In the orthodox way, I also see that human and sensual devas are in the same kama world, while their bodies are also substantial enough to not classify them in the same world. However, in my classification, human and sensual devas are indeed in different world.
I might not have any sutta to back it up. Anyway you might be right as well that non-returners can only be reborn in the pure abodes.
Hereâs another passage for the difference between sensual deva vs Brahma realm.
If they donât reach enlightenment in this very life, theyâre reborn in the company of a certain host of mind-made gods, who surpass the gods that consume solid food.
If Brahma is a mind-made god and has nobody, then it can fit into my arupa loka classification where there is no rupa left, if there is very little rupa then it can be placed at the top of my rupa loka classification which is next to arupa loka., while with orthodox way, we cannot place Brahma into arupa loka easily since we will need to provide the reason.
Sensual devas can be placed somewhere in middle or bottom that on top of other lower beings. I do not see any problem with the logic.
Classifying this way, the boundaries are clear, beings are classified by the density of rupa since rupa is what obstructed the mind.
This is not a Buddhist teaching. Might be one of the Hindu/ Jain teachings.
The orthodox way is clear, your classification is just based on materialism priority to humans and animals as sensual realms.
By Brahmas, I was referring to the 1st Jhana Brahma realm all the way to the highest of the Pure abodes. They have mind- made bodies.
The 4 arupa realms have this sort of âbodyâ, which is formless:
âFor those gods, sir, who are formless, made of perception.â SuttaCentral
But someone else says to them: âThat self of which you speak does exist, I donât deny it. But thatâs not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that âspace is infiniteâ, itâs reborn in the dimension of infinite space. You donât know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesnât exist after death, thatâs how this self becomes rightly annihilated.â That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
But someone else says to them: âThat self of which you speak does exist, I donât deny it. But thatâs not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that âconsciousness is infiniteâ, itâs reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness. You donât know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesnât exist after death, thatâs how this self becomes rightly annihilated.â That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
But someone else says to them: âThat self of which you speak does exist, I donât deny it. But thatâs not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that âthere is nothing at allâ, itâs been reborn in the dimension of nothingness. You donât know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesnât exist after death, thatâs how this self becomes rightly annihilated.â That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
But someone else says to them: âThat self of which you speak does exist, I donât deny it. But thatâs not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. Aware that âthis is peaceful, this is sublimeâ, itâs been reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. You donât know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesnât exist after death, thatâs how this self becomes rightly annihilated.â That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
1 Like
It is formless. That means it has no form. How can we have a body that has no form? As I understand, it said that it is formless and it is made of perception that means it is a mind, not rupa. A formless mind.
I am respect your view, but I am more comfortable with my classification unless I can find something wrong with it.
From Abhidhamma:
Herein, what is a meritorious (volitional) process?
(There are) wholesome intentions in the sense-world sphere, in the form-world sphere, consisting of generosity, consisting of morality, consisting of meditation, this is said to be a meritorious (volitional) process.
Herein, what is a demeritorious (volitional) process?
(There are) unwholesome intentions in the sense-world sphere, this is said to be a demeritorious (volitional) process.
Given that ghost, hell etc are unwholesome realms due to unwholesome intentions, and the Abhidhamma links that to sense-world sphere, not to form sphere, itâs clear that they do not belong to the form sphere existence.
1 Like
Unwholesome intentions or actions can be done before they become ghosts and go to hell. They performed them when they were in the sense-world (kama-loka) and still be human. Thatâs why they go to hell or become ghosts after that. They moved from kama-loka to rupa-loka after death. rupa-loka is the places of hell and hungry ghosts in my classification.
Your logic of associating the sense sphere thing to human world where the unwholesome actions were done doesnât make sense when we look at more data.
If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm. If they make an imperturbable choice, their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm. When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they donât make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice. Not choosing or intending, they donât grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, theyâre not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.
Herein, what is âwith ignorance as condition there are (volitional) processes?â
(There is) a meritorious (volitional) process, a demeritorious (volitional) process, an impertubable (volitional) process, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body, a (volitional) process expressed by way of speech, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the mind.
Herein, what is a meritorious (volitional) process?
(There are) wholesome intentions in the sense-world sphere, in the form-world sphere, consisting of generosity, consisting of morality, consisting of meditation, this is said to be a meritorious (volitional) process.
