Lifespan of beings in the hell realm

[Aloka]

These two professors are no doubt very highly educated and highly intellectual. But I doubt they are serious Dhamma practitioners. They can rely on their sharp intellect for eons, but fail to attain enlightenment.

There are internet Buddhists that are very good practitioners. Don't look down on them.

You no way of knowing that Rupert Gethin -( who is a Dhamma practitioner) - is not a serious practitioner or that he will fail to reach enlightenment, nor that Richard Gombrich will fail to reach enlightenment. Neither do you know for sure who is a good or bad practitioner amongst people on the internet who you've never met.

It is a mistake to tell me not to look down on people, because I most certainly don't. Additionally, I've also always had supportive Vajrayana and Theravada teachers in "meat space" and I'm very happy with that.

Please don't try to engage me in conversation in future, because I'm not interested in any further dialogue with you.

Many thanks.


.

[Sea Turtle]

There are internet Buddhists that are very good practitioners

I'm sure that is true.

These two professors [Rupert Gethin, Richard Gombrich] are no doubt very highly educated and highly intellectual. But I doubt they are serious Dhamma practitioners.

The italicized statement may be untrue and is furthermore impossible to judge.

[zengen]

These two professors are no doubt very highly educated and highly intellectual. But I doubt they are serious Dhamma practitioners. They can rely on their sharp intellect for eons, but fail to attain enlightenment.

There are internet Buddhists that are very good practitioners. Don't look down on them.

You no way of knowing that Rupert Gethin -( who is a Dhamma practitioner) - is not a serious practitioner or that he will fail to reach enlightenment, nor that Richard Gombrich will fail to reach enlightenment.

You misunderstood me. I never said Rupert Gethin and Richard Gombrich will not attain enlightenment. I said they will not attain enlightenment by relying on their intellect alone. People like that rely heavily on their intellect in their study of the Dhamma, which can actually be a hindrance to enlightenment, since they cannot develop proper faith in the Buddha's teachings.

[zengen]

These two professors [Rupert Gethin, Richard Gombrich] are no doubt very highly educated and highly intellectual. But I doubt they are serious Dhamma practitioners.

The italicized statement may be untrue and is furthermore impossible to judge.

That's right, which is why I wrote "I doubt".

[cappuccino]

Spiritual progress depends on the emergence of five cardinal virtues —
faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom.

[Ben]

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.

These two professors are no doubt very highly educated and highly intellectual. But I doubt they are serious Dhamma practitioners. They can rely on their sharp intellect for eons, but fail to attain enlightenment.

There are internet Buddhists that are very good practitioners. Don't look down on them.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[zengen]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Dear Ben,

I accept your criticism. I'm not a scholarly person, but I have faith in the Sutta that hell is physical realm where beings can take rebirth. As mentioned previously, the Sutta leaves no room for interpretation, or even debate. If the Buddha taught the hell realm as a means to explain mental states, why did the Buddha give so many details of the sufferings in hell, even names of various levels of hell?

If you have read the quote from Ajahn Maha Boowa which I posted, you shall find implication that the hell realm can be perceived as a physical realm by those who are advanced in practice. The Venerable Ajahn Maha Boowa spoke from his own realization of the Dhamma. The scholars on the other hand, not having their own realization of the Dhamma, are making mere suggestions based on academic research. There is a world of difference.

From Ajahn Maha Boowa in The Path to Arahantship:

Then the consequences of good and evil and the existence of heaven and hell strike one with the irrefutable force of the obvious. I wish they could strike all you skeptics with such force; all of you who have allowed the kilesas to deceive you into believing that there is no such thing as the consequences of evil, no such thing as the consequences of goodness, no such thing as heaven and hell. They have existed since time immemorial and they have been all-pervasive. You just have not perceived them yet. Do you understand? These things have existed always. They continue to harm those who are foolishly ignorant of their existence and so blinded by the kilesas’ deceptions that they never glimpse the truth.

[santa100]

I haven't come across any excerpt in Gethin or Gombrich's papers that explicitly deny hell realm as concrete physical realm, nor they've declared hell realm exclusively as mental states. They seem to only add the extra interpretation of hell realms as mental states in addition to the original interpretation defined in the Canon. So there's no conflict here.

[Aloka]

My quotes from Gombrich and Gethin on page one of this topic were about ancient Buddhist cosmology in general. (which has a flat world, amongst other things.)

More about that here:

The Buddhist Universe

Ancient Buddhists imagined the universe as essentially flat, with Mount Meru at the center of all things. Surrounding this universe was a vast expanse of water, and surrounding the water was a vast expanse of wind.

This universe was made of thirty-one planes of existence, stacked in layers, and three realms, or dhatus.

The three realms were Ārūpyadhātu, the formless realm; Rūpadhātu, the realm of form; and Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire. Each of these was further divided into multiple worlds that were the homes of many sorts of beings. This cosmos was thought to be one of a succession of universes coming into and going out of existence through infinite time.

Our world was thought to be a wedge-shaped island continent in a vast sea south of Mount Meru, called Jambudvipa, in the realm of Kāmadhātu. The earth, then, was thought to be flat and surrounded by ocean.

