosophy? Your response to this really doesn't make any sense. Philosophical ideas aren't a matter of "knowing any better" given there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy.

I disagree with that. When Aristotle, for philosophical reasons, claimed that heavy things should fall faster than lighter things, or that 'earth' has a natural motion towards the center of the universe, he was simply wrong. His identification of four elements was ultimately incorrect in the manner that he wanted them understood: as components for all matter.

There are many philosophical ideas that have been shown to be wrong. A good portion of Aristotelian philosophy (especially in his physics) is just wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm not going to speak for the Eastern traditions, but as far as Western traditions go, it's very important to understand that the Four Elements are not actually tangible things. Elemental Fire is not fire, Elemental Air is not air, and so on. They're abstract principles that underly all reality, and everything in reality is Quintessence, or all Four in varying proportions (yes, this is where my username comes from). There are four of them in the classical Western approach because each Element is defined through a pair of opposing qualities: Hot, Dry, Moist, and Cool. Again, these do not refer to physical properties but principles. Each element has a primary and secondary quality. In simple terms:

• Moist (passive quality) - characterized by being limited not by itself, but only by surroundings; somewhat analogous to the gaseous state of matter and the primary quality of Elemental Air
• Dry (passive quality) - characterized by being limited by itself, rather than by its surroundings; somewhat analogous to the solid state of matter and the primary quality of Elemental Earth
• Hot (active quality) - the action of separating unlike things out of a mixture (aka, diversifying, individuating); the primary quality of Elemental Fire
• Cold (active quality) - the action of unifying like things that were once distinct (aka, homogenizing, subsuming); the primary quality of Elemental Water

Per Aristotle, who laid out most of the framework for the Four that carried through until a couple centuries ago, opposing qualities cannot coexist in the same Element. Thus, with four qualities, we get four possible combinations of qualities and four Elements. We get Air (moist and hot), Fire (hot and dry), Earth (dry and cool), and water (cool and moist). These also can transform into one another through a rotation, the usual cycle of which goes Air -> Fire -> Earth -> Water.

Some suggest aether as a fifth element, but this was never really established as part of the natural philosophy of the Four Elements in antiquity. It's something contemporary occultists, New Agers, and Pagans latched onto and made part of their cannon, so to speak. In any case, none of this is to say there must be four, but there are good reasons why the number is four when it comes to the classical philosophy of the Four Elements. It's not just arbitrary.



Have you spent any time at all studying ontology or natural philosophy? Your response to this really doesn't make any sense. Philosophical ideas aren't a matter of "knowing any better" given there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy.

I wish i was as good as you in writing my thoughs to a paper a lot of what you write here is actually 99% close to What i see in Buddhist teaching

 

[Quintessence]

In any case, I'm not going to debate things here, not just because this is Interfaith Discussion. Such conversations take an unfortunately predictable course when modern cultural norms have all but shut down other avenues of discussion.

I wish i was as good as you in writing my thoughs to a paper a lot of what you write here is actually 99% close to What i see in Buddhist teaching

Thanks! I used to do workshops on this topic, but I haven't in many years now.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In any case, I'm not going to debate things here, not just because this is Interfaith Discussion. Such conversations take an unfortunately predictable course when modern cultural norms have all but shut down other avenues of discussion.



Thanks! I used to do workshops on this topic, but I haven't in many years now.

I have learned a lot from the paper already it is somewhat different then what i have read before, but your viewpoint is good

 

[Quintessence]

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)

I'll have to look at this more closely later, but it looks to fall mostly in line with the Western tradition. That is, it's still a response to that question "what are the roots of all things?" A philosophical ontology, rather than, say, a statement about physics or chemistry. That distinction trips many folks up, I think - I see it within the Pagan community sometimes as well, though most of them understand the importance of allegory/metaphor/symbolism and don't take everything literally.

I'm a bit out of my element (pun not intended) assessing source of information on Eastern religions, though. Might need to poke some friendly neighborhood academics. Gods, I love working at a university sometimes...

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'll have to look at this more closely later, but it looks to fall mostly in line with the Western tradition. That is, it's still a response to that question "what are the roots of all things?" A philosophical ontology, rather than, say, a statement about physics or chemistry. That distinction trips many folks up, I think - I see it within the Pagan community sometimes as well, though most of them understand the importance of allegory/metaphor/symbolism and don't take everything literally.

I'm a bit out of my element (pun not intended) assessing source of information on Eastern religions, though. Might need to poke some friendly neighborhood academics. Gods, I love working at a university sometimes...

Yes the teaching in the book i send you pdf of actually is saying that Everything in physical life is unsertain The idea behind this is that when looking at the world with curiouse mind, we will see that the nature and the living being is same everything is one.