Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Realms of Existence.
I would like to hear everyones thoughts on the subject of realms, and the main question i wanted to ask was how do we know about these realms? Are they real? Did Buddha speak of them?
Thank you.
Thank you.
0
Comments
~nomad
Whilst the Buddha taught about the various realms, this doctrine existed in India before the Buddha.
The realms can be interpreted physically or, alternatively, psychologically.
Physical interpretation is a matter of faith, as physical realms cannot be known.
However, psychological interpretation is not a matter of faith and can be known.
Psychologically, the human realm is that of reflective reasoning & ethics. The Godly realm is that of power, whether worldly power or the power of benevolence. The animal realm is that of ignorance & functioning on instinct rather than reflective wisdom. The hell realm is that of torment, such as anger or depression. The hungry ghost realm is that of craving or addiction.
So through our study of life and through our experience, we can confirm for ourselves the kinds of karma or actions that lead to mental birth in the various realms.
Please note, in one day, a mind can take mental birth in many realms.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Yes indeed.
My interpretation of the 6 realms is that they represent different mental states.
:buck:
Wow, i hadnt thought of it from that perspective before, that really makes sense to me, thank you
Buddha always seems to say something 2000 years ago...
and then modern science or quantum physics realizes he was right,
you know multiple universe theory, string theory, etc is a very REAL possibility. Maybe devas and gods are actually just inhabitants of these places..
also in quantum physics they say that there may be little pockets of different dimensions all around us , all the time...at each point in space...
anyway given the Massive amount of TIME and SPACE in our universe, imagine there are multiples of our massive universe, life evolving somewhere else is likely, so much so i believe that a civilization could have lived and evolved for trillions of years longer than us... = gods, devas.
and less evolved,= like hungry ghosts, animal realms, etc..
im surprised there aren't robots or artificial lifeforms searching for other life... I think that would be common to all advanced civilizations... in the search for immortality, they would make themselves into robots to not die out...and to survive space travel... :eek:
LOL so anyway you never know..gods and devas may be mechanical holographic sentient lifeforms..from parallel universes..
also given that everything is interconnected, rebirth would be possible there..
This is interesting. I had learned that the human realm represents projected worldviews based in desire (not to be confused with addiction, which is represented by the hungry ghost realm) and the god realm represents projections based on pride. These aren't necessarily contradictory interpretations, but they are certainly different. If you know of any scripture describing the psychological interpretations of the realms, that would be interesting to read.
To me, it is all valid.
I have also heard it said the human realm is that of 'work' or everyday worldly goals.
The Godly realms are many, so pride could be included there.
In general, the 'realms' can serve as an interesting basis for psychological analysis.
Kind regards
http://www.unfetteredmind.com/articles/sixways.php
Oh dear, just found this in the Berzin Archives --- I tend to find that site sooo irritating.
" Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when
- the aim is to improve only in this life;
- the student has little or no understanding of the Buddhist teachings on rebirth;
- consequently, the student has neither belief nor interest in future lives;
- even if the student believes in rebirth, he or she does not accept the existence of the six realms of rebirth;
- the Dharma teacher avoids discussion of rebirth or, even if he or she discusses rebirth, avoids discussion of the hells. The teacher reduces the six realms to human psychological experiences."
Well doody day ! My Tibetan teacher qualifies for "Dharma Lite" I'm delighted to say!Actually the main characteristic of the human realm is doubt. The other realms correspond to anger (hell), greed (pretas or hungry ghost), ignorance (animal), jealousy (jealous god) and pride (god). I think we can all relate to those. I know I visit all of them constantly...
Palzang
Yeah, you're not a real Buddhist unless you've made a sacrifice to Mahakala.
:hrm:
Darn tootin'!
No, I'm talking about those "teachers" who say you don't have to "believe" in karma or rebirth or any of that stupid, outdated stuff/superstitions.
Palzang
Oh, and what do you mean by teach?
And 5B, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Karma is karma, rebirth is rebirth. It's not even a question of belief. It is, after all, what the Buddha taught.
