Subatomic Worlds

I found an excerpt from Zhuan Falun that talks about the countless subatomic worlds within ones self. A fascinating read:

"Daoists have always regarded the human body as a microcosm, and hold that this inner universe is as large as the outer one and faithfully reflects it. The idea might seem a bit of a stretch and hard to fathom; there doesn’t seem to be grounds for likening the human body to the universe, given the latter’s size. But there is a logic to it that can be explained. Contemporary physics is engaged in research on the composition of matter, and it has progressed from molecules to atoms, electrons, protons, and quarks, reaching all the way to neutrinos.

At these levels microscopy doesn’t have the power to see what exists or know what sizes of particles lie yet further below; researchers don’t know what exists at even more micro of planes. Physics today is still nowhere near reaching the tiniest particles of the universe. Nevertheless, the invisible, miniature realms of those particles might be perceptible to someone who has gone beyond normal physical form, for he would see, with magnified vision, subatomic worlds that are still greater, in keeping with his level of spiritual attainment.

The Buddha described the vastness of the universe after having witnessed it at his level of attainment. His teaching implied that there are other beings in the Milky Way galaxy with physical bodies similar to ours, and that even in just a single grain of sand a great many worlds can be found. This is consistent with modern physics, as the orbiting of electrons around a nucleus is really no different from that of the Earth around the Sun. And so the Buddha taught that in smaller, invisible realms a great many worlds can be seen even in just a grain of sand; meaning, a grain of sand is similar to a universe where lives and a multitude of things exist.

Then assuming that’s valid, within the worlds inside a single grain of sand, there would again be sand, presumably. And within that sand we would expect to find yet more worlds. And then in those worlds inside the sand we would expect to again find still more sand. It could go on endlessly. And so even the Buddha, with his level of spiritual awakening, concluded that the universe was both “infinitely large and infinitely small.” This suggests that it is so large he couldn’t see its perimeter, and so small that he couldn’t determine what the tiniest elemental substance is at the origin of matter.

There are masters who have said that a city can be seen in a single pore of the skin, complete with moving cars and trains. While that might sound far-fetched at first, it proves reasonable if it’s considered in a scientific spirit and with a genuine intent to understand. While I was talking about the opening of the inner eye, I mentioned that many who have experienced it have had visions where they are moving along a seemingly endless tunnel in their forehead region. And each day as they exercise or meditate they see themselves moving forward, with mountains and rivers to the sides; and they pass through cities and see a number of people.

They are apt to think it’s a figment of their imaginations. I can dispel any doubts and tell you that those things were not imagined; what they saw was very clear. Things like those shouldn’t be written off as imaginary, if the world within the body is as vast as masters have seen with their inner eyes. Remember that Daoist thought has long maintained that the human body is a universe unto itself. It’s only to be expected, then, that the distance from your forehead to the pineal gland, [where the inner eye is located,] is going to be enormous in that inner universe—making it feel like a really long way."

---

That excerpt was from Zhuan Falun (Turning The Law Wheel).

The full book can be downloaded here:

https://www.falundafa.org/eng/eng/pdf/Zhuan-Falun-2018-v1.8.pdf

This is a very interesting post. How does having this information impact your practice of Jediism?

I know that for me, especially when I see such things as reportedly possible, the first thing that I want to do is try to experience them. And that comes across as desiring, something that the Buddha explains leads to suffering.

Not only that, but, for me meditation is designed to put me in the “here and now”, therefore attempting to see the vastness of the universe and/or also its smallness, I think would keep me from truly experiencing it as it is right now and also as I am.

Understanding that all things including myself are a manifestation of the Force is constantly a going and return process, a knowing and forgetting, a hiding and a seeking.Meditation is therefore like music. Music being a succession of starts and stops placed in such a way that there is melody and harmony that we can distinguish. Emotion, yet Peace, Ignorance yet, Knowledge, Chaos yet, Harmony Passion, yet Serenity, Death, yet the Force.

Watts speaks about this in the Book of the Taboo of Knowing Who You Are. Once we discover that we are the universe in this particular manifestation we have to “hide” again, otherwise where is the fun of living, the experience of being alive.

A word of caution about experiences. Our recollection of an event is impeded by our poor memory. Science bears this out. Whenever we speak about events, what we are actually speaking about is our memory of the event, which has a lot of holes. But when we are fully present in an event, there is no memory (See Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known).

The experience of being alive (see Campbell, see Watts, see Krishnamurti) is not about chasing (the same) experience. Its about welcoming experience without judgement/preconceived notions.

