Lifespan of beings in the hell realm

[Dinsdale]

Ok guys, I'm a woman in the minority here, getting the message loud and clear, as always.

[Aloka]

Ok guys, I'm a woman in the minority here, getting the message loud and clear, as always.

[zengen]

Buddha said that unless we attain the enlightenment of an Arahant, we will continue to be reborn in the six realms.

To avoid any confusion, Zengen, having six realms is a Tibetan Buddhist teaching.

http://www.buddhanet.net/wheel2.htm

In Theravada there are thirty one realms:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html

Same idea. Those 31 realms are because of many levels of heaven.

[zengen]

Hi zengen,

Dear Aloka, with all due respect, I must point out that the description of the sufferings in hell are not mere speculation, but are explicitly stated in the Sutta. The Sutta also leaves no room for interpretation. The Buddha described the hell realms as he saw them with his Divine Eye.

Did you not read the quotations from Gombrich and Gethin that were posted by Aloka?

The argument that in the Suttas the Buddha is reported to have credited his divine eye for his knowledge of the features of other realms may be persuasive to those who view the Sutta Pitaka as a flawlessly transmitted verbatim record of the the Buddha’s teachings (like the Buddhists of Myanmar commonly do). But you can’t expect it to have so much weight for those who hold to the modern scholarly consensus that the Pitaka is a collection that evolved over time, with its contents being determined in part by outside cultural influences.
__
Kasia

Hi Katarzyna,

I don't know. I don't pay much attention to what scholars say. Many of them don't practice the Dhamma anyway. They rely only on their intellect, which is very limited, and cannot penetrate deep into the Dhamma.

Have you read the quotation from Ajahn Maha Bua which I posted in this thread?

[Aloka]

.... Many of them don't practice the Dhamma anyway. They rely only on their intellect, which is very limited, and cannot penetrate deep into the Dhamma.

Can you provide some evidence to support these statements please, Zengen ?


.

[cappuccino]

Does Rebirth Make Sense?
by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_46.html

The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms … they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally.

[mikenz66]

.... Many of them don't practice the Dhamma anyway. They rely only on their intellect, which is very limited, and cannot penetrate deep into the Dhamma.

Can you provide some evidence to support these statements please, Zengen ?

It's true of the vast majority of western academics who study religion. They won't say it in their academic papers, since it's just assumed, but read, for example, Gombrich's books intended for wide consumption for example.


Mike

[The Thinker]

https://youtu.be/4oC_AEOJWCY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Is there heaven and hell, short 6 minute video.

[Katarzyna]

I don't know. I don't pay much attention to what scholars say. Many of them don't practice the Dhamma anyway. They rely only on their intellect, which is very limited, and cannot penetrate deep into the Dhamma.

That scholars don't practise the Dhamma does not prevent them from having astute and insightful things to say about Buddhist texts. To assert otherwise would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

Have you read the quotation from Ajahn Maha Bua which I posted in this thread?

I've read it but can't really see its relevance. I don't myself dispute the doctrine of rebirth, the existence of hell or the possibility of some yogis being able to remember past lives. But this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the question of whether there is any truth in the links that Aloka posted, i.e. in Gombrich's suggestion that the Pali Canon's cosmology was a later addition or Gethin's suggestion that the details of it were in part culturally determined.

__
Kasia

[_anicca_]

My personal experience is that "hell realms" can be understood and experienced mentally in the here and now, rather than speculated about as being something terrible in another dimension, with people being tortured and prodded with red hot pokers and so on. That's very similar to the Christian hell portrayed in the paintings of the 15th century Dutch painter Hieronymus Bosch. I'm afraid that just doesn't work for me, I need to relate to this life in the present moment, which is all I have.

What other people believe is up to them and I wish everyone happiness and good health.

This is pretty much my view on it and really the incessant prodding of Aloka wasn't needed
However, I will say that this has definitely made for an interesting read

I don't particularly believe or disbelieve in hell realms or anything of the sorts. I am inclined to believe in rebirth, but pondering these things like "is there a hell realm" is really just playing with your own mind and indulging in thoughts. There is also a sutta on that

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There ya go!!!

It's great to think about such things, but a lot of people are beginning to become passionately involved with their opinions and views, and I can certainly say that the Buddha would be against that.

Let's all take some deep, pleasing breaths.

Bud...... dho.....

[zengen]

I've read it but can't really see its relevance. I don't myself dispute the doctrine of rebirth, the existence of hell or the possibility of some yogis being able to remember past lives. But this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the question of whether there is any truth in the links that Aloka posted, i.e. in Gombrich's suggestion that the Pali Canon's cosmology was a later addition or Gethin's suggestion that the details of it were in part culturally determined.

Those were just speculations made by Gombrich and Gethin. How are these speculations relevant to the practice of Dhamma? One can say they're just a waste of time.

[Aloka]

Those were just speculations made by Gombrich and Gethin. How are these speculations relevant to the practice of Dhamma? One can say they're just a waste of time.

Richard Gombrich is an Indologist and scholar of Sanskrit, Pāli, and Buddhist Studies. He was the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford from 1976 to 2004. He is currently Founder-President of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. He is a past President of the Pali Text Society.

Rupert Gethin is a practising Buddhist in the UK, who is a Professor of Buddhist studies and the president of the Pali Text society.

For internet Buddhists to claim that whatever these men have to say is irrelevant, I find quite astonishingly closed minded.

But it is as it is.

[cappuccino]

But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Matthew 19:30

[Katarzyna]

Those were just speculations made by Gombrich and Gethin.

Did you actually read them?

I find it hard to believe that someone who had read (and understood) Gombrich's article and Gethin's chapter would describe them as "just speculations". To speculate is to conjecture without evidence, which is quite the antithesis of what these scholars are doing. Though I myself have rather strong reservations about Gombrich's views and minor ones about Gethin's, these are entirely to do with their interpretation of the textual evidence they cite, not with any supposed failure to offer evidence.

How are these speculations relevant to the practice of Dhamma?

Their interesting and thoughtful non-speculations are relevant to determining what the Dhamma is and what the practice of the Dhamma is. To familiarize oneself not only with the Theravada tradition's received opinion on what the canon is and how it should be read, but also with modern insights into the formation of the canon and the evolution of the tradition's way of interpreting it allows one to steer a middle course between two extremes: the one extreme of sceptical distrust of what one reads in the texts and the other of an unthinking fundamentalist literalism in interpreting them.

One can say they're just a waste of time.

Yes, one may say that if one wishes. But one would hardly be saying it with a voice of authority if one hadn't even bothered to examine the output of modern scholars.

__
Kasia

[Dinsdale]

Their interesting and thoughtful non-speculations are relevant to determining what the Dhamma is and what the practice of the Dhamma is. To familiarize oneself not only with the Theravada tradition's received opinion on what the canon is and how it should be read, but also with modern insights into the formation of the canon and the evolution of the tradition's way of interpreting it allows one to steer a middle course between two extremes: the one extreme of sceptical distrust of what one reads in the texts and the other of an unthinking fundamentalist literalism in interpreting them.

I broadly agree, though the difficulty I see is that "modern insights" generally support a sceptical stance, and they are often quoted for that reason.
People can become attached to a particular position, and then repeatedly quote the people who agree with them in order to bolster their position. This is hardly a balanced approach.
I'm not convinced that modern interpretations are necessarily superior or more objective. These modern views are no less a product of a particular place and time than the traditional views which preceded them. It's all rather subjective.
In my view a balanced approach would include traditional interpretations like the Visuddhimagga, as well as more modern views of the suttas.