Palzang
From http://www.unfetteredmind.com/articles/sixways.php
by Uchiyama Roshi
NOTE: The Buddha taught of the realms, and I concur that the most important point is not whether they are a physical realm, but rather it is the the psychological metaphor that is important. Here is a good way of using the realms in a practical way. I believe every serious meditator has gone through some of these experiences over the years!
Hell realm meditation
First is the hell realm meditation. This realm arises when we feel we are forced to sit, that we have to do it. It is most commonly encountered in monastic situations, but arises frequently in retreats. There is an active hatred of meditation, but one just has to sit there, usually because of the felt constraint of external conditions. This, surely, is meditation from hell! There is nothing but our own hatred of what we are doing. How to we find freedom from this state? The essential point is to recognize that our practice of meditation is voluntary; it is something we have decided to do. No one is saying, "You have to meditate!" We can always stand up and leave. When we clearly recognize and own our own decision to practice, there is little basis for experiencing this particular realm of meditation.
Ghost/demon realm meditation
Second is the demon realm of desperation. We are greedy for results. Something should be happening. Where is the flash of illumination, the flash of insight, or even a flash, a glimmer of light? We are looking for something to satisfy us, to make us whole, to fill up this deep hole we feel in ourselves. But no matter what happens, that hole is never filled, so we return to our practice as hungry as ever. This greed for results, for something dramatic, undermines our practice completely. The effects of meditation are subtle and take time to mature. When we are constantly looking for some kind of sign or attainment from our practice, we are essentially looking outside ourselves. We can never find any real satisfaction there because the hole is inside. Instead, we need to look at the hole that drives the desperation, feel it, let it be present in our awareness. As we discover the capacity to sit with that empty feeling we gradually discover a contentment and peace within. Our desperate want for something to fill us dissolves.
Animal realm meditation
Then there is animal meditation. Animals seek shelter and food and then they are satisfied. In this form of meditation, a person finds a way to sit comfortably and quietly and makes no more effort. It’s relaxing, he or she feels refreshed after practicing, it’s a nice rest, but there is no insight, no understanding, no movement to a deeper experience of life with all the risks and adjustments that involves. Essentially, one hides out in the practice. Dullness is one of the hardest problems to overcome since it is so hard to recognize from the inside. Here, consultation with a teacher or instructor is important. They can recognize dullness when we may not be able to and shake us up enough to move out of it.
Titan realm meditation
What about titan meditation? In some ways, this approach is as bad as the hell realm. Who can sit the longest? Who can sit the most still? How many hours did you put in? The sense of competition brings out our envy, our self-doubt, and our competitive nature. Who are we trying to beat? What does winning in the meditation game mean? When we’ve out-sat everybody else, we are still left with ourselves: we are right back where we started in the first place. Closely related to this attitude is the matter of asking people about their meditation practice. How do we feel when people ask us about ours? Meditation practice is intensely personal. It is one of the most intimate parts of our lives. Tradition says only discuss practice with your teacher and with people who are your close practice companions. Such discussions are very helpful. They bring out aspects we may be overlooking. But beware of the competitive mind! Ask yourself, who am I trying to beat and why?
God realm meditation
God realm meditation has the sense of being above it all. In this approach, a person wants to become a saint or at least a hermit, removed from the confusion and the messiness of daily life, serene in seclusion, actual or imagined. In my experience, this superior attitude is often simply an avoidance mechanism, pride compensating for deep doubts about confidence or ability. The practice of meditation is not meant to remove us from life, but to bring us more intimately into life. So, one remedy here is to question the feeling of being better than others, of living life in a superior way.
Human realm meditation
Human realm meditation is motivated by the desire for results. This is not the desperation of the demon realm, but the desire that meditation be a productive use of our time. Much meditation instruction is presented in this way. Meditation is to improve ourselves, to improve our relationships, to become more centered, to become more balanced, to become more loving, etc. We practice expecting to receive something in return. As long as this expectation is operating we will never know ourselves. As one Tibetan teacher said, "Give up all hope for results." We are not practicing meditation to produce something. Rather, it is a way of practicing being, and again, not being something, just being, being completely.
