Is Hell a Kama existence?

Q & A
1

Buddha said that
‘‘There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
Whatever sound one hears with the ear …
Whatever odor one smells with the nose …
Whatever flavor one tastes with the tongue …
Whatever physical object one touches with the body …
Whatever mental objects one recognizes with the mind is undesirable,
never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable’’

so, is it a kama realm?

3 Likes
2

Yes, hell is under sensual existence realm.

Sensual existence realm covers the 4 lower realms, humans, and 6 sensual gods. Brahma realms onwards then we switch to form and formless realms.

1 Like
3

Hi @Lee270107,

Welcome to the D&D forum!

Enjoy the multiple resources here available: may these be of assistance along the path.

Should you have any questions about the forum, feel free to contact the @moderators.

Please note that this thread was moved to the Q&A category, because the answer is quite straightforward in this case.

With Metta,
Ric
On behalf of the moderators

4

good question. In AN 4.123, the hell from attachment to non-sensual jhana & its passing does not sound like a sensual realm

5

What makes you say that?

Do you posit that Buddhist cosmology has a form realm hell? Or formless realm hell?

6

Thank you. I personally do not recall the Buddha ever taught about “cosmology” in the EBTs. Its seems the focus on rigidly systematizing “cosmology” occurred later.

Related to this, for example, is the use of “sensory realm” or “sensory existence” for “sensual realm” (“kamabhava”), including by translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi.

The above is what seems to happen when the primary focus & interpretation of Dhamma becomes reincarnation. “Bhava” becomes “reincarnation” and then the “cosmologists” try to fit all of the various realms the Buddha taught into the three types of bhava of Dependent Origination.

The above seemed to begin with the Paṭisambhidāmagga & Abhidhamma Vibhanga, then with the Visuddhimagga, where all three text use the introduced term “upapatti bhava” (“rebirth becoming”) into Dependent Origination. This gives the impression of influencing Theravada Buddhists to attempt to systematize each of the six realms within the three bhava.

For example, the Suttas generally, if not always, say that there are five strings of sensuality via the five physical sense organs. Yet suttas such as SN 35.135 say there is a “hell” experienced at the mind/sixth sense base; which I imagine is the same as the “hells” in AN 4.123 I previously mentioned.

I’ve seen the hell called ‘the six fields of contact’. There, whatever sight you see with your eye is unlikable, not likable; undesirable, not desirable; unpleasant, not pleasant.

Whatever sound you hear …

Whatever odor you smell …

Whatever flavor you taste …

Whatever touch you feel …

Whatever thought you know with your mind is unlikable, not likable; undesirable, not desirable; unpleasant, not pleasant.

SN 35.135

7

You were on the hell is sensual realm team a few months ago: Planes of existences - #8 by CurlyCarl

Quote from you:

Are you really going to switch to the classification proposed by the OP in that other topic? Or some similar construction?

There’s nothing unusual about having thoughts which are painful. That’s basically depression, anxiety, all sorts of mental illness. Human beings are in sensual realm and we have mind base. So the beings in sensual realm has mind. Saying that hell is experienced by the mind doesn’t support that therefore hell is beyond sensual realm.

Just a possibility that you might feel that in AN4.123 it seems odd to fall from so high Brahma realm directly to hell if one doesn’t attain to enlightenment there. In traditional Theravada teaching, they do try to say that will land in human realms at the lowest first, so that got chance to avoid hell. However, it’s not implied by the sutta. There’s no need to feel odd about it. The oddness may come from Theravada influence. So there’s no need to posit a sort of higher level hell in the form realm for those who went to Brahma realm to fall into. It’s scary indeed that as long as one is not yet a stream winner, even the Brahmas are not freed from the possibility of falling so far down into hell.

Given that non-returners cannot fall into hell and still got attachments to form and formless realm, it really doesn’t make sense to posit a form or formless hell.

8

Thank you Venerable. Above I used the words “most often” rather than “always”. :slightly_smiling_face:

Yes, the above is Theravada but not EBT. What you posted above seems to exactly support my original point that Theravada became so focused on reincarnation that Theravada manufactures its own doctrine. Theravada invents ideas contrary to AN 4.123.

While certainly most thoughts related to depression will have a sensual basis (such as broken relationship, etc); it does not mean all thoughts related to depression do.

For me, the above view of a non-returner is superficial. It is similar to the common superficial Theravada view that because a once-returner still has sensual desire that a one-returner must engage in sexual activity. The last five fetters I imagine are extremely subtle and do not involve the degree of delight for jhana described in AN 4.123. That is why they do not lead to hell.

9

Maybe I have some misunderstanding of your views.

Why do you use this word?

Is it that you have the view that rebirth as posited in EBT is not literal? And you’re using reincarnation to refer to literal life to life, different body thing?

10

Thank you Venerable. To me, your questions above have no relevance to my posts; yet fully highlight the concerns I made in my posts.

It seems for you, 100% of the Dhamma is about reincarnation or rebirth. Therefore, you personally must fit each of the six realms into the three bhava of Dependent Origination. We both agree this is “Theravada”. But for me it is not EBT.

11

Given that these two are both quite exclusive to cover all of samsara, I don’t see any reason that one shouldn’t have a map of which realm is which bhava.

https://suttacentral.net/sn45.164/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Not like there’s a 4th realm in samsare which is not sensual, form or formless.

Or a 7th realm which is not hell, asura, animal, ghost, humans and (all the) gods (including Brahma realms). (Ok, yes, it’s not easy to fit in naga, yakkha etc into this classification.)

