... according to standard Buddhistic doctrine, derived from the "Dhammapada", there is a 'hell', i.e., a dwelling for "evil" souls/selfs (after this life). As this is very clearly related to us in one of the Buddhistic texts - the Dhammapada ("if everything else were lost, we would need nothing more than the Dhammapada to follow the way of the Buddha.") "In the same way that a wrongly handled blade of grass will cut one's hand, so a badly fulfilled life in religion will drag one down to hell." (Verse 311) http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/buddhist_hell.asp
"Verse 311: Just as kusa grass if badly held cuts that very hand, so also, the ill-led life of a bhikkhu drags that bhikkhu down to niraya/hell." "Verse 311: Just as kusa grass if badly held cuts that very hand, so also, the ill-led life of a bhikkhu drags that bhikkhu down to niraya."
Of course, I thought this was common knowledge? I'm not super knowledgable on buddhism but here is my understanding of the Reals of Existence found in buddhism. Samsara (the eternal cycle of birth, suffering, death and rebirth), has 6 realms that you can be reborn into depending on your karmic influence throughout your past, present and future. The 6 realms consist of God Realm, Demi God Realm, Human Realm, Animal Realm, Hungry Ghost Realm, and the Hell Realm; which is actually split into 18 different levels of hell. The ultimate goal for buddhists is to leave the samsaric(?) cycle and achieve nirvana.
Common knowledge, really? \nMost Buddhist I know -and the ones on this forum- are pretty adamant about the idea that there's not a soul, or self, let alone a place or, dwelling, where such an entity "migrates" after the decay of the body. \nThat is to say, most Buddhist I know, say that the idea of there being a life beyond the existence of one's material body is non-sense, i.e., escaping samsara leads to nowhere (there being, according to the Buddhists I know, no plane of existence outside of samsara's churning wheel). But, as I have come to find out, the Dhammapada, very clearly, says otherwise.
It seemed common to me, and common to the basic principals of samsara and nirvana. The Deva's exploited this line of thinking (highlighted in red). They saw no reason to overcome cyclic existence due to having limitless wealth, luxurious amenities and long lives... that is the meaning of the god realm. Yet in the end they come crashing down, as every realm is relative and suffering just the same
Yes, I would say it's pretty common knowledge that the Buddha taught about hell realms, just as he spoke of god-realms... The difference is that they are not ETERNAL destinations. Negative karma brings you into the hell realms, until that negative karma expires. Positive karma brings you into the god-realms, until it runs out... All forms of existence are impermanent, and in eternal flux. This is the nature of samsara. Nirvana is a transcendence of the realms, a tramscendence of all conditioned existence, which is by it's nature impermanent. Buddha clearly taught re-birth. The question of how re-birth is reconciled with no-self(not-self being an equally valid translation of anatta, meaning none of the skandhas which make up material existence are the self) is an age-old philosophical issue for Buddhists. The answer to that question is a significant part of Buddhist philosophy.
Thanks for the feedback, friend. It seemed common to me, and common to the basic principals of samsara and nirvana. How does one reconcile the idea of anatman, and existence independent of a material body? That is, if a person is, taken to be, simply an aggregation of bodily parts... The Deva's exploited this line of thinking Yes, I have thought about this too... Buddhism, in one way or another, has been tainted throughout the ages. I personally think it all began with Nagarjuna (even if his name is, NOWADAYS, almost inseparable from Buddhism), i.e., "the noble SERPENT".
I'm not sure to be quite honest. As I said earlier my knowledge in buddhism is pretty lacking.. I know some basic things but I've never really practiced Buddhism or thought deeply about timeless questions that have been raised throughout its history (like the one you are asking above). I just like learning about it and seeing how it influenced the arts in southeast asian countries. So, I'll wait for someone to answer that question for you
All forms of existence are impermanent, and in eternal flux. This is the nature of samsara So, according to Buddhists, both the divine realms and, infernal realms, are contained within samsara? Nirvana is a transcendence of the realms, a transcendence of all conditioned existence, which is by it's nature impermanent. Transcendence of all realms, or just the vitiating turbulence of samsara? Buddha clearly taught re-birth. The question of how re-birth is reconciled with no-self (not-self being an equally valid translation of anatta, meaning none of the skandhas which make up material existence are the self) is an age-old philosophical issue for Buddhists. You know, Descartes taught something similar... the self, as a matter of fact, is not corporeally circumscribable (unalike all material substances).
Cuts from grass are like paper cuts, only worse.. and get be pretty deep. Blades of grass have caused me to shed blood on several occasions.
Most buddhists would not say there is nothing after. In fact, there is nothing now. To escape samsara means to escape karma. Simply speaking, the entirety of your being, that you can identify with, is karma. Dissolution of self is taught in many religions, it is the same in buddhism, just in a different way. Nothing migrates, it's rather a continuation of being into something else. This something else is not us, but we think it is.
I suppose the more appropriate question would of been; since when could somebody be retarded enough to cut their hand with a blade a grass?
Probably right around the same time they're retarded enough to think they can't get cut by a blade of grass..
I guess since Mantikore was born? (I don't think you're retarded Mantikore, just laughing at the fact that you said that you have cut your hand on grass and then he asks who's retarded enough to cut their hand on grass)
Honestly, I thought that was common knowledge that grass can cut.. I mean, if you spend just a moderate amount of time actually interacting with nature, even basic lawn care.. there's a good chance you'll get cut. I guess if you were city raised as a child I could see not knowing that you can get cut by grass.. but depending on the grass, running through tall grass can be just as bad as running through a cornfield. If it hits your bare skin just right, it's going to cut you and sometimes pretty bad.. that's the point of this "hell" proverb. And actually, it makes a lot of sense.. if you're experienced in life enough to know one of the many simple little things that is. If you mishandle grass, it's going to cut you. If you mishandle your own religious belief.. it's going to drag you down into whatever concept of hell you have for your religion. It's not so much saying that there is a hell in Buddhism, but speaking on religion in general and your personal choices related to your belief.
I did think after reading the OP that a grass cut would be possible in the same way that a paper cut was, but I still found the mental image of cutting yourself from ''handling a blade of grass wrongly'' retarded, obviously if you're running through tall grass or falling over onto it, I could see how it could cut you, but that wasn't mentioned in the OP. so I omitted that part from my mind. ^_^.
. That's what I was insinuating - it's even funnier that something so simple could of gone over your head.
Why are you here? This is a casual friendly thread about Buddhism, and all you've done is come in, contribute nothing to the topic, call someone retarded, and another person stupid. You obviously are incapable of just having casual, friendly, interesting conversations...so I'll keep that in mind. I wasn't sure whether you intended it or not, I just thought it was funny. But I guess that makes me stupid. Pretty funny stuff. But yea, just stop replying to me, you're obviously not worth discussing things with.