ATOM - Paramanu OR Anu?

[Guest guest]

In Srimad Bhagavat Maha-purana, Canto III, Chapter XI - in the BBT Edition it is stated that the smallest particle of matter, not joined with any other, is called a "Paramanu" and it goes on to say that a paramanu is an "atom."

 

According to Apti's Sanskrit dictionery an ANU is an Atom. While a "Paramanu" is a SUB ATOMIC particle, not an atom.

 

An Atom is not the smallest particle of matter, that would be sub-atomic particle. So isn't the correct translation that a Paramanu is a SUB-atomic particle, while two subatomic particles conjoined makes an ANU or atom.?

 

An Anu is the smallest life form that a jivatma can occupy. But a Paramanu cannot contain life.

 

What should be done? we don't want to appear uneducated.

 

---Just wondering***

[Guest guest]

It seems so...

 

Should it be fixed???

 

That is the question...

[theist 1]

fix it.

 

I asked a similar question to Jayatitha so many moons ago in SB class. He said the atom was the smallest material particle, I asked then what do we call an electron? He jumped all over me. I just took that to mean he didn't know.

 

I don't know, three very important words.

 

Nice observation prabhu eagle eye.

[theist 1]

Slightly different but related.

 

Do atoms contain jivatma or just Paramatma? Always wondered.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The word atom has a technical scientific definition and a general definition in the dictionary. The general definition is the smallest undivisible unit of matter, which is what the BBT is refering to. The scientific definition (with electrons, protons, etc.) is not being referred to.

 

 

[theist 1]

Maybe a footnote would be in order. What do we say is the smallest indivisable unit of matter in scientific terms?

 

This brings out a small list of related questions that I have filed over the years.

 

What exactly is being refered to as matter in that verse? This is what i had hoped Jayatirth could've clear for me. Is an electron still called matter?

 

What of subtle matter? The composition of a thoughtform for instance?

 

Are we just speaking of the gross form of matter here? Are protons and electrons considered some type of borderline or cusp material between the subtle and gross manifestations?

 

Just generally, what's up with this stuff?

[Govindaram 1]

 

 

 

 

 

Discussed

 

*Mukunda - mala - stotra*

 

 

Sutra 2

PURPORT (Excerpt)

In His impersonal feature (Brahman) the Supreme Lord is everywhere, inside and outside: as the Supersoul (Paramatma) He is inside everything, from the gigantic universal form down to the atoms and electrons; and as the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Bhagavan) He sustains everything with His energies. (We have already described this feature of the Lord in the purport to the previous verse, in connection with the name Jagan-nivasa.) Therefore in each of His three features-Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan-the Lord is present everywhere in the material world. Yet He remains aloof, busy with His transcendental pastimes in His supreme abode.

 

---

 

The way I think of protons/electrons is that the eyes and ears of the atom, I think, I also put this somewhere else its by a devotee called Gopivaishnava, I don't understand it as, you might though:

 

 

___

 

___

The smallest number of atoms a human being can see is three. Only God can see one atom or two atoms, when he sees one atom made into two god recognises duality.

 

We can see under an electron microscope that a single electron within the nucleus of an atom is both particle and wave particle being material and wave being moveable energy.

 

God is in every atom, atoms have electrons that are both material and wave. God is purusa, not prakriti. Prakriti being the part of the atom that's material particle, He Purusa, the other part of the electron that consists of the energy that causes the wave. Electrons are both particle and wave; wave being Purusa, particle being the material part of the electron and Prakriti.

 

The difference between Purusa and Prakriti is the same difference we see of electrons with in the nucleus of an atom. One part of the electron is Prakriti the other part Purusa.

 

Seen like these even atoms have dual personality. God is in every atom because atoms are both Purusa and Prakriti.

 

{I don't understand this part}

 

Say that within the nucleus of only one atom there is one electron one proton and cytoplasm surrounding the two. Lets call the cytoplasm the wind god Vayu, the electron fire god Agni, and the proton Indra. From the outside of one small atom made up of these three things the center some we call Purusa or Vishnu causes the proton Indra to create thunder so loud and shaking it causes the electron Agni to move quick through the cytoplasm of the wind god Vayu out of the original one atom making it two.

 

That's the divine nature of the atoms. There is a north and south pole in each atom. The atom with a north magnetic pole reaches towards Purusa, and the atom with a south seeking magnetic pole goes towards Prakriti or material nature.

 

What's left of our first atom is an atom with a north seeking magnetic pole, cytoplasm of the wind god Vayu and the proton that's Lord Indra.

 

Of our newly formed second atom is an atom with a south seeking magnetic pole that attaches itself to material nature or Prakriti.

____

 

 

 

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Atoms make the molecules that make the scientific elements.

 

So the smallest unit has parts? So what? It's still the smallest unit. An electron means a satellite. Has no meaning without it's orbital motion about the nucleus… sunshine and sun… simultaneous one and different.