Anyhow, thank you for posting. This is certainly food for thought

You're welcome, glad to hear you found it of interest. I highly recommend the book at the end of my post (which that excerpt is from).

It talks about other dimensions, the soul, the cosmos in the microcosm and the macrocosm, supernatural abilities, karma, healing, the true history of mankind, transcending the 5 elements and leaving the 3 realms and many many other fascinating things.

You're right about not desiring or perusing such things. In Dafa they believe nothing should be intentionally sought after, rather one should gain naturally without pursuit. All these things come out naturally if one raises his heart and mind nature and assimilates to the cosmic characteristics of the universe.

In regards to these cosmic characteristics, in Dafa they believe in a force combined of 3 primordial forces, truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. These forces are imbued in the fabric of existence from the microcosm to the macrocosm. These forces restrict everything in the universe and the goal is to assimilate to these cosmic principles and when one does so he or she is no longer restricted by the universes limitations.

They also believe that humans have innate abilities that have atrophied, the book goes into great detail about them such as pre and retro cognition, the 3rd eye and clairvoyance but there are many others which the book expounds upon. These are not to be perused however, they come out naturally during cultivation practice.

Falun Dafa is actually a very ancient Cultivation practice. It's roots stretch to a very remote prehistoric time but only recently, in the last few decades or so has it been given to the secular world. If you want to find out more about this practice you can check it out here:

www.falundafa.org

You're right about not desiring or perusing such things. In Dafa they believe nothing should be intentionally sought after, rather one should gain naturally without pursuit. All these things come out naturally if one raises his heart and mind nature and assimilates to the cosmic characteristics of the universe.



I often find the Force - like this.
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/123569-a-modern-day-jeddist-book-of-change-a-shepards-journal



Feel free to read through if ya like

Contemporary physics is engaged in research on the composition of matter, and it has progressed from molecules to atoms, electrons, protons, and quarks, reaching all the way to neutrinos.

This makes it sound like neutrinos are at some kind of more "microscopic" level than electrons, nucleons, or quarks. This is incorrect.

At these levels microscopy doesn’t have the power to see what exists or know what sizes of particles lie yet further below; researchers don’t know what exists at even more micro of planes.

With microscopes in any traditional-like sense one can just about resolve individual atoms. But that's a nitpick. However, there is no "sizes of particles ... yet further below" than fundamental particles. They are already point-like and without further underlying structure. Yes, we can measure that and we have. This is not controversial. Even the "strings" of string theory are not some kind of level "below" the fundamental particles. Rather, they are attempts to unify what seems to be otherwise an arbitrary zoo of particles into a single type of object with a mathematical description such that all the particles are instances of it with different values for various degrees of freedom.

Physics today is still nowhere near reaching the tiniest particles of the universe.

I don't know about 1994 but today in 2020 it has reached it long enough ago to be teaching this stuff to undergraduate students already - that's how well understood particle physics is. Are we done with it yet? Far from it. But this "nowhere near" idea is nowhere near up to date anymore.

Nevertheless, the invisible, miniature realms of those particles might be perceptible to someone who has gone beyond normal physical form, for he would see, with magnified vision, subatomic worlds that are still greater, in keeping with his level of spiritual attainment.

Well, if this enlightened one is willing to share his insights, I'm sure there is still a Nobel prize or two up for grabs in this area yet.

[The Buddha's] teaching implied that there are other beings in the Milky Way galaxy with physical bodies similar to ours,...

Did he bychance say which stars they orbit? Or better yet, present some kind of evidence of this that we can review?

... and that even in just a single grain of sand a great many worlds can be found.

Oh. Well. That depends on what we mean by worlds, now, doesn't it...

This is consistent with modern physics, as the orbiting of electrons around a nucleus is really no different from that of the Earth around the Sun.

Bwahahaha!

"Really no different"? Bwaahahaha, what nonsense! Let's start with the simple fact that the electron - aside from having no extension like planets have - does not "orbit" the nucleus at all! Let alone in some way "really no different" from the Earth's orbit above the sun :laugh: And that's not something we learned in the last two decades either. There is no excuse for getting it this horribly wrong in 1994. That it was impossible for the electron to do so was known in the times of Rutherford and Bohr already, and it was only that late because we didn't know atoms were mostly empty with a tiny positively charged nucleus until Rutherford's scattering experiment. That a charged particle couldn't be in a stable orbit around another one was known since the days of Maxwell already. This is incidentally one of the reasons quantum theory was needed, and why to see the electron as a classical particle, like a planet, orbiting the nucleus as if it were its sun, was at best a bad caricature everyone knew was bad but had nothing better to put in its place.


