Can anyone solve the issue of the mahabhutas in the commentaries without rejecting nor contradicting realism?

[zan]

The problem is, in a nutshell, the Classical Theravada position is one of firm realism, which affirms mind independent reality. But, then they declare that there is nothing to the earth element except "hardness." That's it, that's all it is. This introduces a phenomenalist concept into a realist system, which would make it incoherent due to self contradiction, unless someone has a solution. If any users will reply that the Classical Theravada system is a form of phenomenalism, or idealism, or anything but realism, please note that this is a very well known position, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. The issue at hand is that the system is articulated in ways that are overtly realist, yet then has this completely contradictory element of phenomenalism.

At length, we have a tradition that clearly, unambiguously is akin to a kind of atomism, which they call kalapas, or paramattha dhammas, which disappear and reappear rapidly, dependent on each other. It teaches that these atoms, though, are mind independent. The earth, land, rocks and so on arise and cease on their own, composed of these atoms, the earth appears before people are reborn on it, and it isn't even caused to appear by kamma in the first place. People leave behind corpses after consciousness ceases, the corpse is made of dhammas generated by the fire element, tejo, which can generate matter all on its own, and so on, and, thus, it is quite independent of perception. Even if we forget the word "atom" and "atomism" if anyone finds issue with that word, the point remains that scholars generally present it as something like realism, if not outright call it realism, and, regardless, the system affirms the mind independent dhammas.

Then, it inexplicably says that the element of earth is something completely incompatible with all of this: that it is just "hardness."'

A few quotes to substantiate these points, then I'll get back to the question at hand.

It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

…

…the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as “things which bear their own intrinsic nature” (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…
…concretely produced matter…possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.
…
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.

-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260

It should be noted that the atomic theory prevailed in
India in the time of the Buddha. Paramàõu was the ancient
term for the modern atom. According to the ancient belief
one rathareõu consists of 16 tajjàris, one tajjàri, 16 aõus;
one aõu, 16 paramàõus. The minute particles of dust seen
dancing in the sunbeam are called rathareõus. One paramàõu is, therefore, 4096th part of a rathareõu. This paramàõu was considered indivisible.
With His supernormal knowledge the Buddha analysed this so-called paramàõu and declared that it consists
of paramatthas—ultimate entities which cannot further be
subdivided.
The paramatthas are pañhavi, àpo, tejo, and vàyo.
-Narada Thera, A Manual of Abhidhamma, page 318

dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism
-The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality
By Y. Karunadasa, chapter 2

What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas
is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises
the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject
yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that
truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that
owe their being to the act of cognition itself.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, page 38

Controverted point: That land is a result of action.
...your proposition is wrong.
...the earth is established and afterwards beings are reborn on it.
-Kv 7.7

But at the time of death, kamma-born material phenomena no
longer arise starting with the stage of presence of the seventeenth
consciousness preceding the death consciousness. Kamma-born
material phenomena that arose earlier occur till the death-moment
and then cease. Following that, the consciousness-born and nutriment-born material phenomena come to cessation. Thereafter,
a continuity of material qualities produced by temperature persists
as long as it can be called a corpse.
-Bodhi, ibid, p 257

Tejo is the element of heat. Cold is also a form of tejo.
Both heat and cold are included in tejo because they possess the power of maturing bodies. Tejo, in other words, is
the vitalizing energy. Preservation and decay are also due
to this element. Unlike the other three essentials of matter,
this element has the power to regenerate matter by itself.
-Narada Thera, A Manual of Abhidhamma p 319

The earth element (paṭhavī-dhātu), in the ultimate sense, is the mere property of hardness. By earth is not meant any substance— not even a hundred-thousandth part of an atom. It lacks shape, mass, form, core, or solidity. Therefore, this element exists in very clear spring water or river water; in all forms of light, including sunlight, moonlight, and even the lustre of gems; in all sounds, including the vibrant sounds of gongs or pagoda bells; in moving air, from the softest breeze to a gale ; and in smells, good or bad, that spread near and far…In the case of light and smell, however, although the element of extension is definitely there, this element is too subtle to notice. No empirical data can be drawn from them. We simply have to rely on the authority of the scriptures…

When hundreds of thousands of crores of the earth element— by themselves the mere property of hardness—happen to be held together by the element of cohesion or the water element (āpodhātu), a form appears, which is given the name “atom.” When thousands of crores of such atoms come together, certain forms of life come into being, beginning with tiny insects.