Ideally, the practice of meditation is not based on any of these six approaches. In practice, they arise in our experience all the time. We are human after all! We can, however, use the mindfulness and awareness we cultivate in our practice to know what is arising in us, to let it be there, but not to identify or merge with these habitual emotional patterns. This is a difficult practice, for it requires us to make an effort at being in a way we are not at all used to. Slowly, over time, we find that our efforts bear fruit: a way of being that isn’t any one of these six realms.
I already mentioned that link in #16 although I don't think I'd consider meditation in that way myself.
Sometimes its worth mentioning some of the( dare I say this?) fundamentalist nonsense on that site, DD.
:buck:
"What the Buddha taught" in this respect is what the Buddha is ascribed to have taught. It is somewhat vague, and inconsistent across the scriptures, and different people emphasize different parts. But anyway. I think that in talking about this yesterday I entered the hell realm so I could avoid writing a manuscript. Sorry about that. This is stupid thing to argue about. It never goes anywhere useful.
I think this is a very wise observation, Fivebells. Reading this thread, I am struck by the fundamental problem of scriptural interpretation which is as real in Buddhism as in other religions: what do we take as metaphorical/mythical and what as literal?
In Christianity, Saint Augustine suggested that what we read that contradicts science or common sense should be read as metaphorical. But that really does leave us with ongoing problems of ever-changing interpretation.
When it comes to the Realms, we assume that we have evolved to a point where we can interpret them as entirely metaphorical and to be interpreted as 'psychological' states. It should, however, not be forgotten that most generations before us took them literally and that there must still be millions who continue to believe.
Sometimes, I wonder if we shouldn't practice a bit more agnostic humility.
It is only problematic because there will always be some who cling to old interpretations and it is often these old literalists who cry "heresy" at the new.
NOTE: Yeah, it is best to refrain from accepting any website's content wholesale, be it Buddhist or otherwise! I just pan for gold and move onto another. The only site I return to consistently is insight to access.
Over the years I have noticed that most (of course certainly not all) people whom I have encountered in my life who practice Buddhism or have a regular sitting practice have little if any problems embracing agnosticism, entertaining ambiguity, and seeing transcendence as the direct encounter with mystery, both internal and external. The remainder of folks came to Buddhism as a means for supporting a logical positivist / materialist / atheistic view. They did so because they mistakenly believed the Buddha to have "taught atheism" when he clearly taught us to let go of all our cherished mental constructions. Most of these people learn to soften their position the longer they study the suttas and conduct meditation and mindfulness practices.
The challenge for 21st century folks then, is to understand that the superstition and cosmology being used as examples and serving as the foundation for the teaching in the suttas was the indigenous Indian belief systems. His students were Brahmins, who carried with them all kinds of cultural and religious assumptions. If the Buddha were teaching in America today, the message would be drastically different. It is intriguing to consider what an American Sutta would actually look like....might be an instant trip to nibbana just reading it. ;- )
If one does not believe in rebirth, the result of say drinking alcohol is pleasure immediately, a hangover later and the development of a craving habit later still.
If one does believe in rebirth, the threes results of drinking alcohol are similar to as I mentioned above in this life plus rebirth as a hungry ghost in the next life.
Whether one believes in rebirth or not, the results are basically the same.
Therefore, there is no issue with interpretation.
The same with Jesus. If one believes Jesus loves you and forgives you, one goes to heaven. Whether one interprets this heavenly bliss as here or later is up to them.
Whatever one's interpretation still does not negate the truth or efficacy of what is said.
The problem of comprehending spiritual language is ours rather than of the scriptures.