Look, I'm not here to poop on anyone's parade. If someone feels there is some profundity in viewing themselves as one level in a chain extending infinitely in both directions, by all means, "feel the Force flow through you", as he expression goes. But if you (not you Gem, I mean generally anyone...) are going to try and justify it through the findings of science, at least make some effort to learn about any of them. Take a very close look at the kind of wooster who will try and sell you their spiritual fluff piggy-backing on the good name of science, whilst misrepresenting it far beyond recognition, and ask yourself why they wouldn't make a philosophical or religious appeal instead.
If you want to learn about nature, I'd encourage anyone. Time permitting I'd even offer some assistance where I can. But don't rely on - and repeat - what your spiritual inspirers say about it unless you have some indication that they know anything about what they are speaking on. And in the end if you struggle to find good sources, or the time, or resources, remember: You don't have to study science, nor do you have to try and justify your spirituality through it. If anything, I think there is a case to be made for a spirituality free from science, and the constraints it brings with its commitment to build a genuine understanding of this beautiful nature around us.

The map is not the territory.

Literally, its common in spiritual stuff for people tend to worship the idol (or teachings (or guru)), rather then seeing them as simple maps to the real inner practice of engineering perception and cognition.

I often find the Force - like this.
www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clerg...e-a-shepards-journal

Feel free to read through if ya like

Thankyou, I'll check it out.

This makes it sound like neutrinos are at some kind of more "microscopic" level than electrons, nucleons, or quarks. This is incorrect.

Neutrinos are the smallest particle currently detected by science.

"The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

With microscopes in any traditional-like sense one can just about resolve individual atoms. But that's a nitpick. However, there is no "sizes of particles ... yet further below" than fundamental particles. They are already point-like and without further underlying structure. Yes, we can measure that and we have. This is not controversial. Even the "strings" of string theory are not some kind of level "below" the fundamental particles. Rather, they are attempts to unify what seems to be otherwise an arbitrary zoo of particles into a single type of object with a mathematical description such that all the particles are instances of it with different values for various degrees of freedom.

Yes science has come to see atoms but this is still far from the smallest particles according to cultivators. They have understood that the mind is the greatest scientific tool, it's powers of perception are unmatched once cultivated with spiritual techniques (cultivation) and allow one to penetrate into other dimensions and see far further into the microcosm then any scientific tool.

I don't know about 1994 but today in 2020 it has reached it long enough ago to be teaching this stuff to undergraduate students already - that's how well understood particle physics is. Are we done with it yet? Far from it. But this "nowhere near" idea is nowhere near up to date anymore.

Our science is limited. Cultivators can see into the microcosmic depths of the universe at a level that supersedes any scientific instrument. Even in 2020 science has reached the level of neutrinos but this is still far from the smallest particles in the universe. Cultivators understand that one's 3rd eye opens one can see into unimaginable depths, the greatest microscope so to speak.

Well, if this enlightened one is willing to share his insights, I'm sure there is still a Nobel prize or two up for grabs in this area yet.

Master Li Hongzhi has talked about the structure of the universe in depth in his 1998 Lecture in Geneva, Switzerland:

https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

Did he bychance say which stars they orbit? Or better yet, present some kind of evidence of this that we can review?

I haven't read the Buddhist scriptures so couldn't say. I will say however that certain Falun Dafa practitioners have seen beings from other star systems. Here is one practitioner who astral traveled to another planet where he encountered an alien race:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109040-Falun-Dafa-Practitioner-Astral-Projects-to-an-Alien-Planet

Bwahahaha!

"Really no different"? Bwaahahaha, what nonsense! Let's start with the simple fact that the electron - aside from having no extension like planets have - does not "orbit" the nucleus at all! Let alone in some way "really no different" from the Earth's orbit above the sun :laugh: And that's not something we learned in the last two decades either. There is no excuse for getting it this horribly wrong in 1994. That it was impossible for the electron to do so was known in the times of Rutherford and Bohr already, and it was only that late because we didn't know atoms were mostly empty with a tiny positively charged nucleus until Rutherford's scattering experiment. That a charged particle couldn't be in a stable orbit around another one was known since the days of Maxwell already. This is incidentally one of the reasons quantum theory was needed, and why to see the electron as a classical particle, like a planet, orbiting the nucleus as if it were its sun, was at best a bad caricature everyone knew was bad but had nothing better to put in its place."

