<p>It says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We used to know what matter is:</p>
<ul>
<li>indivisible</li>
<li>indestructible</li>
<li>atoms</li>
</ul>
<p>And now we don't -- instead:</p>
<ul>
<li>divisible (not individible)</li>
<li>destructible (not indestructable)</li>
<li>and (importantly), not known</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words -- even &quot;physical atoms&quot;, which we used to think of as being permanent, are not permanent.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-05T18:37:10.777Z
2024-10-05T18:37:10.777Z
ChrisW
<p>“It is no longer known” means that science now says that everything is now quantum mechanical. It is no longer known how to interpret quantum mechanics…</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-09T14:49:43.017Z
2023-09-09T14:49:43.017Z
Dheeraj Verma
<p>The phrase is merely used to give emphasis. It effectively says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Matter] is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer
determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all [of
the previous listed points], it is no longer known.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The idea is that we can no longer take matter as a solid, immutable, completely understood substance, as we were inclined to do in (say) the middle of the last century.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-05T16:52:53.733Z
2024-10-05T19:39:11.417Z
2024-10-05T19:39:11.417Z
Ted Wrigley
<p>The statement appears to be wrong view, in it appears to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>assert there is a knowing continuing after the physical body has disintegrated.</p>
</li>
<li><p>not discerning the disintegration of the mind.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>If anyone says, ‘The consciousness is self,’ that is not tenable. The
rise and fall of consciousness are discerned, and since its rise and
fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That
is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The consciousness is
self.’ Thus the consciousness is not self.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 148</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away and cessation.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.20</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-10T13:42:28.033Z
follow the precepts and maybe no hell...
blue_ego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-05T19:49:54.163Z
2024-10-06T00:40:09.147Z
2024-10-06T00:40:09.147Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>In this following context, how should I take the bold and italic sentence?</p>
<p>Should I take it as: 'it is no longer known more important than all.'?</p>
<p>Should I take its concept meaning as: 'the matter is known nothing rather than all changing.'?</p>
<p>Context:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible
atom. “For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a
series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that
mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series
of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The
question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether
these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a
living body and other occurrences which take place after that body is
dead.”</p>
<p>As C. E. M. Joad says in The Meaning of Life, “matter has since
disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no
longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws;
<em><strong>and more important than all, it is no longer known.</strong></em> The so-called atoms, it seems, are both ‘divisible and destructible.” The
electrons and protons that compose atoms ‘can meet and annihilate one
another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a
wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both
as regards shape and position than that of a thing.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: P. 59
Buddhism in a Nutshell
by Narada Thera</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-09T12:21:01.670Z
You need to give more context.
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-09T13:10:02.283Z
Thanks @Dheeraj Verma. I put more context there. I hope your explanation to this.
Sakya Kim
<philosophy>
How should I take the concept of the following sentence?
# How should I take the concept of the following sentence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-09-09)

In this following context, how should I take the bold and italic sentence?

Should I take it as: 'it is no longer known more important than all.'?

Should I take its concept meaning as: 'the matter is known nothing rather than all changing.'?

Context:

> Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible
> atom. “For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a
> series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that
> mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series
> of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The
> question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether
> these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a
> living body and other occurrences which take place after that body is
> dead.”
>
> As C. E. M. Joad says in The Meaning of Life, “matter has since
> disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no
> longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws;
> ***and more important than all, it is no longer known.*** The so-called atoms, it seems, are both ‘divisible and destructible.” The
> electrons and protons that compose atoms ‘can meet and annihilate one
> another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a
> wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both
> as regards shape and position than that of a thing.”

Source: P. 59
Buddhism in a Nutshell
by Narada Thera

**Tags:** philosophy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You need to give more context.  
> **username_0**: Thanks @username_1. I put more context there. I hope your explanation to this.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-10-05. Score: 1

It says,

> We used to know what matter is:
>
> * indivisible
> * indestructible
> * atoms
>
> And now we don't -- instead:
>
> * divisible (not individible)
> * destructible (not indestructable)
> * and (importantly), not known

In other words -- even "physical atoms", which we used to think of as being permanent, are not permanent.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-09-09. Score: 1

“It is no longer known” means that science now says that everything is now quantum mechanical. It is no longer known how to interpret quantum mechanics…


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-10-05. Score: 1

The phrase is merely used to give emphasis. It effectively says:

> [Matter] is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer
> determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all [of
> the previous listed points], it is no longer known.

The idea is that we can no longer take matter as a solid, immutable, completely understood substance, as we were inclined to do in (say) the middle of the last century.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-10-05. Score: 0

The statement appears to be wrong view, in it appears to:

* assert there is a knowing continuing after the physical body has disintegrated.
* not discerning the disintegration of the mind.

> If anyone says, ‘The consciousness is self,’ that is not tenable. The
> rise and fall of consciousness are discerned, and since its rise and
> fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That
> is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The consciousness is
> self.’ Thus the consciousness is not self.
>
> [MN 148](https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)

> Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away and cessation.
>
> [SN 12.20](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: follow the precepts and maybe no hell...  

---