:buck:
Just to play devil's advocate here, I suppose the skeptic might point out that if only the scriptures offered the point you make here in clear and plain language instead of relying on one vague obfuscation after another, then perhaps the endless problems and debates over "interpretation' wouldn't be necessary.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_06.html
Dhamma Without Rebirth?
by
Bhikkhu Bodhi
© 1998–2009
In line with the present-day stress on the need for religious teachings to be personally relevant and directly verifiable, in certain Dhamma circles the time-honored Buddhist doctrine of rebirth has come up for severe re-examination. Although only a few contemporary Buddhist thinkers still go so far as to suggest that this doctrine be scrapped as "unscientific," another opinion has been gaining ground to the effect that whether or not rebirth itself be a fact, the doctrine of rebirth has no essential bearings on the practice of Dhamma and thence no claim to an assured place in the Buddhist teachings. The Dhamma, it is said, is concerned solely with the here and now, with helping us to resolve our personal hangups through increased self-awareness and inner honesty. All the rest of Buddhism we can now let go as the religious trappings of an ancient culture utterly inappropriate for the Dhamma of our technological age.
If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion.
The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.
The Buddha himself has clearly indicated that the root problem of human existence is not simply the fact that we are vulnerable to sorrow, grief and fear, but that we tie ourselves through our egoistic clinging to a constantly self-regenerating pattern of birth, aging, sickness and death within which we undergo the more specific forms of mental affliction. He has also shown that the primary danger in the defilements is their causal role in sustaining the round of rebirths. As long as they remain unabandoned in the deep strata of the mind, they drag us through the round of becoming in which we shed a flood of tears "greater than the waters of the ocean." When these points are carefully considered, we then see that the practice of Dhamma does not aim at providing us with a comfortable reconciliation with our present personalities and our situation in the world, but at initiating a far-reaching inner transformation which will issue in our deliverance from the cycle of worldly existence in its entirety.
Admittedly, for most of us the primary motivation for entering upon the path of Dhamma has been a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction with the routine course of our unenlightened lives rather than a keen perception of the dangers in the round of rebirths. However, if we are going to follow the Dhamma through to its end and tap its full potential for conferring peace and higher wisdom, it is necessary for the motivation of our practice to mature beyond that which originally induced us to enter the path. Our underlying motivation must grow toward those essential truths disclosed to us by the Buddha and, encompassing those truths, must use them to nourish its own capacity to lead us toward the realization of the goal.
Our motivation acquires the requisite maturity by the cultivation of right view, the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which as explained by the Buddha includes an understanding of the principles of kamma and rebirth as fundamental to the structure of our existence. Though contemplating the moment is the key to the development of insight meditation, it would be an erroneous extreme to hold that the practice of Dhamma consists wholly in maintaining mindfulness of the present. The Buddhist path stresses the role of wisdom as the instrument of deliverance, and wisdom must comprise not only a penetration of the moment in its vertical depths, but a comprehension of the past and future horizons within which our present existence unfolds. To take full cognizance of the principle of rebirth will give us that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships. This will spur us on in our own pursuit of the path and will reveal the profound significance of the goal toward which our practice points, the end of the cycle of rebirths as mind's final liberation from suffering.
Regarding karma, there's some interesting short articles about it on the website already mentioned above.
http://www.unfetteredmind.com/articles/karma.php
I have been quite sickened by some of the comments in the past that I've heard both offline and in online groups about karma. For example saying that people are disabled or have genetic illness or have other misfortunes in this life because of "bad karma" in a past lifetime like its some kind of punishment system .
.
This is a complex question. Here's how it breaks down for me
- You can be empirical about this, and go with what you verify in your own practice and experience, or you can be authoritarian, and go with some version of "what the Buddha taught." Of course, there has to be a blend of both, but people tend to lean one way or the other. I tend to lean heavily to the empirical side. You and Palzang, and most others, lean heavily to the "what the Buddha taught" side. So on an epistemological level, I disagree with both of you to an extent.