Now what? It has been said it is phenomenalism. I'd be obliged to agree, if all there was to it was the hardness thing. However, the rest of it completely rules out the phenomenalism reading. So, we have a distinctly phenomenalism thing in a system that otherwise is quite incompatible with phenomenalism.

Then, when we call it realism, we are confronted with this.

Worse, still, mind independent dhammas that exist from their own side, cannot be just "hardness," that is linguistically, and logically, nonsense.

So, either we come up with a solution, or we must say the system is self contradictory, and cannot be called anything, because it doesn't make any sense.

My thinking is we have to take it for granted that their idea of what "hardness" is and means must be different than what it means from the phenomenalist perspective.

I haven't come up with anything to substantiate this position, though, except that it may be some kind of force or field, and that is based on the fact that it is called the element of extension in the commentaries.

Does anyone have any solution? I respectfully reject the brushing off of the issue by calling it phenomenalism, for no other reason than that other parts of it are incompatible with phenomenalism, which rules out that reading. That said, I would concede that it possibly may be a self contradictory system, and thus insoluble, but not that it is a phenomenalist system.

The pious in me, however, and the part of me that is confident in the brilliance of the arahants of old who composed the Theravada system, is entirely confident that there is a solution.

[Ceisiwr]

At length, we have a tradition that clearly, unambiguously is akin to a kind of atomism, which they call kalapas, or paramattha dhammas, which disappear and reappear rapidly, dependent on each other. It teaches that these atoms, though, are mind independent. The earth, land, rocks and so on arise and cease on their own, composed of these atoms, the earth appears before people are reborn on it, and it isn't even caused to appear by kamma in the first place. People leave behind corpses after consciousness ceases, the corpse is made of dhammas generated by the fire element, tejo, which can generate matter all on its own, and so on, and, thus, it is quite independent of perception. Even if we forget the word "atom" and "atomism" if anyone finds issue with that word, the point remains that scholars generally present it as something like realism, if not outright call it realism, and, regardless, the system affirms the mind independent dhammas.

According to traditional Theravāda the earth, land, rocks and corpses do not really exist. As they do not really exist, you can't then say that they are made up of rūpa-kalāpas.

[Ceisiwr]

89. 3. By particles: in this body the earth element taken as reduced to fine dust and powdered to the size of the smallest atom31 might amount to an average doóa measure full; and that is held together32 by the water element measuring half as much. Being maintained33 by the fire element, and distended by the air element, it does not get scattered or dissipated. Instead of getting scattered or dissipated, it arrives at the alternative states of the female and male sex, etc., and manifests smallness, bigness, length, shortness, toughness, rigidity, and so on

Visuddhimagga - CHAPTER XI Concentration (conclusion): Nutriment and the Elements

If we are to frame this in terms of ultimate reality, in terms of sabhāva-dhammas, then we would have the following:

89. 3. By particles: in this mass of rūpa-kalāpas hardness taken as reduced to fine dust and powdered to the size of the smallest atom31 might amount to an average doóa measure full; and that is held together32 by cohesion measuring half as much. Being maintained33 by heat, and being distended by distension, it does not get scattered or dissipated. Instead of getting scattered or dissipated, it arrives at the alternative states of the female and male sex, etc., and manifests hardness.

I omitted smallness, bigness, length, shortness because ultimately these things do not exist. I left out "toughness" and "rigidity" because they are saying the same thing, namely "hard".

[Ceisiwr]

(1) The earth element (paµhav²dh±tu): The great essentials are called elements (dh±tu) in the sense that they bear their own intrinsic natures (attano sabh±va½ dh±renti). The earth element is so called because, like the earth, it serves as a support or foundation for the coexisting material phenomena. The word paµhav² comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, the function of acting as a foundation (for the other primary elements and derived matter), and manifestation as receiving.3 Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. Both hardness and softness are modes in which the earth element is experienced by the sense of touch

- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

According to traditional Theravāda its not the case that the earth element has hardness (or softness). Rather the earth element is hardness (or softness). Apart from it's characteristics, the earth element doesn't exist. How then is "hardness" or "softness" ontologically existent, if there is no substance which bears the characteristic of being hard or soft?

