Vaibhasika Buddhism and the lifespan of the rupa dharmas/atoms

Daniel san

Hello all,
I'm wondering if anyone knows of any professional articles on the Vaibhasika school of Buddhism? I'm specifically curious about if they believe that the rupa dharmas/atoms of matter are finitely existent? I know that the Vaisbhasika believes that the rupa dharmas exist in the past, present, and future but I think they still believe the dharmas are impermanent, right? I know that for the Sautrantika Buddhist school the rupa dharmas are extremely short-lived, like lightning flashes.

"According to the exposition of Sautrāntika we find in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, everything lasts only for a moment. Not only do past and future entities fail to exist in any substantial way,132 the present also does not possess any temporal thickness; immediately after coming into existence each moment passes out of existence. The theory of momentariness therefore claims that all constituents of the world, all dharmas, whether mental or material, only last for an instant (kṣaṇa) and cease immediately after arising."
Westerhoff, Jan. The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy (The Oxford History of Philosophy) (p. 75). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

If anyone knows any articles touching on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it!

Wayfarer

↪Daniel san

Essentially the concept of dharmas in Buddhism are not like the Greek concept of atoms, in that they are momentary existents. They come into and go out of existence continuously in exceedingly short time-spans (albeit said to be perceptible by the Buddhas).

Have a look at https://www.scribd.com/document/201460726/Buddhist-Atomism . It's not about Vaibhasika in particular but a survey of the subject.

Daniel san

Yes, I guess the atoms in ancient Greece are like physical entities whereas the rupa dharmas in Buddhism are temporary pieces of physical energy?

Wayfarer

↪Daniel san

If you are familiar with abhidharma analysis and the 12 steps of dependent origination then you can see that the dhammas/dharmas are like elements of experience rather than physical objects. (That is the sense in which Buddhist philosophy anticipates phenomenology - see this article.) Whereas Greek philosophy and subsequent naturalism have always put the emphasis on objects and objectivity. Buddhism is much more focused on the nature of lived experience. The 'cause of dukkha and ending of dukkha' are found through that understanding, not through objective analysis of external objects. So dhammas/dharmas are not really physical in nature, either, although to say they're non-physical would easily lead to confusion (i.e. 'a non-physical thing!?! What could that be!?!)

Daniel san

So, are the rupa dharmas not actually atoms? Because rupa (form) basically means matter, right? It might be that different Abhidharma traditions say different things too. I've read that various Abhidharmikas believe that a big part of meditation is to be able to correctly perceive the world by seeing the momentary particles rather than macro objects. It's of course important to note that the other four dharmas/skandhas have to do with the mental so it's definitely not an exclusively physical atomic theory.

Wayfarer

So, are the rupa dharmas not actually atoms? Because rupa (form) basically means matter, right? — Daniel san

If you study Buddhism, you have to allow for the fact that many Buddhist terms don't have exact modern translations. That includes dharma, saṃsāra, Nirvāṇa, karma, and many other fundamental terms.

Accordingly, I question whether 'rupa' means matter. It is usually part of a pair, 'name and form', which could be taken as a shorthand description of 'the domain of experienced phenomena'. In other words, that which appears has name and form - nama-rupa. But I don't think that equates with 'matter' as such, or that Buddhists would agree that this is what we understand by the word 'physical' (which again is derived from a Greek concept. The Wiki article on pratītyasamutpāda is quite a good source.)

I would emphasise that the Buddhist focus is always on the nature of experience - but not in the sense that modern empiricism understands it. Modern empiricism basically insists on what can be represented objectively and mathematically, whereas Buddhist philosophy is based on disciplined introspection with a soteriological emphasis and rationale.

TheMadFool

↪Daniel san

They come into and go out of existence continuously in exceedingly short time-spans (albeit said to be perceptible by the Buddhas) — Wayfarer

Like virtual particles?

Daniel san

↪Wayfarer

That's a good point about how terms don't exactly align in translation. I'm still learning so much in Buddhist studies. Thank you for the information and I can tell you're much more knowledgeable than me! I'll check out the wiki article!

Daniel san

↪TheMadFool

I think the rupa dharmas are similar to virtual particles in a school of Buddhism known as the Sautrantika. The Sautrantika argued that the rupa dharmas/physical atoms only last for split moments, popping in and immediately out of existence, and then getting replaced by new atoms that are extremely similar but actually slightly different.

Wayfarer

↪Daniel san

Nevertheless I think it’s a spurious comparison. Physics evolved from an attempt to understand the forces of nature. Buddhism is not concerned with the forces of nature as such, it is a soteriological discipline.

Hippyhead

They come into and go out of existence continuously in exceedingly short time-spans — Wayfarer

From the science point of view, the following video seems to claim that space consists of an infinite number of particles which pop in and out of existence at a fantastical rate. The video puts this much better than I can.

I recently begun to wonder if universes mirror this vibrating pattern, just on what seem to us to be very different time scales.

Hippyhead

Thank you for the information and I can tell you're much more knowledgeable than me! — Daniel san

You, and everyone else too it seems. I've never met anyone with such detailed information on the subject.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Wayfarer

↪tim wood

Well, kind of you to say so! I did do an MA in Buddhist Studies 2011-12, which has not really provided any direct vocational benefit, but I still feel I learned something important from it.

Daniel san

↪Wayfarer

true and There are differences between what we predominantly believe actual virtual particles do and what the sautrantika claimed the rupa dharmas do. Virtual particles don’t make up any objects in our universe but the sautrantika claimed the lightning flash-like rupa dharmas make up all objects in the universe.

Wayfarer

↪Daniel san

Dharmas don't make up objects; they're constituents of experience. The first is a theory of physics arising from mathematical analysis of observed phenomena; the second arises from an observation of the nature of conscious experience. They're chalk and cheese.

Daniel san

I think I see what you’re saying because the Abhidharmikas were for the most part mereological nihilists so the objects we see do not actually exist and are mental constructs. Only the dharmas exist objectively.

Daniel san

↪Hippyhead

thanks friend! I’ve been trying to learn Buddhism over the last few years as best as I can!

Vaibhasika Buddhism and the lifespan of the rupa dharmas/atoms

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions