-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
buddhist hell
- Thread starter willy1590
- Start date
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
is hell necessarily an act of aggression?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
...I don't see the connection. No one is sentencing anyone to hell, and hell is not eternal, and one can become enlightened at any moment, so what does the peacefulness of Buddhism have to do with hell?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Hell, in Buddhism, is about purification, not punishment. One is allowed to receive the full reward of their unwholesome thoughts and actions. After a time of this, they are reborn into a higher realm. This has nothing to do with the peacefulness that Buddhism teaches. Such peace has to be worked for, it's not the reward of some almighty creator god for bowing down before it and giving it worship. It's something we have to do, something we have to work toward, something we have to realize on our own.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's a reminder that life is not always a bed of roses of which should not be excluded or avoided.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
I tend to think of Pure Land as Buddhism hijacked by Jesus so...eh.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Pureland uses metaphors such as that in the case of hell. It's not intended to be taken as a literal place of torment or punishment although it's presented in a manner that it appears so.
It's a unique school of Buddhism that is beneficial to those who experience difficulty in more straightforward settings and makes an easier transition for those who have difficulties letting go of deities and such.
It's a unique school of Buddhism that is beneficial to those who experience difficulty in more straightforward settings and makes an easier transition for those who have difficulties letting go of deities and such.
The closest thing to Hell in Buddhism is simply not being enlightened -living with dukkha
Correct me if I'm wrong
Correct me if I'm wrong
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Seems an easier go to live with dukkha than live in dukkha.
Yeah, a word off I was... Ok.
Is that really the goal, to live with dukkha after enlightenment?
I have asked other Buddhist and their reply was that dukkha never ends because all phenomena are dukkha. So dukkha only ends for the being (enlightenment) but not for the world. This is really partial in my view if the enlightened being still sees dukkha and has some interesting implications.
I think he means it's impossible to not live with dukkha, dukkha is always there. The goal is to sit side by side by dukkha and let it go off, as far as I estimate from what he's saying. Correct me if I'm wrong again
Thanks Awe
I think that is his point yes. Dukkha is always there because people grow old and die around us. So even if we become enlightened and end craving and dukkha for ourselves (lets assume we aren't enlightened already
) then there will still be Dukkha.
This for me is an insufficient answer (I might be wrong, I am not debating, just asking for input), because it means that Dukkha has not really ended even for us enlightened ones because we will still see and hear dukkha as those around us grow old and die.
I think that is his point yes. Dukkha is always there because people grow old and die around us. So even if we become enlightened and end craving and dukkha for ourselves (lets assume we aren't enlightened already
) then there will still be Dukkha.This for me is an insufficient answer (I might be wrong, I am not debating, just asking for input), because it means that Dukkha has not really ended even for us enlightened ones because we will still see and hear dukkha as those around us grow old and die.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
There's a Zen story saying pretty much this very thing, or something similar.
Onkara said:
The things that cause dukkha don't end. What happens is that our mental state is completely changed to the point where we no longer are affected by either dukkha, or the things that cause it.
Do you think that results in an indifference with compassion to others dukkha?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
It can, if one does not temper one's wisdom with compassion. Compassion and loving-kindness were very important topics that the Buddha taught, because without them, one's practice can become complacent and apathetic, which is counterproductive to trying to attain the goal.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yep. :0)
Thanks Awe
I think that is his point yes. Dukkha is always there because people grow old and die around us. So even if we become enlightened and end craving and dukkha for ourselves (lets assume we aren't enlightened already
This for me is an insufficient answer (I might be wrong, I am not debating, just asking for input), because it means that Dukkha has not really ended even for us enlightened ones because we will still see and hear dukkha as those around us grow old and die.
I think a big problem is the impression that dukkha is somehow eliminated and goes away permanently which imo creates a false impression. Illuminated people still remain subject to the same conditions of life and living and remain subject to those conditions as anyone else. I think the difference with "enlightened" and "unenlightened" is through the negation of the effects of dukkha. Not the conditions that bring it about.
Thanks for the reply. I stumbled on this issue when I investigated Theravada. It seems to me that it means a person can only save themselves from dukkha. (They can communicate how to do it to others, but it is up to each individual)
This implies individuality which I feel leads to a self.
My impression is that there is a perception of self whilst there is a body-mind organism (it not being real, but co-dependent), so at death no-one dies and that being knows that.
If you agree, then would you agree that it is just annihilation?