You have to understand that the universe is multidimensional in nature. In other dimensions the concepts of time and space all change and are very different to how things are in our dimension. A falun dafa practitioner bought up the point you mentioned in an article. Namely, the uncertainty of the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom is only uncertain from our dimension:

"Another thing I’ve enlightened to is what quantum physics refers to as uncertainty. Quantum physics states that the location of electrons at any given time is uncertain. In my understanding, this uncertainty relates to the differences in time. It is not the location of particles that is uncertain, but because of the time difference between our dimension and the dimension of the atom, we can’t see it.

If the atom was magnified to the size of the solar system, the location of every electron would be as certain as the location of every planet. From our dimension, it seems that the electrons rotate very fast, but from the perspective of the atomic dimension, it is just as slow or as fast as the revolution of the planets around the sun."

from:

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/5616

Look, I'm not here to poop on anyone's parade. If someone feels there is some profundity in viewing themselves as one level in a chain extending infinitely in both directions, by all means, "feel the Force flow through you", as he expression goes. But if you (not you Gem, I mean generally anyone...) are going to try and justify it through the findings of science, at least make some effort to learn about any of them. Take a very close look at the kind of wooster who will try and sell you their spiritual fluff piggy-backing on the good name of science, whilst misrepresenting it far beyond recognition, and ask yourself why they wouldn't make a philosophical or religious appeal instead.
If you want to learn about nature, I'd encourage anyone. Time permitting I'd even offer some assistance where I can. But don't rely on - and repeat - what your spiritual inspirers say about it unless you have some indication that they know anything about what they are speaking on. And in the end if you struggle to find good sources, or the time, or resources, remember: You don't have to study science, nor do you have to try and justify your spirituality through it. If anything, I think there is a case to be made for a spirituality free from science, and the constraints it brings with its commitment to build a genuine understanding of this beautiful nature around us.

I understand your reservations Gisteron. There are many teachings today that are not Truth and are embroiled in money, power or other nefarious things and it is sometimes hard to discern the wheat from the chaff. However Falun Dafa is Buddha Law, it's knowledge, wisdom and insights are vast and it transcends the knowledge of our current scientific paradigm. Buddha Law is a higher science. It tries to use modern science (when it can) to explain a few things within this dimension but it goes far and beyond our current scientific paradigm. It's multidimensional in nature.

I highly recommend checking out Zhuan Falun if you haven't already. It talks about all these things in depth.

I will leave you with an section from Zhuan Falun Volume 2 ( a supplementary book) that compares our current scientific knowledge to Buddha Law:

https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/html/zfl2/zfl2.htm#8



Adder wrote:

The map is not the territory.

Literally, its common in spiritual stuff for people tend to worship the idol (or teachings (or guru)), rather then seeing them as simple maps to the real inner practice of engineering perception and cognition.

Even in star wars they had padawans and Jedi's who mentored them and taught them the ways of the force.

Actually, in Cultivation ways throughout history Qi Gong Masters would train and pass down their knowledge and wisdom to their disciples down through the ages in a lineage type manner.

There were many masters like this throughout the ages. Buddha Shakyamuni and Jesus were two such enlightened beings but there have been many more lost to time in prehistoric civilizations. The age of Falun Dafa is very ancient, it's true history is very prehistoric indeed and only recently since a few decades ago has it been given to the secular world.

Before you recommend me your scriptures like some sort of Mormon visitor, please understand that approaching me through science will not be effective if you bother not to learn any before trying. As long as my own undergraduate understanding of physics keeps far surpassing that of you and your enlightened brethren, I am unlikely to come to look up to you as an authority on matters of science.

EnergyGem wrote: Neutrinos are the smallest particle currently detected by science.

"The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

This, dear ladies and gentlemen, is why you only use Wikipedia as a source (if at all) when you already know what it's talking about and what to look up, and not when you do not.

"The photon is a type of elementary particle... Photons have zero mass,..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Neutrinos are not the elementary particles with the smallest mass - photons are. And in terms of size/shape they are as point-like as the rest of the elementary particles. So neutrinos aren't "the smallest" of all known elementary particles in either sense of the word.

Even in 2020 science has reached the level of neutrinos but this is still far from the smallest particles in the universe.

In terms of size/shape, it is exactly as far as it goes. It's not smaller than quarks or electrons, but there is no particle smaller than a point. In terms of mass, we do have smaller particles already: The photons I mentioned before. Let me use this opportunity to point out another elementary particle lighter than the neutrino: The gluon. Theoretically it should also be massless, like the photon. Experimentally we have only been able to confirm that it is at least a hundred times lighter than the neutrino.

Namely, the uncertainty of the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom...