[justindesilva]

(1) The earth element (paµhav²dh±tu): The great essentials are called elements (dh±tu) in the sense that they bear their own intrinsic natures (attano sabh±va½ dh±renti). The earth element is so called because, like the earth, it serves as a support or foundation for the coexisting material phenomena. The word paµhav² comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, the function of acting as a foundation (for the other primary elements and derived matter), and manifestation as receiving.3 Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. Both hardness and softness are modes in which the earth element is experienced by the sense of touch

- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

According to traditional Theravāda its not the case that the earth element has hardness (or softness). Rather the earth element is hardness (or softness). Apart from it's characteristics, the earth element doesn't exist. How then is "hardness" or "softness" ontologically existent, if there is no substance which bears the characteristic of being hard or soft?Dhamma substance.jpg

Bahudatuka sutta as explained to Ananda thero explains what a skilled and clever bikku should realise by naming six elements from as rupa vedana sangna sankara and paticca samuppada involving 18 elements, These are rupa vedana etc with senses of sight hearing
Smell touch and form all as elements with their bases , As it is too complex to explain you may down load Bahudatuka sutta for a clear understanding .
Further lord budda explains elements in Mulaparyaya sutta to understand elements as apo tejo vayo patavi akasa as elements
He needs us to realise water as water air as air earth as earth and stickiness as it while our knowledge is sufficient to realise that apo is friction , tejo is heat or radiation vayo is fluidity and patavi is hardness , Also modern science has made us realise that these are physically qualitues mutually interchangeable and tibetan dalai lama had at a convention with scientis explained how to boil it down to quantum physics
Lord budda at his time explained elements in a manner that a lay person could understand
Bahudatuka sutta is explained to bikkus who could see deeper with intelligence .

[zan]

(1) The earth element (paµhav²dh±tu): The great essentials are called elements (dh±tu) in the sense that they bear their own intrinsic natures (attano sabh±va½ dh±renti). The earth element is so called because, like the earth, it serves as a support or foundation for the coexisting material phenomena. The word paµhav² comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, the function of acting as a foundation (for the other primary elements and derived matter), and manifestation as receiving.3 Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. Both hardness and softness are modes in which the earth element is experienced by the sense of touch

- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

According to traditional Theravāda its not the case that the earth element has hardness (or softness). Rather the earth element is hardness (or softness). Apart from it's characteristics, the earth element doesn't exist. How then is "hardness" or "softness" ontologically existent, if there is no substance which bears the characteristic of being hard or soft?

Exactly, you've restated the question which is the topic of this thread well! Is it insoluble?

[zan]

At length, we have a tradition that clearly, unambiguously is akin to a kind of atomism, which they call kalapas, or paramattha dhammas, which disappear and reappear rapidly, dependent on each other. It teaches that these atoms, though, are mind independent. The earth, land, rocks and so on arise and cease on their own, composed of these atoms, the earth appears before people are reborn on it, and it isn't even caused to appear by kamma in the first place. People leave behind corpses after consciousness ceases, the corpse is made of dhammas generated by the fire element, tejo, which can generate matter all on its own, and so on, and, thus, it is quite independent of perception. Even if we forget the word "atom" and "atomism" if anyone finds issue with that word, the point remains that scholars generally present it as something like realism, if not outright call it realism, and, regardless, the system affirms the mind independent dhammas.

According to traditional Theravāda the earth, land, rocks and corpses do not really exist. As they do not really exist, you can't then say that they are made up of rūpa-kalāpas.

Well, the texts and their modern commentators declare that they exist when no one is looking at them, as I demonstrated in my quotes in the OP. If you can substantiate this claim, with a quote that says "the earth, land, rocks and corpses do not really exist." or something as unambiguous, then we are onto another, but related and nearly identical issue and question: The CT declares that these things exist when no one is around, in the form of corpses and that the earth on which we live exists before people are born on it, and is not caused by kamma, tejo can regenerate matter all on its own, and so on. Examples in which the CT affirm reality in ways that lead to scholars like Karunadasa calling it realism, and Bhikkhu Bodhi declaring the dhammas as existent from their own side are multitudinous. If they also, inexplicably, say "none of these things exist." we either can come up with a solution, or this is another self contradiction.

[SDC]

Realism doesn’t seem to be a concern:

Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

Revulsion and dispassion are not a result of reasoning out that there is an independent reality, so it does not seem as though any reconciliation on the matter makes any difference to the “growth and decline” that can serve as a potential source of developing dispassion.

