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

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.

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.

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.

In connection to your starting families question, there's different answers from different Buddhist traditions. Theravada says that ultimately it's better to be a monastic than a lay person. However, in the Mahayana this changes. In fact, the Vimalakirti Sutra is a Mahayana scripture where the key character, Vimalakirti, is a married lay Buddhist man with a family. The scripture belittles the idea that only monastics who are celibate can be the most advanced spiritually.

Also, in regards to life is suffering. My Buddhist studies professor always taught that the original term "dukkha" translates better to "unease." No matter how good someone has it, they will always have a sense of unease at times, especially towards the end of life and then very especially so if they live without the teachings of Buddhism. According to a lot of early Buddhist schools that come from the Abhidharma branch, such as the Theravada, a way to escape attachment to things is by seeing the true nature of reality. For many Abhidharma Buddhists the true nature of reality is the dharmas. The dharmas are atomic constituents that come in a physical form as well as a mental form. So, physical objects are only physical dharmas while sentient creatures are physical and mental dharmas.

If this conversation is interesting to you, I can tell you more. :up:

Well, to get back to my essay I'll be honest in that I personally believe karma is an experience that happens. I find the Sarvastivada's argument at least philosophically tenable and honestly I like it a lot. However, I don't agree with everything the Sarvastivada says, such as their mereological nihilism of only the dharmas existing and everything else that's macroscopic being an unreal illusion.

Gotcha :smile: To be honest, I think the tantra is really weird and can easily be dangerous. But to be fair, I don't know much about tantra or as much about Tibetan Buddhism in general. Nonetheless, I've heard of abuse scandals that apparently the Dalai Lama has disparaged.

Are you talking about the tantra?

well, I personally think I agree more with the Mahayana, such as Madhyamka, than the Sarvastivada. I’d say all in all I probably most identify with a Chinese sect of Mahayana Buddhism called Tiantai. But I appreciate the arguments of Sarvastivada and abhidharma in general so I like studying them too. :smile:

I don’t know as much about Nietzsche and nothing about the other philosopher, so I’m the wrong person to ask. :cry: but from the little I know about nietzsche I’d say there is at least some similarity. :smile:

Yep that's right. Reality for Nagarjuna seems to be ambiguous for Nagarjuna and beyond certainty of existence and certainty of non-existence. But Sarvastivada is part of the Abhidharma so it's different from the Madhyamaka. Did you study Buddhism?

So, of the post the basic argument of Sarvastivada Buddhism is that we are all made up of mental and physical atomic constituents; called "dharmas". The dharmas are also not permanent entities. As soon as one arises, it is extinguished and replaced with a new dharma. Also, our karma is connected to the dharmas. If I commit an action with evil, neutral, or good intention then my dharmas will sooner-or-later react in an unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant way.

you mean of my paper? Or a condensed version of this post?

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!

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.

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