I didn't bring up uncertainty, but if you want to say yet more ridiculously wrong things about physics, by all means, I'm not here to stop you embarassing yourself and your brethren in faith. There is no "electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom". But let's see what your "enlightened" brother has to say about this.

Another thing I’ve enlightened to is what quantum physics refers to as uncertainty. Quantum physics states that the location of electrons at any given time is uncertain. In my understanding, this uncertainty relates to the differences in time. It is not the location of particles that is uncertain, but because of the time difference between our dimension and the dimension of the atom, we can’t see it.

No, that's incorrect. It's not like the electron really has a location that we just happen to be unable to precisely measure because our instruments are limited. Sure enough, there is measurement error as well, but uncertainty is a mathematical, logical consequence of the theory itself. We can measure that electrons have wave-like properties, that's not debatable. We can also measure that they have mass, that is also not debatable. Uncertainty follows mathematically from any description of a system like that. There is no consistent way of denying uncertainty without also denying frankly very easily reproducible (even with household means) observations.

From our dimension, it seems that the electrons rotate very fast,...

No, it does not. Setting aside that "very fast" is still below the speed of light, which we have no trouble resolving anyway, we actually do also know what it would look like "from our dimension" if electrons did rotate very fast around the nucleus they be bound to. And we have known that this is not what it looks like for a century now. I'm sorry, but your fellow practitioner who was "enlightened" to the secrets of quantum physics went on to present a completely false revelation about it. You may like what he has to say, and you may let him inspire your spiritual journey to any extent you please, but his scientific insights are - to put it bluntly - garbage. Maybe the gods wanted to toy with him, that I can't tell you, but it seems like what ever they revealed to him must either have been about as wrong as any lay man's wild speculations, or he misunderstood the revelation and elected not to inquire further but write down his nonsensical evidently blind guesses in an article instead. Someone who had any kind of curiosity, or any humility, would have bothered to find out first - it would not even have taken them long. This fellow however chose not to try. Enough said...

[Buddha Law] tries to use modern science (when it can) to explain a few things within this dimension...

Yea, well, I don't know who this "Buddha Law" person is, but judging by what you quote at me for reference it would seem that your brethren use science only because people generally trust it, eventhough most don't understand much of it. That's why with most audiences they can get away with talking complete gibberish as they put fancy sounding words in their mouth, and pretend like there is scientific merit to their woo. I'm sorry, but here is not that kind of audience. Perhaps you'd be better advised to keep it purely spiritual instead, if you must seek converts, and maybe you wouldn't end up sounding half as ignorant about the topics you raise.

If you want to build your journey on science, by all means, be my guest. As I said, I might even try and assist you in that. And if you wish to build it on some philosophical, or religious grounds, I'm sure there is someone else around to help out with each of that, too.
If you want to build your journey instead on false science, or on naive theology, or on bad philosophy, that, too, is perfectly within your rights. But as you are free to present your sect in search of converts, expect the religious scholars and philosophers and scientists among us to point out when you make it clear you spent no time investigating what it is you pull in to support your quest.

Before you recommend me your scriptures like some sort of Mormon visitor, please understand that approaching me through science will not be effective if you bother not to learn any before trying. As long as my own undergraduate understanding of physics keeps far surpassing that of you and your enlightened brethren, I am unlikely to come to look up to you as an authority on matters of science.

That's a little hostile Glisteron. I am sharing not scriptures. If you look at the excerpt from that book ( Zhuan Falun Volume 2) you would see that Master Li Hongzhi compares our current scientific paradigm to Buddha Law. Buddha Law is the law of the universe which enlightened beings have come to understand and awaken to in their inner cultivation. It far transcends our current scientific understanding about life, the universe and the human body. Science has closed off many people from the Truth and it's firmly formulated axioms are protected strongly, many times by emotion and not reason.

Neutrinos are not the elementary particles with the smallest mass - photons are. And in terms of size/shape they are as point-like as the rest of the elementary particles. So neutrinos aren't "the smallest" of all known elementary particles in either sense of the word.

I am talking about particles that are matter. Strictly speaking, Photons are not matter.

If by "matter" you mean massive (in the sense of having nonzero rest mass), then photons are not matter. - https://www.quora.com/Are-photons-energy-or-matter

A photon is a "particle of light." However, photons are not considered to be matter because they have no mass. They are "massless particles." Think of them as little packets of energy, each containing one quantum of energy, which is the smallest amount of energy that matter can absorb at a time. - https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3tix50/are_photons_matter_and_do_they_have_mass_how_much/

So neutrinos are actually the smallest type of elementary particle of matter that has been detected by science at it's current stage.

