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.
Just to add to the discussion there is a text from Digha Nikaya, the Payasi Sutta, (reference: PTS DN ii.327-9) that adresses this subject. I don't wanna paste it here because its long, but here is a link:
"Ahh. Prince, imagine a man who was born without sight. He had never experienced Light and Dark, Blue and Red, Moon and Sun. This man might very well say, "Light and Dark are an unreal thing, they cannot exist, they are the things of a child’s dream." Or "Color? The very idea is completely beyond the realm of possibility! I am not aware of these things, therefore, they cannot exist." Would he be correct, Prince?"
"What? No. There is light and darkness in the very room we’re in now. Color exists all around us. Such a man would be incorrect."
"You, Prince, are like that Blind man. The other worlds cannot be seen as you believe, through the physical eye. It is those Holy men, the ascetics who go into retreat and develop themselves spiritually who gain access to the Purified Eye. This purified eye is stronger than the physical eye, for with it they can see the other worlds with their demons and angels. That is how we holy men can see into the other world. It is how we know about demons and angels, and about those who dwell in the Heaven of the Thirty Three Gods. It is how we know that actions have consequences."
"My view still stands firm, Reverend Kumara, no matter what you say."
Its a big text. Also, the person who is talking to the prince is supposedly an Arhat contemporary to the Buddha, named Kumara-Kassapa, and not the Buddha. The discourse as I have researched took place after the historical Buddha died.
As for the prince he is also a figure present in Jainism. The guys 'over there' also tried to turn his view with the Rayapasenaijja.
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".
Why would he have done that? Isn't it more likely that he was conditioned to accept the reality of the six realms?
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.
If I'm taught that anger is an attribute of a warrior, and warriors are noble, I'm more likely respond to situations with anger than if I'm told that anger is an attribute of the hell realm and leads to suffering.
"You, Prince, are like that Blind man. The other worlds cannot be seen as you believe, through the physical eye. It is those Holy men, the ascetics who go into retreat and develop themselves spiritually who gain access to the Purified Eye. This purified eye is stronger than the physical eye, for with it they can see the other worlds with their demons and angels. That is how we holy men can see into the other world. It is how we know about demons and angels, and about those who dwell in the Heaven of the Thirty Three Gods. It is how we know that actions have consequences."
Hi Nameless River
The above quote perfectly describes your previous post and its denial of the realms.
In brief, as the quote states, the teaching of the worlds is about knowing actions have consequences.
An attribute of the animal world (ignorance) is not realising actions have consequences.
The advantage of the six realms, from a psychological perspective, is that they provide a framework for understanding how to work with the panoply of projected world views. I spent a year doing hell-realm meditations, for instance, and the hostile way I'd been trained to relate to adversity as a child gradually faded as a result. Anyone who's using the realms to scare themselves into "dilligence" hasn't been properly turned to the dharma. That's a completely self-centered way of relating to practice.
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 can agree with this, although I think we must accept that, in that case, it is simply one among many such techniques. In my own case, a couple of years in my writing group working on "praise poems" with particular reference to Rilke achieved much the same results. I have also witnessed similar outcomes in my work with people studying the Enneagram.
What do I conclude? H.H. the Karmapa gave me the answer in the audience he gave me: "Follow your teacher with complete attention." He was careful not to specify whether any particular teacher or teaching was 'true', only whether they were 'skillful'. H.H. the Dalai Lama said much the same to me with his words: "The Lord Buddha is my door; the Lord Jesus is your door."
This does not, of course, mean that we have nothing to learn from each other. Au contraire.
The above quote perfectly describes your previous post and its denial of the realms.
In brief, as the quote states, the teaching of the worlds is about knowing actions have consequences.
An attribute of the animal world (ignorance) is not realising actions have consequences.
I didn't deny karma, I didn't deny actions have consequences. I didn't deny people feel greed, or hatred or w.e.
I didn't agree or disagree with the idea of realms. I DO DISAGREE with people that say its meant to be a metaphor, because it wasn't taught that way, as the sutta above states.
As far as your own belief goes, its your choice to believe in the realms as a metaphor, as a reality, as in a lie, as in some addendo that doesn't really matter and so on. But so is mine, and you don't have the right to call me or my way of thinking ignorant for not agreeing with you.
you don't have the right to call me or my way of thinking ignorant for not agreeing with you.
"By encompassing mind with mind I understand a certain person thus: 'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.' And then later on, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he has reappeared in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, and is experiencing extremely painful, racking, piercing feelings...
Comments
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Payasi_Sutta
Here are some highlights:
"Ahh. Prince, imagine a man who was born without sight. He had never experienced Light and Dark, Blue and Red, Moon and Sun. This man might very well say, "Light and Dark are an unreal thing, they cannot exist, they are the things of a child’s dream." Or "Color? The very idea is completely beyond the realm of possibility! I am not aware of these things, therefore, they cannot exist." Would he be correct, Prince?"
"What? No. There is light and darkness in the very room we’re in now. Color exists all around us. Such a man would be incorrect."
"You, Prince, are like that Blind man. The other worlds cannot be seen as you believe, through the physical eye. It is those Holy men, the ascetics who go into retreat and develop themselves spiritually who gain access to the Purified Eye. This purified eye is stronger than the physical eye, for with it they can see the other worlds with their demons and angels. That is how we holy men can see into the other world. It is how we know about demons and angels, and about those who dwell in the Heaven of the Thirty Three Gods. It is how we know that actions have consequences."
"My view still stands firm, Reverend Kumara, no matter what you say."
Its a big text. Also, the person who is talking to the prince is supposedly an Arhat contemporary to the Buddha, named Kumara-Kassapa, and not the Buddha. The discourse as I have researched took place after the historical Buddha died.
As for the prince he is also a figure present in Jainism. The guys 'over there' also tried to turn his view with the Rayapasenaijja.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument in this paragraph.
If I'm taught that anger is an attribute of a warrior, and warriors are noble, I'm more likely respond to situations with anger than if I'm told that anger is an attribute of the hell realm and leads to suffering.
The above quote perfectly describes your previous post and its denial of the realms.
In brief, as the quote states, the teaching of the worlds is about knowing actions have consequences.
An attribute of the animal world (ignorance) is not realising actions have consequences.
Kind regards
DDhatu
I can agree with this, although I think we must accept that, in that case, it is simply one among many such techniques. In my own case, a couple of years in my writing group working on "praise poems" with particular reference to Rilke achieved much the same results. I have also witnessed similar outcomes in my work with people studying the Enneagram.
What do I conclude? H.H. the Karmapa gave me the answer in the audience he gave me: "Follow your teacher with complete attention." He was careful not to specify whether any particular teacher or teaching was 'true', only whether they were 'skillful'. H.H. the Dalai Lama said much the same to me with his words: "The Lord Buddha is my door; the Lord Jesus is your door."
This does not, of course, mean that we have nothing to learn from each other. Au contraire.
I didn't deny karma, I didn't deny actions have consequences. I didn't deny people feel greed, or hatred or w.e.
I didn't agree or disagree with the idea of realms. I DO DISAGREE with people that say its meant to be a metaphor, because it wasn't taught that way, as the sutta above states.
As far as your own belief goes, its your choice to believe in the realms as a metaphor, as a reality, as in a lie, as in some addendo that doesn't really matter and so on. But so is mine, and you don't have the right to call me or my way of thinking ignorant for not agreeing with you.