[zan]

89. 3. By particles: in this body the earth element taken as reduced to fine dust and powdered to the size of the smallest atom31 might amount to an average doóa measure full; and that is held together32 by the water element measuring half as much. Being maintained33 by the fire element, and distended by the air element, it does not get scattered or dissipated. Instead of getting scattered or dissipated, it arrives at the alternative states of the female and male sex, etc., and manifests smallness, bigness, length, shortness, toughness, rigidity, and so on

Visuddhimagga - CHAPTER XI Concentration (conclusion): Nutriment and the Elements

If we are to frame this in terms of ultimate reality, in terms of sabhāva-dhammas, then we would have the following:

89. 3. By particles: in this mass of rūpa-kalāpas hardness taken as reduced to fine dust and powdered to the size of the smallest atom31 might amount to an average doóa measure full; and that is held together32 by cohesion measuring half as much. Being maintained33 by heat, and being distended by distension, it does not get scattered or dissipated. Instead of getting scattered or dissipated, it arrives at the alternative states of the female and male sex, etc., and manifests hardness.

I omitted smallness, bigness, length, shortness because ultimately these things do not exist. I left out "toughness" and "rigidity" because they are saying the same thing, namely "hard".

And so the problem is restated, and demonstrated, again. These are good examples of the issue. Thanks.

Edit:

The surrounding text for this section, including commentary, makes the case for dhamma realism, yet again:

[ADDITIONAL WAYS OF GIVING ATTENTION]
86. In addition, attention should be given to the elements in the following ways:
(1) as to word meaning, (2) by groups, (3) by particles, (4) by characteristic, etc., (5) as
to how originated, (6) as to variety and unity, (7) as to resolution (separability) and
non-resolution (inseparability), (8) as to the similar and the dissimilar, (9) as to
distinction between internal and external, (10) as to inclusion, (11) as to condition,
(12) as to lack of conscious reaction, (13) as to analysis of conditions.
87. 1. Herein, one who gives his attention to them as to word meaning should do
so separately and generally thus: [separately] it is earth (pathavì) because it is
spread out (patthaþa); it flows (appoti) or it glides (ápiyati) or it satisfies (appáyati),
thus it is water (ápo); it heats (tejati), thus it is fire (tejo); it blows (váyati), thus it is
air (váyo). But without differentiation they are elements (dhátu) because of bearing
(dháraóa) their own characteristics, because of grasping (ádána) suffering, and
because of sorting out (ádhána) suffering (see XV.19).29 This is how they should
be given attention as to word meaning.

Note 29: ‘Because of bearing their own characteristics’: these are not like the Primordial
Essence (pakati—Skr. prakti) and the self (attá) imagined by the theorists which are non-existent as to individual essence. On the contrary, these do bear their own
characteristics, which is why they are elements” (Vism-mhþ 359)

-Visuddhimagga, Nanamoli, p 358-359

It doesn't solve the issue though but is more paradox. They bear their own characteristics. This is fine, if there is something to bear them. But then, other places it is said, the earth element, for example, is just hardness, which is a characteristic, with no bearer.

[zan]

Realism doesn’t seem to be a concern:

Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

Revulsion and dispassion are not a result of reasoning out that there is an independent reality, so it does not seem as though any reconciliation on the matter makes any difference to the “growth and decline” that can serve as a potential source of developing dispassion.

Thanks, but that doesn't really address the issue at hand. The issue is that the commentarial tradition introduced a paradox not found in the suttas: Per their teaching, the earth element is a mind independent dhamma, but is nothing but "hardness." This is incoherent, unless it is reoriented in some way supported by the commentaries. The question is, is there a solution? Or is it insoluble? See below:

Most of the schools of Indian thought, notably the Sāṃkhya, the Vedānta, and the Medical Tradition as represented by Caraka and Suśruta, recognize five mahābhūtas, or elemental substances… In the Nikāyas they are defined in simple and general terms and are illustrated mostly with reference to the constituents of the human body. Earth-element is that which is hard (kakkhaḷa) and rigid (kharigata) —for example, hair of the head or body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, etc. Water-element is water (āpo), or that which is watery (āpogataṃ) —for example, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, tears, etc. Fire-element is fire or heat (tejo), or that which is fiery (tejogataṃ) —for example, the heat in the body that transmutes food and drink in digestion. Air-element is air (vāyo), or that which is airy (vāyogataṃ) —for example, “wind discharged upward or downward, wind in the abdomen or belly, vapors that traverse the several members, inhaling and exhaling of breath.” These definitions seem to suggest that from its very beginning Buddhism did not make a radical departure from the popular conception of the mahābhūtas.

