<p>So what are the fundamental building blocks of scientist?</p>
<p>As for the Buddha Dhamma, they are Craving and Not-knowing, the builder of everything. By removing those blocks, the unconditioned is gained.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T17:20:29.200Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-10T11:49:58.387Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T15:51:05.237Z
2022-05-06T15:51:05.237Z
user23703
<p>I have a feeling that what you call &quot;fundamental building blocks of reality&quot; -- i.e. atoms -- are a matter of cultural (and technological) bias.</p>
<p>And that for ancient Babylonians the &quot;fundamental building blocks of reality&quot; might have been the details of trade routes or commercial contracts; or for ancient Polynesians the &quot;fundamental building blocks of reality&quot; might have been details of winds and ocean currents and seasons.</p>
<p>&quot;Atoms&quot; 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.</p>
<p>I'd argue it's not a &quot;fundamental building blocks of reality&quot; any more than public health is (epidemiology), and all the other branches of knowledge -- unless that's how you define the words &quot;reality&quot; and &quot;fundamental&quot; (which it seems you do).</p>
<p>Anyway, &quot;atoms&quot; are an explanation for various experimental experiences -- for example the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Geiger–Marsden experiments</a> -- and I presume that without such experiences the theory of atoms, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">atomic theory</a>, doesn't arise.</p>
<p>Anyway, according to Buddhism the fundamental building blocks might be called <em><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24504/254">dhammas</a></em>; or possibly <em>dhatus</em>. Or others, Buddhism has many ways to analyse reality, sub-divide it into components, to find out what causes what and so on.</p>
<p>Subatomic particles' having a &quot;wave-particle&quot; nature (as you mentioned in a comment) is (I would say) not a &quot;nature&quot; but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a view</a> -- 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.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-07T14:54:13.417Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T17:57:29.520Z
2022-05-06T17:57:29.520Z
ChrisW
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness &amp; vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.77</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The Buddha stated that it is not possible to be all-knowing all at once.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Also please see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12961/471">Buddha's omniscience</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“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?”</p>
<p>“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They
misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”</p>
<p>“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?”</p>
<p>“‘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.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn71/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 71</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>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?”</p>
<p>“Great king, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They
misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.” .....</p>
<p>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?”</p>
<p>“Great king, I recall making this statement: ‘There is no ascetic or
brahmin who knows all and sees all <strong>simultaneously</strong>: that is not
possible.’”</p>
<p>“What the Buddha says appears reasonable.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn90/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 90</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>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.’</p>
<p>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.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn76/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 76</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T15:07:46.290Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T15:50:31.730Z
@Iowa I fixed my statement to "The Buddha stated that it is not possible to be all-knowing all at once."
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T15:51:21.057Z
@Iowa The Buddha said he's not omniscient. He said he's intelligent enough to learn any subject.
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T17:16:26.043Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T19:11:39.160Z
@Iowa Please see [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/43390/471) 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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-06T12:31:00.650Z
2022-05-06T19:24:23.993Z
2022-05-06T19:24:23.993Z
ruben2020
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

<buddha><reality><ontology>
Fundamental building blocks of reality according to Buddhism?
# Fundamental building blocks of reality according to Buddhism?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-06)

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.

**Tags:** buddha, reality, ontology


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-05-06. Score: 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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: 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.  
> **username_1**: 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.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-05-06. Score: 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments) -- and I presume that without such experiences the theory of atoms, [atomic theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), doesn't arise.

Anyway, according to Buddhism the fundamental building blocks might be called *[dhammas](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/24504/254)*; 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views) -- 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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: 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.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-05-06. Score: 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](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html)

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](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12961/471).

> “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](https://suttacentral.net/mn71/en/sujato)

> 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](https://suttacentral.net/mn90/en/sujato)

> 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](https://suttacentral.net/mn76/en/sujato)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: 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.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 I fixed my statement to "The Buddha stated that it is not possible to be all-knowing all at once."  
> **username_4**: @username_0 The Buddha said he's not omniscient. He said he's intelligent enough to learn any subject.  
> **username_0**: 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.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Please see [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/43390/471) 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.  

---