"I didn't bring up uncertainty, but if you want to say yet more ridiculously wrong things about physics, by all means, I'm not here to stop you embarassing yourself and your brethren in faith. There is no "electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom". But let's see what your "enlightened" brother has to say about this."

The reason why science has restricted itself is because what it can't see or detect yet with it's scientific instruments it rejects and denies outright and rigidly holds on to it's current scientific axioms. Yes, electrons at a very microcosmic level are just like planets orbiting around a sun. Everything changes when one pierces different dimensions and space/times. Time and space are different in different dimensions. Great Enlightened beings already know that the universe is multidimensional in nature and science is also starting to understand this at a tentative and theoretical level.

I know you have reservations about this but I will share you an excerpt from A Buddha Law lecture by Master Li Hongzhi (the author of Zhuan Falun) where he addresses this point:

“What kind of dimensional form does our human race live in? I am telling everyone that this dimensional layer where mankind lives is between two kinds of particles. As for particles, those of us who have studied physics know that molecules, atoms, nuclei, quarks, and neutrinos are each a layer of particles. They are physical elements that constitute larger particles. Which layer of particles does mankind exist in? The largest things that we see with human eyes are planets, and the smallest things that we can see under the microscope are molecules.

In fact, our mankind just exists in this dimensional layer between the planets and the molecules. We may find it very vast, very extensive, and incomparably big. I say that modern science is not advanced. No matter how far a spacecraft can fly, it cannot fly beyond this physical dimension of ours. However developed a computer is, it cannot match the human brain. Now the human brain is still a mystery. Therefore, the science of mankind is still very shallow.

Try to imagine it, everyone. Our human race lives in between these two kinds of particles of planets and molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms, then what is the dimension between atoms and molecules like? Modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point, one of its small structures. In fact, the place where atoms exist is also a plane, and the physical dimension formed by such a plane is also quite huge. It is only that what you have discovered is a point. Within this plane then, how big is this dimension?

Our standard for measuring distances is always based upon the perspective of mankind’s own modern science to judge everything. You must jump out of the framework and the concepts of empirical science. In order for you to enter that dimension, you must comply with the forms of that dimension, and only then can you enter it.

The distance from an atom to a molecule, as science understands it, is approximately two million atoms lined up, and only then can an atom reach a molecule. That is to say that this distance that it can understand is already quite vast. You cannot understand it from the standpoint of this present empirical scientific model of mankind. Then, please try to think about it for a moment.

Isn’t it a dimensional layer in between from an atom to its nuclei? How great then is the dimensional distance between the nuclei and a quark? What about between a quark and a neutrino? Of course, the current science of mankind can only understand as far as neutrinos. Man cannot see them except for detecting them with apparatus to know their mode of existence. In fact, it is not known how far away they are from the original source of matter!

What I am talking about is the simplest form of dimensional existence. All physical substances of our mankind, including all substances that you cannot see in the air as well as those substances that we can see such as iron, cement, animals, plants, matter, and the human body, are composed of molecules. Mankind just exists on this plane of molecules, just like a 3-D painting. You live on this plane and you cannot escape it. Mankind’s science is also limited within this one dimension which it cannot even break through.

Yet, people still claim how developed science is and disregard all other theories. Mankind’s technology cannot reach a higher understanding of the universe. If it were really able to break through this dimensional layer, it would see the mode of existence of life and the mode of existence of matter in other dimensions, as well as the structures in them made by time and space. However, our practitioners can see it. Only Buddhas are the greatest scientists.

When I talked about opening Tianmu (the third eye), I mentioned this issue. One can avoid using eyes to see things and look through this Tianmu of ours, namely between the two eyebrows, or from the Shangen as the Taoist School calls it. At the root of your nose, a passageway is opened directly to your Pineal Body. It is called the Pineal Body in medical science. Practitioners in the Taoist School call it the Niwan Palace, which refers to the same thing. However, in the front part of this Pineal Body, medical scientists have already found it equipped with all the component structures of a human eye.

Modern medical scientists find it very strange. Why is there an eye inside? They consider it a vestigial eye, and they still explain these things with the theory of evolution. In fact, it just exists this way, and it is not at all degenerated. When one avoids the flesh eyes, of course, when these flesh eyes have been cultivated, the flesh eyes can also penetrate and also have this kind of supernormal capability. The Buddha Fa is boundless."

- An excerpt from the 1996 Fa Lecture in Sydney, Australia : https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/1996L_2018.html


I believe Nikola Tesla really hit the nail on the head when he said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

EnergyGem wrote: I am talking about particles that are matter. Strictly speaking, Photons are not matter.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about elementary particles when you said "elementary particles". I guess I should have put words in your mouth and not listened to what you actually said. Now you had to shift the goal post. I'm so sorry. My bad.