- That said, when I said what we think the Buddha taught is mostly what has been ascribed to him, and different people emphasize different things, I was thinking mostly of (a) the Mahayana scriptures, comparative analysis of which strongly suggests that they were written long after the death of Gautama Buddha and (b) issues of translation, like "the break up of the body" as physical death, versus the dissolution, forced or otherwise, of a self-concept. The theory Stuka has presented regarding the correct translation of the Pali scriptures is appealing and plausible to me, but I lack the expertise to evaluate it. I also lack the inclination, because "what the Buddha taught" is not so interesting to me as the practical questions, explored through practice, of "Does this practice lead to greater understanding of suffering and greater capacity to end suffering? Does it help in learning to do good, ceasing to do evil, and training the mind?" It amazes me that people don't pay more attention to this. I keep meeting people with serious practices who, when faced with ontological questions like this one about the realms, resort to hostility or glib retreat into some version of "what the Buddha taught" (which looks, from the outside, like the mere obverse of the hostile response), and I have to wonder just what benefit has developed from their practice, as serious as it is. It seems tragic and comic at the same time.
- I lean towards roughly the same psychological interpretation you do.
If you think any of this suggests a failure of comprehension on my part, I would welcome your feedback. Please keep in mind, though, that I am focused on the practical, and don't give much weight to authoritarian or emotive arguments. If you can tell me a practice which I can pursue for a reasonable length of time to demonstrate to myself what I'm missing, I'll be very receptive to that.http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books2/Dhammananda_What_Buddhists_Believe.htm
Eternalism and Nihilism
The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.
The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.
Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.
Throughout the Buddha's long period of teaching the Dhamma to His followers, He actively discouraged speculative arguments. During the 5th century B. C. India was a veritable hive of intellectual activity where scholars, yogis, philosophers, kings and even ordinary householders were constantly engaged in the philosophical arguments pertaining to human existence. Some of these were either ridiculously trivial or totally irrelevant. Some people wasted valuable time arguing at great length about all manner of subjects. They were far more concerned about proving their powers in mental gymnastics than seeking genuine solutions to the problems that beset humanity.
(In the 18th century Jonathan Swift satirized a similar pastime in England when he showed the Lilliputians in 'Gulliver's Travels' waging a war to decide whether an egg should be broken on its sharp end or its broad end).
The Buddha also refused to get involved in speculations regarding the universe. He stated very clearly that the problem facing mankind is not in his past or his future but in the immediate present. Knowledge about Eternalism or Nihilism can in no way help man to break the present fetters which bind him to existence and which are the source of all his feelings of discontent which arise from his inability to completely satisfy his cravings. The Buddha stated that before one can begin to tread the path which leads to Nibbana one must have Right View. Only when one knows clearly what one is seeking will one be able to attain it.
Same here. Sounds like the sort of thing Fred Phelps would say.
Just some quick questions regarding your excellent post. Do you not feel that the empirical test we conduct in this life more or less validates "what the Buddha taught?" From my perspective, it is not necessary to be dogmatic about anything the Buddha taught (which I agree with you that many fall into this trap), and yet at the same time, marvel at how amazing the dhamma is, and how spot-on the Buddha was. To me, modern positive psychology and behavioral science (AND personal observation) have corroborated so much of what is taught in the suttas!
Religious author Karen Armstrong said something interesting recently. She had mentioned that as a nun, she never was any good at prayer or "talking with God." It just never worked for her. However, as she become embroiled into her studies in sacred literature and conducting her research, she found that this practice itself was her form of prayer; her form of encountering mystery and transcendence.
I mention this because I have discovered that reading the suttas is--for me--a tremendously valuable form of meditation and mental training. Especially the opening sections of the Sutta Nipata for some reason. I think different approaches will work for different people, which is probably why finding a really good teacher is so difficult....we have to find one that matches where we are at this point along the path. In sum, what I suspect is that both the role of the empirical adventurer and the role of the ardent tradition follower are valid in their own right, but additionally, I also believe each to be potentially valid for the same person at different points of their journey.