Just because we are discussing about this, doesn’t mean that it’s the most important thing. I just don’t see any advantage to posit a hell which is not of sensual realm.

12

… even a monastic which has not yet attained any attainment can (and should, actually must) choose to abstain from sexual activity. What’s more someone with attainments? It’s better phrased as “once-returners can engage in sexual activities”.

13

Thank you Venerable. I already addressed your personal Theravada ideology, where the Patisambhidamagga introduced the term “upapatti bhava” (“rebirth existence”), which was then continued as the Theravada ideology in the Abhidhamma Vibhanga and in Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga.

But the EBT’s to not say the above. The EBTs say about “jati”:

And what is rebirth? The rebirth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called rebirth.

SN 12.2

Therefore, it seems the classifications of human, heavenly, ghostly, animal & hell beings fall into the “jati” condition and not into the “bhava” condition.

14

Well, given that bhava conditions jati, there’s still a basis for mapping which bhava leads to which jati.

Btw, thank you for the subtle differentiation between the two. I never thought of that before.

1 Like
15

Venerable. There is becoming/existence (bhava) on three levels. “Bhava” means consciousness via craving & ignorance “established/obsessed” into a sensual, material or immaterial element (AN 3.76). This does not seem to mean or even imply the resultant “jati” must also be classified as sensual, material or immaterial. SN 12.2 literally says the resultant jati is within a “group of beings” (“satta-nikaye”). These “satta-nikaye” seem to include hell, ghostly, animal, human & godly beings. Thus DN 15 says:

“It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

DN 15

In summary, my view, as expressed from the beginning, is your ideas and the ideas of the OP (resulting in the OP’s confusion) arise from the Theravada ideology that defined “bhava” as “rebirth”. :slightly_smiling_face:

Thank you for your kind words. You are welcome. :pray:t2:

16

AN3.76 has rebirth in it:

“If, Ānanda, there were no deeds to result in the sensual realm, would continued existence in the sensual realm still come about?”
“Kāmadhātuvepakkañca, ānanda, kammaṁ nābhavissa, api nu kho kāmabhavo paññāyethā”ti?

“No, sir.”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“So, Ānanda, deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture.
“Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṁ khettaṁ, viññāṇaṁ bījaṁ, taṇhā sneho. Variant: sneho → sineho (bj, sya-all, km, pts1ed)
The consciousness of sentient beings—shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in a lower realm. That’s how there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.
Avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṁ patiṭṭhitaṁ evaṁ āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.

Or are you saying that punabbhavābhinibbatti is not the same as jati?

Also, in the sutta above, it’s clearly indicated that sensual realm is low, the form realm is middle, formless is high. It makes not sense to slot in hell anywhere else other than the low.

17

I think DN 15, which I added to my previous answer, concludes the matter. DN 15 literally says about jati:

It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

Mmm… I suppose I personally must choose the traditional translation of “ābhinibbatti” as “production”. "Punabbhavābhinibbatti " = “production of new becoming”. :slightly_smiling_face:

Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. (Thanissaro)

In this way there is the production of renewed existence in the future. (Bodhi)

18

Dictionary says:

abhinibbatti

[PTS]

feminine

becoming, birth, rebirth, DN.i.229; DN.ii.283 (variant reading for abhinipphatti) SN.ii.65 (punabbhava ̊), SN.ii.101 (id.); SN.iv.14, SN.iv.215; AN.v.121; Pv-a.35.

abhi + nibbatti

nibbatti 1

fem. birth; becoming; production [nī + √vatt + i] ●

punabbhavābhinibbatti

fem. production of renewed existence; birth of renewed becoming; lit. birth of rebirth [punabbhava + abhinibbatti] ●

But, let’s just humouring you, say you’re right, that there’s some distance between the 3 bhava and 6 realms of jāti.

What do you think is the relationship between these then? Given that dependent origination has jāti is conditioned by bhava.

Do you posit that a formless bhava can lead to rebirth in the hell jāti?

19

I am right therefore you are only humouring yourself, Venerable. The dictionary cannot define words with in context. The word “abhinibbatti” is found in many places in the suttas and it appears the translation of “production” is the most accurate. I will post some examples for you therefore please be patient before replying again: :pray:t2:

What do you think, Assalāyana? Suppose an anointed aristocratic king were to gather a hundred people born in different castes and say to them: ‘Please gentlemen, let anyone here who was born in a family of aristocrats, brahmins, or chieftains take a drill-stick made of teak, sal, frankincense wood, sandalwood, or cherry wood, light a fire and produce (abhinibbattentu) heat. And let anyone here who was born in a family of outcastes, hunters, bamboo-workers, chariot-makers, or waste-collectors take a drill-stick made from a dog’s drinking trough, a pig’s trough, a dustbin, or castor-oil wood, light a fire and produce (abhinibbattentu) heat.’

MN 93

It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good bodily conduct.

“Aṭṭhānametaṁ, bhikkhave, anavakāso yaṁ kāyasucaritassa aniṭṭho akanto amanāpo vipāko nibbatteyya. Netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.

But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good bodily conduct.”

Ṭhānañca kho etaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṁ kāyasucaritassa iṭṭho kanto manāpo vipāko nibbatteyya. Ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī”ti.

AN 1.287

20

I’ll grant you this. I just am more interested in your views on the relationship between bhava and jāti with respect to the 3 and 6.