Herein, what is a demeritorious (volitional) process?
(There are) unwholesome intentions in the sense-world sphere, this is said to be a demeritorious (volitional) process.
Herein, what is an impertubable (volitional) process?
(There are) wholesome intentions in the formless-world sphere, this is said to be an impertubable (volitional) process.
Letâs take the most extreme case of imperturbable volitional process. Itâs connected to the formless world, but to get there (after death), one can attain to the formless attainments in the human world.
Clearly then, that connected thing is referring to the world the consciousness would be reborn into if one still has not ended rebirth, due to those actions. It doesnât refer to the world one does those actions in.
1 Like
In my classification, the kama-loka is the world of flesh, solid body, a material world, while rupa-loka and arupa loka are what we called spiritual worlds.
After death, we are from the world of flesh (kama-loka) will go to a spiritual world (rupa-loka or arupa-loka) depends on our state of being.
Ghosts, hell beings do not have flesh bodies like we do. Thatâs why they are in my spiritual worlds, not this material world that I called kama-loka. They do not live in the same world or dimension with us despite that their worlds may overlapped with ours.
I think the confusion is because you are clinging to the orthodox way, and think that my kama-loka is the same with orthodox 's kama-loka.
My classification is by the density of rupa, while orthodox way is by the quality of the beings.
If you look into the orthodox way, you will find many questions.
I am trying to show that your classification makes less sense given the evidences from the sutta and Abhidhamma, but you seem too clinging to your own classification to see it. I donât have any confusion.
Ask the questions if you donât know about the orthodox way, donât simply rewrite the dhamma.
1 Like
I am not clinging to my classification, I am defending it to see if there is any problem. However, I do not see any so far.
If you do not like my classification, you can ignore it. I do not force anyone to accept it. I am testing my new theory. However, thanks for your questions, it make me think more about my classification. If I can find problems with it, I will throw it away right away., and start new things. Thatâs how I learned.
If you are comfortable with the orthodox way, then I am respect that. You can keep that. I have my own way.
Thanks for your comments anyway.
1 Like
I have found a problem with my classification, and I have started a new investigation. Here is what I found:
Beings have body and mind. Body is material while mind is non-material. Rupa for the body is from the four great elements (earth, water, air, fire), rupa for the mind is the form derived from the four primary elements.
I think the 3 bhava in DO: kÄmabhavo, rĆ«pabhavo, arĆ«pabhavo are the bhava of the being (mind + body), not for the body only. Therefore, it makes sense to categorize them based on the state of the being than the density of rupa.
After reviewing this, I see that the orthodox way is correct. I was wrong.
kÄmabhavo:
mind: from worst unskillful qualities (greed, hate, delusion) and sensuality â no unskillful qualities but still have sensuality.
form: from ugliest/distorted â beautiful.
members: Hell beings, Animals, Hungry Ghosts, Asuras, Human beings, Devas of the Four Great Kings, The Thirty-three Gods, Yama devas, Contented devas, gods that Delight in Creating, Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others.
causes: Unskillful qualities. Conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct or still have sensuality.
rƫpabhavo:
mind: no sensuality, no unskillful qualities, but still cling to form or in form Jhanas (Here is the cut off from kÄmabhavo: no sensuality)
form: beautiful â perfect.
members: Gods of Brahmaâs Retinue, the Radiant gods, the gods of Limited Radiance, the gods of Measureless Radiance, the gods of Streaming Radiance, the Glorious gods, the gods of Limited Glory, the gods of Measureless Glory, the gods of Refulgent Glory, the Very Fruitful gods, the gods Bathed in their own Prosperity, the Untormenting gods, the Fair-to-see gods, Fair-seeing gods, the gods who are Junior to None. (MN41)
causes: No sensuality, no unskillful qualities. Conduct is accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct but still cling to form Or Form Jhanas.
arƫpabhavo:
mind: no sensuality, no unskillful qualities, no clinging to form or in formless Jhanas.
form: no form. (Here is the cut off from rƫpabhavo)
members: the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space, the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, the gods of the base consisting of nothingness, the gods of the base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
causes: No sensuality, no unskillful qualities. Conduct is accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, no clinging to form, Or Formless Jhanas.