...

It will be seen that according to the Nikāyan definition what is comparatively hard or rigid (kakkhaḷa, kharigata) is the earth-element, whereas according to the Abhidhammic definition the fact of hardness or rigidity (kakkhaḷatta) is itself the earth-element.
-Y. Karunadasa, A Buddhist Analysis of Matter

[SDC]

Realism doesn’t seem to be a concern:

Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

Revulsion and dispassion are not a result of reasoning out that there is an independent reality, so it does not seem as though any reconciliation on the matter makes any difference to the “growth and decline” that can serve as a potential source of developing dispassion.

Thanks, but that doesn't really address the issue at hand. The issue is that the commentarial tradition introduced a paradox not found in the suttas: Per their teaching, the earth element is a mind independent dhamma, but is nothing but "hardness." This is incoherent, unless it is reoriented in some way supported by the commentaries. The question is, is there a solution? Or is it insoluble? See below:

Most of the schools of Indian thought, notably the Sāṃkhya, the Vedānta, and the Medical Tradition as represented by Caraka and Suśruta, recognize five mahābhūtas, or elemental substances… In the Nikāyas they are defined in simple and general terms and are illustrated mostly with reference to the constituents of the human body. Earth-element is that which is hard (kakkhaḷa) and rigid (kharigata) —for example, hair of the head or body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, etc. Water-element is water (āpo), or that which is watery (āpogataṃ) —for example, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, tears, etc. Fire-element is fire or heat (tejo), or that which is fiery (tejogataṃ) —for example, the heat in the body that transmutes food and drink in digestion. Air-element is air (vāyo), or that which is airy (vāyogataṃ) —for example, “wind discharged upward or downward, wind in the abdomen or belly, vapors that traverse the several members, inhaling and exhaling of breath.” These definitions seem to suggest that from its very beginning Buddhism did not make a radical departure from the popular conception of the mahābhūtas.

...

It will be seen that according to the Nikāyan definition what is comparatively hard or rigid (kakkhaḷa, kharigata) is the earth-element, whereas according to the Abhidhammic definition the fact of hardness or rigidity (kakkhaḷatta) is itself the earth-element.
-Y. Karunadasa, A Buddhist Analysis of Matter

Lots of sources introduce side issues that even if discussed for a thousand years would only reach the conclusion that no matter which explanation makes the most sense (in theory), the suttas describe virtue, restraint and the development of dispassion for the purpose of discernment. So, I’m not trying to ignore the issue at hand, but it all ends with a return to the fundamentals of Dhamma practice. Apologies if this is considered off topic - I won’t pursue it any further.

[zan]

Realism doesn’t seem to be a concern:



Revulsion and dispassion are not a result of reasoning out that there is an independent reality, so it does not seem as though any reconciliation on the matter makes any difference to the “growth and decline” that can serve as a potential source of developing dispassion.

Thanks, but that doesn't really address the issue at hand. The issue is that the commentarial tradition introduced a paradox not found in the suttas: Per their teaching, the earth element is a mind independent dhamma, but is nothing but "hardness." This is incoherent, unless it is reoriented in some way supported by the commentaries. The question is, is there a solution? Or is it insoluble? See below:

Most of the schools of Indian thought, notably the Sāṃkhya, the Vedānta, and the Medical Tradition as represented by Caraka and Suśruta, recognize five mahābhūtas, or elemental substances… In the Nikāyas they are defined in simple and general terms and are illustrated mostly with reference to the constituents of the human body. Earth-element is that which is hard (kakkhaḷa) and rigid (kharigata) —for example, hair of the head or body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, etc. Water-element is water (āpo), or that which is watery (āpogataṃ) —for example, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, tears, etc. Fire-element is fire or heat (tejo), or that which is fiery (tejogataṃ) —for example, the heat in the body that transmutes food and drink in digestion. Air-element is air (vāyo), or that which is airy (vāyogataṃ) —for example, “wind discharged upward or downward, wind in the abdomen or belly, vapors that traverse the several members, inhaling and exhaling of breath.” These definitions seem to suggest that from its very beginning Buddhism did not make a radical departure from the popular conception of the mahābhūtas.