A photon is a "particle of light." However, photons are not considered to be matter because they have no mass... - https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3tix50/are_photons_matter_and_do_they_have_mass_how_much/

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't take reddit as your source on matters of science. W and Z bosons are also not matter particles, but their mass is orders of magnitude greater than that of quarks, and still a hundred times heavier than that of a proton or a neutron. The reason photons are not considered to be matter has nothing to do with their masslessness, but with their spin. Photons are bosons. Matter is made of fermions. Though a particle is elementary if it has no underlying structure, which can be the case for fermions and for bosons alike. The photon and the gluon are not matter, but they are both lighter than the electron, and they are both elementary particles. Your initial claim, whether you admit to making it or not, was false.

So neutrinos are actually the smallest type of elementary particle of matter that has been detected by science at it's current stage.

Correct.

The reason why science has restricted itself is because what it can't see or detect yet with it's scientific instruments it rejects and denies outright and rigidly holds on to it's current scientific axioms.

Nonsense. If it did that, it wouldn't progress at all. It wouldn't make useful predictions and inform development of new technologies if it did that. People wouldn't trust the words of scientific experts or the devices they use to assist them in life if it were so. You wouldn't be here trying to weave science into your woo-woo, if science was like that. You can't have it both ways. If it is rigid and narrow-minded, and bars itself from making meaningful progress, and yet supports your woo-woo, then, well... you can finish this thought yourself, I'm sure.

Yes, electrons at a very microcosmic level are just like planets orbiting around a sun.

No, they are nothing like that, no matter how often you keep repeating it. Electrons are charged and charge has a sign. Mass does not. If electrons orbited their nucleus like a planet does its sun, they would drop down into the nucleus. There would be no such thing as a stable atom if that were the case. I don't care if that's what your spiritual great enlightened masters revealed to you. If that is what they said, then they don't know what they are talking about. And instead of finding that out, you chose to just follow what they say, not question it. Tell me again how it's people of science who are rigidly holding on to their own axioms because of emotions. How much of the teachings you take from your masters have you bothered to scrutinize lately?
Oh, and before you say that I take my lecturers' words for granted - The device you use to tell me what you have to say only works because we know enough about electrodynamics to exploit it for radio communications. The workings of nature that allow you to speak to me literally prohibit the electrons from orbiting nuclei.

I know you have reservations about this but I will share you an excerpt from A Buddha Law lecture by Master Li Hongzhi (the author of Zhuan Falun) where he addresses this point:

Oh, great, more scriptures. Sure, let's say what new pseudoscientific gibberish your religion has yet to offer.

... those of us who have studied physics know that molecules, atoms, nuclei, quarks, and neutrinos are each a layer of particles.

I have studied physics and I have no clue what he means by "layers". I guess molecules are made of atoms, atoms of a nucleus and electrons, nuclei of nucleons, and nucleons of quarks. Neutrinos are the odd one out here, though, they have no such relation to the others.
May I point out at this point that a nucleon is not fully described by quarks alone. Nucleons consist of three quarks, but the sum of their masses is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the nucleon. Most of a nucleon's mass is actually carried by the gluons I mentioned in the last post. But wait! Gluons are (supposed to be) massless! How can they contribute? That's right. Mass is more complicated than just lumps of weight. And "those of us who have studied physics" understand that. Moving on...

The largest things that we see with human eyes are planets,...

Really? What about stars/suns? What about distant galaxies?

... and the smallest things that we can see under the microscope are molecules.

No, that depends on what we mean by a microscope. There are microscopes that allow us to resolve atoms just fine.

However developed a computer is, it cannot match the human brain.

That depends entirely on what one means by matching. There is nothing a computer can do that a human in principle couldn't. But some tasks that took humans entire lifetimes a few hundred years ago took computers only a few days in 1996 and mere hours or even minutes today, and with far fewer errors. With those tasks I'd say it is us who can't match the performance of our computers.

Now the human brain is still a mystery. Therefore, the science of mankind is still very shallow.

Oh, nice, so this spiritual scholar barely bothered to scratch the surface and concluded there is nothing underneath. Let's hope he doesn't get to be a helmsman on the Titanic.

Modern scientists can only understand an atom as a point,...

Now this is getting embarassing. Not only is this false, but this even contradicts what was said earlier. The author already pointed out nuclei and even quarks, i.e. a substructure of the atom, and now he says that in science atoms are seen as points? Come on, if they're going to lie about science, the least they could do is keep it consistent!