 

And since neither can apparently function without the other… there is no meaning of one without the other. Thus the smallest coherent or meaningful unit is the atom.

 

The obvious philosophical conclusion of interdependent relationships seems to be built into the evidence of matter itself. Seems to me the distinctions between energy and energetic are also lost on this level. In other words, Krsna is everything.

[Guest guest]

They both call ANU as "Atom" and Paramanu as sub-atomic particles.

 

It seems in this Sanskrit that they clearly say that paramanu is the smallest particle of matter (jada) and always remains that way, even during Mahapralaya, because it is just uncombined pure matter. Therefore it cannot contain a jiva soul.

 

An Atom or Anu (according to the dictionary and the Gita Press SB) is a combination of 2 paramanus and THAT = an atom, an atom can contain the jiva & paramatma.

 

Otherwise paramanus, on their own, are always dead material substance.

 

At least that's what the Visva Kosa Sanskrit disctionary says, plus the Shastri translation of SB. And if even the BBT edition says that paramanu is smallest substance, then, scientifically, it cannot be an atom. RIGHT!

 

It should be fixed before we are laughing stock of the scientific community. This is just commen sense matter.

 

QUESTION: Where are the Prabhupada MSS? I wonder who changed it? I'm sure Srila Prabhupada didn't write that because he was a scientific man. OR, did they already discover the "sub-atomic" particles during Srila Prabhupada's life?

 

If it is so obviously wrong it should be fixed ASAP.

[theist 1]

I am not sure how to take what Gopisvara wrote. I am not sure I can go along with his use of the term Purusa here but since I don't really understand I can't say I oppose it either.

 

I'll just have to leave all this in my 'unknown' file, which is actually getting very very large.

 

A verse I have taped to my monitor.

 

Even a person with no knowledge can immediately acquire all knowledge simply by the benediction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Therfore I am praying to the Lord for His causless mercy upon me. CC Madhya 1.1

[theist 1]

I see a difference between "smallest unit" and smallest particle". See what I mean?

[theist 1]

I find it interesting that even the atom was even being discussed. An e-mail to the BBT concerning this might be a good idea.

 

If it warrants a change or footnote(I am leary of outright changes and prefer footnotes) it would seem easy enough for them to do.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

If it is so obviously wrong it should be fixed ASAP.

 

 

Actually its not wrong. Please see the dictionary definition of atom, then it will become clear, at least for those who arent trying their hardest to point out defects in devotees:

 

 

At´om

n. 1. (Physics) An ultimate indivisible particle of matter.

 

2. (Chem.) The smallest particle of matter that can enter into combination; one of the elementary constituents of a molecule.

 

3. Anything extremely small; a particle; a whit.

 

 

Notice the difference between atom used in physics and chemistry, as well of the general usage of atom. You are stuck on the technical definition from chemistry, which is obviously not what Prabhupada was referring to.

 

If you try hard enough you can find defects in the writings of devotees, but for honest people most of those defects really aren't there.

 

The original greek root of the word atom means "indivisible", and that is what Prabhupada is refering to. The fact that the usage of the word has changed in the last 50 years and developed alternate meanings doesn't change the original meaning of the word.

 

 

The word atom is derived from the Greek atomos, indivisible, from a-, not, and tomos, a cut.

 

 

Here are the first two definitions for Atom in the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

 

1a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system. b. The irreducible, indestructible material unit postulated by ancient atomism.

 

 

Thus Prabhupada's usage is not "so obviously wrong". You just don't know what an atom is, and based on ignorance you want to point out defects in Prabhupada that don't exist.

 

 

What should be done? we don't want to appear uneducated.

 

 

Ooops. Too late.

 

[ancient_paztriot 0]

whatever you call it, there is no seperate existence as suggested by such language.

[Avinash 0]

If you read current Science books, then you will find that Hindi books use the word "anu" as equivalent of English word molecule and they use "paramanu" as equivalent of "atom".

 

But if somebody translates "anu" as atom, I will not consider even that as wrong. It often happens that two groups of people use the same word to mean two different things.

[Avinash 0]

Event electrons are not the smallest. Quarks are smaller. There are six kinds of quarks found so far: up, down, strange, top, bottom charm and there are as many anti quarks. Top was earlier called as truth and bottom was earlier called as beauty.

Please note that Bhagavatam uses the paramanu to mean something which exists in nature even if it is not joined with anything else. This rules out subatomic particles electron, proton and neutron because they do not exist for long when not inside an atom. Of course, by doing experiments you can make them exist alone but only for a very short time.

[theist 1]

It's all too much Avinash. It just goes whirling magically past my head. I just try to remember that whatever it is that is happening its all under the supervision of the Supreme Person.

