Talk:Ten realms

message: Does anyone know to what extent this sort of "psychologizing" presentation -- in this specific form, not just in general -- is to be found in Mahayana Buddhism?  Is it just Nichiren Buddhism?  Or just Soka Gakkai?  Are there close parallels elsewhere in Mahayana? RandomCritic 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, I was just entering this page to note that IMHO this is not at all the general Buddhist view, certainly not of Tibetan Buddhsism, Zen and I also think Theravada. To present the realms this way would be following a minority view as far as I know, althought he direction is correct. rudy 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is definitely to be found in the writings of Tibetan teachers like Chogyam Trungpa et al. See also the attribution to the Dalai Lama regarding the Six Realms . I am in the process of reworking some of these descriptions of the states to fit more closely with the attributes more commonly associated with them. HarmonicSphere, 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! However, what His Holiness mentioned is not at all the same as saying that eg. humans can 'be in hell' or 'be in heaven'. By definition (my words) hell is a type of existence classified by mere sufering, without any break of happiness. The human realm is defined as a mix of happiness and suffering combined with an intelligent mind (unlike relatively simple-minded animals). To me, a human who occasionally has a 'hellish experience', is quite something different from an existence which can be only defined as suffering from birth to death. So the mere point that these negative or positive experiences normally move from the one to the other, means we live in neither hell or heaven as per these definitions.  Of course, if we try to understand how heaven or hell 'feels' we can only refer to examples of our current life. rudy 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I'm not familiar with this presentation of the 4 higher realms (coming from Tibetan Buddhism). Instead, I know them as the various form and formless realms that one can reach through concentration, and are 'above' the 6 desire-realms (which are by no means 'spiritual realms'). What is described here sounds very strange to me in terms of 'realms'. For example, a Bodhisattva can live in either of the 6 desire realms, and does not live in his/her own kind of realm at the same time? In my understanding, both Shravaka- and Pratyeka Buddhas can be seen to experience Nirvana, and a Buddha experiences Parinirvana.rudy (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 higher realms

message: at least, it should be clear on the article that there are 2 basic interpretations for this, and make it clear as (potable) water:
# Traditional, Real, First, Eastern, Common, Religious Interpretation: the six lower realms correspond to what is described in Buddhist cosmology. They are spiritual states of being that corresponds to places, worlds or planes. Some beings of different realms can live in the same places, but they're part of the same realm in a lifetime. The higher four represent the path of Buddhism towards Nirvana and are optional, one has to make a conscious choice from the other realms (usually just human or human and deva) to be part of this noble four realms.
# Western, Synchronistic, New, Materialistic, Scientific Interpretation: They're states of being that can happen in this lifetime. A materialistic (just what can be described with science exists) interpretation can be assumed. The higher four are interpreted in basically the same way as above described.--Esteban.barahona (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interpretation 

message: This is an important article and it should not be downgraded by the tag.  We may need to introduce more sources.  As a start I would like to provide an introduction to the breakdown into worlds. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Rid of the Tag