The distance from an atom to a molecule, as science understands it, is approximately two million atoms lined up, and only then can an atom reach a molecule.

I'm not sure what the distance from an atom to a molecule is, or what it means for an atom to "reach" a molecule. That being said, the radius of a hydrogen molecule is about 0.53Å, while the distance between two nuclei in a dihydrogen (H₂) molecule is 0.74Å. We could say that the longest end-to-end distance of a hydrogen molecule is one atomic radius on either side and the internuclear distance inbetween, resulting in something like 1.8Å, but we can be generous and use its kinetic diameter of a whopping 2.89Å. Again, for generosity's sake we'll take the smallest estimate of the diameter of atomic hydrogen at 1.06Å. So how many atoms can we "line up" before their total length reaches the size of an admittedly small molecule? Well, we are dividing something that is less than three units by something that is just above one unit so... still less than 3. Something like 2.7. That's about a million times less than the "two million" claimed.
Okay, so what if we do the same for a larger molecule? How about carbon tetrachloride, the famous refrigerant and cleaning compound? Now that's made of carbon and chlorine, but let's for the sake of generosity again compare its kinetic diameter to the atomic diameter of atomic hydrogen.
5.90Å / 1.06Å = 5.57
We're still off by a factor of about half a million. It's almost like the "two million atoms lined up" figure is completely made up with not a single second spent actually looking up the question, let alone investigating it.

Isn’t it a dimensional layer in between from an atom to its nuclei?

Every atom has exactly one nucleus. The comparison of an atom's size to that of its nucleus actually gets a lot closer to the two million, but still not quite there. In the case of atomic hydrogen the size ratio is about 100 000, still 20 times less than two million, but at least not a million times. With heavier elements the number gets smaller though, because the shell size grows less with proton count than the size of the nucleus.

How great then is the dimensional distance between the nuclei and a quark?

Depends on what we mean by the sizes respectively. One can define effective scattering radii for the quarks but the actual distance anything can close in to them depends only on the energy invested. The quark is point-like, it has no extension at all. So in a sense, the size ratio of a nucleus (no matter how large or small) to a quark is infinite. The only problem is though... quarks cannot exist alone. It is possible to find or to create free electrons, free protons, even free neutrons, but free quarks cannot exist. You try and pull apart a particle made of two quarks and you'll either end up with two such particles or give up before it gets that far.

What about between a quark and a neutrino?

Quarks have a diameter of zero and neutrinos have a diameter of zero. There is no size difference between them. We can measure that.

Only Buddhas are the greatest scientists.

Well it's not much of a compliment to say that someone is a greatest scientist, if science itself is oh so unfit to find out what ever magical satisfaction you're asking for, is it. "Science is pointless, also my magnificent friends are best at it." Yeah, good job.
Also, if these Buddhas are so great at science, how come everything they seem to be telling you about science is either wrong, or nonsensical, or both?

However, in the front part of this Pineal Body, medical scientists have already found it equipped with all the component structures of a human eye.

Yea, all the component structures... except the lens, a diaphragm, a retina, an optic nerve, optical muscles, a vitreous body... But everything else, absolutely!

Modern medical scientists find it very strange. Why is there an eye inside? They consider it a vestigial eye, and they still explain these things with the theory of evolution.

No. Nobody but clueless woosters keep pushing this nonsense. There is no ancestor we have that has anything like a third organ that is structurally similar to any other eyes that ancestor might have had at the time, at their forehead. Not in our recent ancestry and not in our distant ancestry all the way to our common ancestor with insects. Neither do we. This is just a straight up lie.

I believe Nikola Tesla really hit the nail on the head when he said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

It's funny then, how quite the opposite is true. For centuries thinkers were trying to think of all things at once, physical nature, the human spirit, the gods, the arts, and morals and they progressed from living in mud huts to living in mud huts reinforced by some straw - except I guess their kings who had stone palaces build for themselves, with tiny windows for daylight and holes in the ground for toilets... And then the printing press came along, the dreadful physical sciences followed, and within a few decades life expectancy grew from 30 to 70, and travel changed from a likely death sentence to a leisure activity. I don't know if that Tesla quote is genuine or not, and we can say what we will about his importance in the history of electrical engineering, but the contents of that quote are garbage, much like your grasp of science, which, for the record, nobody is forcing you to use to justify your woo. You could have argued philosophically or spiritually. You chose not to. You chose to talk of things you clearly have no clue about. Any embarassment you are now enduring is all a consequences of your decision.