 

Whew

[Avinash 0]

We can see under an electron microscope that a single electron within the nucleus of an atom is both particle and wave

 

Not only electrons, even atoms show both wave and particle property. Recently experiments have shown that even molecules show both behaviours. According to De Broglie's theory, everything in the world (both microscopic and macroscopic) shows both behaviours.

 

Say that within the nucleus of only one atom there is one electron one proton and cytoplasm surrounding the two.

 

Electrons are not inside but outside nucleus.

[Guest guest]

Please. I checked and it clearly says a paramanu is the smallest particle, undivided, which can NOT be split or further subdivided. It seems that clearly SB is talking about sub-atomic particle. If a paramanu was an atom then it could be split, otherwise what is atomic energy but splitting atoms. But paramanu CANNOT be split. An atom, composed of 2 subatomic particles can be split. So paramanu=sub-atomic particle, and anu=atom (2 paramanus)

 

I agree with Theist that at least a footnote is in order. Otherwise what will people say when they read about an anu being a "double atom", etc. I don't think any one is trying to offend anyone. The reputation of the Guru must always be protected. This is a way.

[Avinash 0]

If we use the word atom to mean what it means in current scientific literature, then it is true that an atom can be further divided. So, this means that it is not inivisible. But it does not mean that it is not undivided. We have to consider what Bhagavatam means when it calles paramanu as undivided (somebody please post the actual Sanskrit word). May be that Bhagavatam is talking about something which can exist in nature in an undivided form.

Moreover, even sub-atomic particles can be divided further.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Please. I checked and it clearly says a paramanu is the smallest particle, undivided, which can NOT be split or further subdivided. It seems that clearly SB is talking about sub-atomic particle. If a paramanu was an atom then it could be split...

 

 

You still don't understand what is the meaning of atom. Maybe read the dictionary definition a few more times. The original definition of atom refers to the smallest undivisible particle of matter, or the paramanu:

1a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system.

 

 

 

otherwise what is atomic energy but splitting atoms.

 

 

That is only an atom according to the chemistry definition. Prabhupada was not writing a chemistry book. He wrote in english utilizing proper english definitions. Refer to the American heritage definition of atom shown above to understand this more clearly.

 

 

In Srimad Bhagavat Maha-purana, Canto III, Chapter XI - in the BBT Edition it is stated that the smallest particle of matter, not joined with any other, is called a "Paramanu" and it goes on to say that a paramanu is an "atom."

 

 

Paramanu is the irreducible constituent of physical matter, thus it is an atom by the following definition:

1a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system.

 

 

[Guest guest]

According to the scriptures, the soul is acintya-bhedabheda prakash, a form that is simultaneously distinct yet non distinct from God. It can be thought of as a particle or a wave, but in both cases this is just our "thought" bout the sould but the soul itself is something more than our "thought" and it is remarkable and astonishing. If you could see your own soul, you would be amazed. It is simultaneously separate from God and one with God, sharing some of his amazing potential.

-m.

[Avinash 0]

I am not sure if we can take wave particle duality to mean acintya bheda abheda.

[gHari 0]

"Atom" was formulated before science knew the atom was not the essential building block of matter. American Heritage dictionary:<blockquote>at·om n. 1.a. A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system. b. The irreducible, indestructible material unit postulated by ancient atomism. 2. An extremely small part, quantity, or amount. 3. Physics & Chemistry. a. A unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10–8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. b. This unit regarded as a source of nuclear energy. [Middle English attome, from Latin atomus, from Greek atomos, indivisible, atom : a-, not; see A-1 + tomos, cutting (from temnein, to cut; see tem- below).]

————————————————————

tem-. Important derivatives are: tome, anatomy, atom, diatom, epitome, temple1, contemplate.

tem-. Also tem…-. To cut. I. Form *tem…-. Nasalized form *t(e)m-n-…-. TMESIS, TOME, (-TOME), -TOMY; ANATOMY, ATOM, DIATOM, DICHOTOMY, ENTOMO-, EPITOME, from Greek temnein, to cut, with o-grade forms tomos, cutting, a cut, section, volume, and tom¶, a cutting. II. Form *tem-. 1. Suffixed form *tem-lo-. TEMPLE1, TEMPLE3; CONTEMPLATE, from Latin templum, temple, shrine, open place for observation (augury term < “place reserved or cut out”), small piece of timber. 2. Extended root *tem-d- becoming *tend- in o-grade suffixed (iterative) form *tond-eyo-. TONSORIAL, TONSURE, from Latin tond¶re, to shear, shave. [Pokorny 1. tem-, tend- 1062.]</blockquote>

 

Literally "Not cuttable".

 

[Avinash 0]

Very often it happens that Scientists take some existing word and modify its meaning to mean something which was not exactly the original meaning. Therefore, it is quite common to find that the same word can mean something in Science and something in day to day talk.

We cannot say that scientists are wrong. We also cannot say that the others are wrong. We should understand the meaning in proper context.