MN130 contains wrong views?

Hi everybody! Why is a person dead but still in the form of a human being, a man?

“ayaṁ, deva, puriso amatteyyo apetteyyo asāmañño abrāhmañño, na kule jeṭṭhāpacāyī.”

Are you asking why the text uses the word ‘puriso’ ? Which word do you think would be a better choice for hell’s inhabitants?

‘Your Majesty, this person did not pay due respect to their mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, or honor the elders in the family.

‘ayaṁ, deva, puriso amatteyyo apetteyyo asāmañño abrāhmañño, na kule jeṭṭhāpacāyī

1 Like

Yes, “satta” for example, like this sentence: “evameva kho ahaṁ, bhikkhave, dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atikkantamānusakena satte passāmi”

Probably in order to give the sense that the ‘being’ was once a man on Earth, and now his next existence is in Hell. Surely human beings don’t dwell there.

1 Like

Yes, I think, if there is no proper noun for the beings in hell, then “satta” should be used. Because “purisa” will give the impression that a being that dies is still taking the form of a human going to hell. And that is a wrong view, sassatadiṭṭhi.

I’m afraid we can’t rewrite the Pali canon at this point. Hopefully a contextual reading makes things clear.

1 Like

Oh no, I just wanted to say that this passage is questionable. Furthermore, subsequent passages describing the hell scene show that the subject of torture also seems to have human characteristics.

And as long as you type “buddhist hell” on google (images), you will see, for thousands of years, how people have “understood in context”. I don’t think Buddha used such misleading words and images.

It is skillful to use conventional terms in a worldly context even though in the ultimate view they are wrong:

“An arahant monk,
one who is done,
effluent-free, bearing his last body:
Would he say, ‘I speak’?
Would he say, ‘They speak to me’?”
“An arahant monk,
one who is done,
effluent-free, bearing his last body:
He would say, ‘I speak’;
would say, ‘They speak to me.’
knowing harmonious gnosis
with regard to the world,
he uses expressions
just as expressions.”

—Samyutta Nikaya 1.25

It is necessary to separate conditioned and unconditioned reality for clear knowing to arise (Samyutta Nikaya 35.80).

This is not the case, Paul1, where the speaker may use other words and images, unless they consider this to be true.

Devas are also described as having human characteristics.


And are they described as having preserved the form of the dead?

Hello @P.bodhi :slight_smile:

Welcome to Discourse Sutta Central :anjal:

We hope you find the various resources here useful and fruitful to your practice.

Should you have concerns or questions regarding any of the forum guidelines please do contact the @moderators.

Kind regards,
Adrian (on behalf of the moderation team)

There are these resources as well which I found by using the search function and typing ‘MN130’


Good point. Just my 2 cents worth but my impression (perception) is that because the Buddha was a human being, his discourses were given to humans (and devas).

So to make it relatable to the audience, the Buddha would use purisa/o.

From a logical perspective, I imagine if one were to ‘fall’ into hell after passing away, they would enter hell in whatever form they were previously.

So it would make sense that one would be in their human form during their time in hell so as to experience all the ‘painful, racking, piercing feeling’ (I think that’s Bikkhu Bodhi’s translation). :anjal:

Thanks to AdrianMagno and all the people who built Sutta Central, I’ve benefited a lot here and am so grateful for it :pray:.

Yes, I already know the topics you suggested, I searched for them before asking the question.

In this sutta, the Buddha used “satta” in the previous passage.

Well, in my mind, only when we think that “this form is mine”, “I am this form”, “this form is my self” do we have that impression.