...

It will be seen that according to the Nikāyan definition what is comparatively hard or rigid (kakkhaḷa, kharigata) is the earth-element, whereas according to the Abhidhammic definition the fact of hardness or rigidity (kakkhaḷatta) is itself the earth-element.
-Y. Karunadasa, A Buddhist Analysis of Matter

Lots of sources introduce side issues that even if discussed for a thousand years would only reach the conclusion that no matter which explanation makes the most sense (in theory), the suttas describe virtue, restraint and the development of dispassion for the purpose of discernment. So, I’m not trying to ignore the issue at hand, but it all ends with a return to the fundamentals of Dhamma practice. Apologies if this is considered off topic - I won’t pursue it any further.

No need to apologize. You're certainly correct, the suttas make the case that one can reach enlightenment without knowing about anything supranormal, and without developing psychic powers, which are presumably required to see atoms, and so on. AN 12.70 for example, has some arahants declaring they did not develop psychic powers, see their past lives, and other things, yet, they still reached nibbana. Further, the suttas make the case that thinking about these things is possibly a waste of time. These are good things to keep in mind, so I appreciate the reminder. Though, unfortunately, I've chosen to waste some time on this issue lol!

Edit: The divine eye is, indeed, needed to see atoms:

. Paramaóu—“the smallest atom”; see Vibh-a 343. According to Vibh-a, the size of
a paramaóu works out at 1/581,147,136th part of an aògula (fingerbreadth or inch).
Vism-mhþ remarks (p. 361): “Therefore … a paramaóu as a particle of space is not the
province of the physical eye, it is the province of the divine eye.”
-Visuddhimagga p 359, Nanamoli

Thus, per the suttas, some arahants don't see them, as AN 12.70 makes clear, not all arahants develop the divine eye.

"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you see — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and do you discern how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world'?"

"No, friend."
-AN 12.70

[asahi]

Taking earth element as a kind of a basic substance or separate entity , then one already stucked in the concept .

[zan]

(1) The earth element (paµhav²dh±tu): The great essentials are called elements (dh±tu) in the sense that they bear their own intrinsic natures (attano sabh±va½ dh±renti). The earth element is so called because, like the earth, it serves as a support or foundation for the coexisting material phenomena. The word paµhav² comes from a root meaning to expand or spread out, and thus the earth element represents the principle of extension. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness, the function of acting as a foundation (for the other primary elements and derived matter), and manifestation as receiving.3 Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. Both hardness and softness are modes in which the earth element is experienced by the sense of touch

- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

According to traditional Theravāda its not the case that the earth element has hardness (or softness). Rather the earth element is hardness (or softness). Apart from it's characteristics, the earth element doesn't exist. How then is "hardness" or "softness" ontologically existent, if there is no substance which bears the characteristic of being hard or soft?Dhamma substance.jpg

Bahudatuka sutta as explained to Ananda thero explains what a skilled and clever bikku should realise by naming six elements from as rupa vedana sangna sankara and paticca samuppada involving 18 elements, These are rupa vedana etc with senses of sight hearing
Smell touch and form all as elements with their bases , As it is too complex to explain you may down load Bahudatuka sutta for a clear understanding .
Further lord budda explains elements in Mulaparyaya sutta to understand elements as apo tejo vayo patavi akasa as elements
He needs us to realise water as water air as air earth as earth and stickiness as it while our knowledge is sufficient to realise that apo is friction , tejo is heat or radiation vayo is fluidity and patavi is hardness , Also modern science has made us realise that these are physically qualitues mutually interchangeable and tibetan dalai lama had at a convention with scientis explained how to boil it down to quantum physics
Lord budda at his time explained elements in a manner that a lay person could understand
Bahudatuka sutta is explained to bikkus who could see deeper with intelligence .

Thanks, could you elaborate and explain how this solves the issue?

[zan]

Taking earth element as a kind of a basic substance or separate entity , then one already stucked in the concept .

That may be, but, the fact of the matter is, it is seen as a fundamental building block of reality that exists from its own side, and is mind independent in the commentary tradition. Hence the issue at hand.