The World Becomes Round

As with the sacred writings of many religions, Buddhist cosmology can be interpreted as myth or allegory. But many generations of Buddhists understood the universe of Mount Meru to exist literally.

Then, in the 16th century, European explorers came to Asia claiming the earth was round and suspended in space. And a controversy was born.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthi ... ntmeru.htm

[Dan74]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Dear Ben,

I accept your criticism. I'm not a scholarly person, but I have faith in the Sutta that hell is physical realm where beings can take rebirth. As mentioned previously, the Sutta leaves no room for interpretation, or even debate. If the Buddha taught the hell realm as a means to explain mental states, why did the Buddha give so many details of the sufferings in hell, even names of various levels of hell?

If you have read the quote from Ajahn Maha Boowa which I posted, you shall find implication that the hell realm can be perceived as a physical realm by those who are advanced in practice. The Venerable Ajahn Maha Boowa spoke from his own realization of the Dhamma. The scholars on the other hand, not having their own realization of the Dhamma, are making mere suggestions based on academic research. There is a world of difference.

From Ajahn Maha Boowa in The Path to Arahantship:

Then the consequences of good and evil and the existence of heaven and hell strike one with the irrefutable force of the obvious. I wish they could strike all you skeptics with such force; all of you who have allowed the kilesas to deceive you into believing that there is no such thing as the consequences of evil, no such thing as the consequences of goodness, no such thing as heaven and hell. They have existed since time immemorial and they have been all-pervasive. You just have not perceived them yet. Do you understand? These things have existed always. They continue to harm those who are foolishly ignorant of their existence and so blinded by the kilesas’ deceptions that they never glimpse the truth.

Whatever helps us to practice with commitment and vigour is good. If believing in literal hells motivates you, helps you keep the momentum of practice going, that's great. If it gives rise to anxiety, fear, mental illness, then it's probably not such a good belief to hold to.

I think we have very little understanding of the nature of this realm that we currently inhabit. This is where the efforts should be focused. If we don't practice, we will continue being bound to the wheel of samsara, deluded, ignorant, subject to the worldly winds, a slave of desires and hates. Once we taste the freedom even a little and begin to see that there is no happiness that can be possessed, nothing to chase or desire except the opportunity to practice and to serve others, then the fear of the hell realms fades in importance. Until then, perhaps it is the only thing that can get most of us focused on the Dhamma.

But like everything else, it should be in balance. I can't for the life of me see how so much focus on the hell realms can be healthy when the practice in right here, right now, the realm which our kamma has led us to. But if the belief in the hell realms helps one treasure the opportunity of human birth, bring vigour to practice, cultivate the brahmaviharas, give yourself to your every undertaking completely, and avid wasting time as much as possible, then great! Ultimately it is about practice, not realms. Otherwise it becomes another samsaric race - run from the lower realms and aim for the higher realms - more attachment and aversion.

[zengen]

Following video is Ajahn Maha Boowa's talk which was made into The Path to Arahantship.

You can skip to 17:00 where Ajahn Maha Boowa talks about the existence of heaven and hell.

phpBB .

[cappuccino]

THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS ARE ABOUT REBIRTH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

[Ben]

THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS ARE ABOUT REBIRTH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

You're citing a Wikipedia article on the four noble truths on a Theravāda forum? Are you serious??

[Ben]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Dear Ben,

I accept your criticism. I'm not a scholarly person, but I have faith in the Sutta that hell is physical realm where beings can take rebirth. As mentioned previously, the Sutta leaves no room for interpretation, or even debate. If the Buddha taught the hell realm as a means to explain mental states, why did the Buddha give so many details of the sufferings in hell, even names of various levels of hell?

If you have read the quote from Ajahn Maha Boowa which I posted, you shall find implication that the hell realm can be perceived as a physical realm by those who are advanced in practice. The Venerable Ajahn Maha Boowa spoke from his own realization of the Dhamma. The scholars on the other hand, not having their own realization of the Dhamma, are making mere suggestions based on academic research. There is a world of difference.

From Ajahn Maha Boowa in The Path to Arahantship:

Then the consequences of good and evil and the existence of heaven and hell strike one with the irrefutable force of the obvious. I wish they could strike all you skeptics with such force; all of you who have allowed the kilesas to deceive you into believing that there is no such thing as the consequences of evil, no such thing as the consequences of goodness, no such thing as heaven and hell. They have existed since time immemorial and they have been all-pervasive. You just have not perceived them yet. Do you understand? These things have existed always. They continue to harm those who are foolishly ignorant of their existence and so blinded by the kilesas’ deceptions that they never glimpse the truth.

Personally, I am not a fan of teachers who make statements about their experiences which are veiled claims of attainment. Putting aside the fact that claims of attainment are a parajika offence and thus invalidates the claimant's status as a monk and his claim, what I suggest you do is read widely of other respected teachers whether they be lay or ordained and don't be afraid to extend a modicum of critical enquiry rather than blind acceptance. After all, the Buddha did not advise to accept blindly but to see for oneself (ehi passiko).
As for the suttas - the message given was dependent on the audience and the faculties of the people there.
Whether one accepts the prospect of other realms, does not accept or if one is agnostic about them - it's largely irrelevant to actually walking on the path.

[cappuccino]

You're citing a Wikipedia article … Are you serious??

Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many
The Phaedrus