What do you think? NOTE: I offer these as open, loving ideas and expressions, and I hope nothing here comes off as a challenge or debate, because that is not where my heart is on this. Much metta...TxH
This is what I thought was a major selling point for me (if you forgive the term) Buddhism was as I thought, nothing to do with things you can't see for yourself while alive. Faith is only needed to get to the understanding.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
Even Sam Harris of anti-religion fame as marveled at the potential of insight meditation, and proclaimed his support of it to other empiricists/materialists, saying that perhaps it is possible to develop "the Tiger Woods of compassion." Imagine loving someone with the skill and accomplishment that Tiger has with a 1-iron! Wow!
I really like what Dazzle said earlier (plus I cannot resist the avatar, it must be a magic totem!). If the realms do exist as a set of literal, physical places in time/space, even then the only importance or benefit this knowledge offers us is in the present moment anyway. By the time our bodies decay it is too late! :- )
Much metta,
TxH
By the way, science also requires a leap of faith, if you think about it. The conclusions of scientists are not cast in stone, that's why they change over time.
It might be more plausible to believe in that, or maybe in 1000 worlds, or how many you would like, but what is the point? "Now I'm an animal, now I am in hell, now I am a God, now I am whatever". You would be basically renaming your feelings.
The six realms would only have a point if they were real, or if you BELIEVED they were real, so you would feel more encouraged to practice more or better in this lifetime. If you don't have faith in this, the whole concept of the six realms (for you) is devoid of any real significance, because it simply won't accomplish anything. Its that simple.
(just my point of view)
Is there going to be a time when jet planes stop working? When atomic bombs stop being dangerous? When cell phones are unable to send and receive messages? Why is belief in these things a leap of faith? It seems to me that the evidence for their functioning is pretty strong. :-)
Psychology isn't real? A mental state isn't real? Changing your psychological state doesn't accomplish anything? :-)
Maybe. I can't be sure (I am new to all this). Who knows, maybe the Buddha thought: "ok this people wont get the point so I'll scare them a bit saying they will suffer for eons on lower realms if they don't do the right thing, because that's what they are used to and expect to hear".
When you do research you don't start off by saying "You know what? I'm gonna find a cure for disease X today". You have a project, which might or might not work out the way you plan. This project is born out of the things you have learned, and mostly out of things you haven't questioned yet, like this: "scientist A says I need 10 pounds of substance X in order to make this part of my project work", you just don't go around foolproofing all the theories you use in order to accomplish what you want. Also the methods you use might not be flawless, and yet you TRUST all will go well. Sometimes it does. Mostly, it doesn't, either the flaw was yours or one of the theories you based yourself upon might be flawed, but you keep trying. That's what I mean by the leap of faith in science.
I never questioned psychology or mental states. And yes changing your psychological state accomplishes a lot. Renaming it doesn't. Sad people are still sad, "traurig" people are still sad, "triste" people are still sad, and so on.
All I am trying to say is that seeing the six realms as psychological states, while a beautiful metaphor, wouldn't be helpful at all, because it looses the purpose of incentive towards illumination. Instead of thinking "Holy crap, I don't wanna be reborn as a gollum-like hungry ghost (my preciousssss!!! >;P) So I better be diligent!", you would be thinking "ok, now I really want a new car but can't afford it, this must be the hungry ghosts realm". See the difference?
Also, that's not necessarily a hungry-ghost way of thinking. But perhaps, from the perspective of using the realms as a way to scare one's self, a precise understanding of them is unnecessary.
I haven't thought of it that way. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
My point of view is the six realms are very real and very significant. Possibly, the six realms are what you do not want to see due to your conditioning or what you are not prepared to hear.
For example, the world has many human beings suffering heavily from addictions (hungry ghost realm) or in hell (depression, low self-esteem, hatred, etc). There are causes or paths for entry into these realms.
So, in my opinion, the six realms is a powerful metaphor to show the healthy and unhealthy states of mind that can occur. Most of all, the six realms are taught so human beings can aspire to avoid or leave the lower realms, find the higher realms until being free & beyond any realm.
Bluntly, the six realms are reality. As such, my opinion is your mind is blind to such.
Just as animals do not use names, the doctine of the 'nameless' is part of the animal realm of ignorance.
:buck: