SuttaCentral
Hi
I’m posting this topic after a reddit topic.
Basically, apparently, in the Pali Canon, it is said that a person who denies the supramundane knowledge of the Buddha, will be reborn in hell
This implies that if Christians or Muslims deny that the Buddha had supernormal knowledge because it is not compatible with their religion, then these Christians and Muslims will be reborn in hell.
What do you think ?
Thanks in advance.
May all beings become arhats.
Suppose that certain Mr. X proclaims that he has supernatural knowledge.
Case 1: Mr. A knows nothing about Mr. X but he still blindly goes ahead and announces that he rejects Mr. X’s proclamation.
Case 2: Mr. A knows nothing about Mr. X but he based on certain bias/ own knowledge/ own belief/ own experience/ own view etc. so he chooses to reject Mr. X’s proclamation.
Case 3: Mr. A knows partially about Mr. X but he based on certain bias/ own knowledge/ own belief/ own experience/ own view etc. so he choose to reject Mr. X’s proclamation.
Case 4: Mr. A knows completely about Mr. X but he mostly based on certain bias/ own knowledge/ own belief/ own experience/ own view etc. so he choose to reject Mr. X’s proclamation.
Case 5: Mr. A knows completely about Mr. X and he based on this knowledge to reject Mr. X’s proclamation.
In my opinion, the sutta you were referring seems to refer to people belongs to case 1-4, not the case 5. And for case 1-4, these are actions come from wrong view. And in the case involving with a great being (the Buddha), the consequence will therefore be great. So, it sounds frightening (hair-raising) but hell is actually a reasonable consequence.
No.
That is a Christian thing.
Buddhism operates on karma, which is an impersonal law without a consciousness behind it to get offended.
Like an impersonal law of physics.
No matter who you are, you will fall at 9.8 meters per second.
While not all of your experiences are the result of karma, most of your experiences will be the result of what you do and your motivations behind it.
There was a similar passage I remember reading where the Buddha was asked what happens to a deva who dies; and his response is that the deva goes to hell. The meaning I took was that due to samsara being cyclic, the deva would eventually end up in hell because the nature of unawakened beings is to bounce around between the realms.
I am inclined to read the issue about supramundane knowledge the same way. People with confidence in the Buddha’s knowledge have either consciously decided to traverse the path to awakening or have awakened. But people who don’t have confidence have not made this decision. Therefore at some point, due to bouncing around in samsara, they will end up in hell.
The difference between the above and a religion like Christianity is that you don’t necessarily go to hell immediately. Rather, you are destined for hell because all conditioned beings will pass through hell at some point or another, if they haven’t attained stream entry or beyond.
Thanks for your message, your idea is interesting.
But honestly, I can’t help thinking that this kind of idea is mostly made to reassure us, to arrange Buddhism to what we would like Buddhism to be. Personally, I am not an expert in Buddhism. But when I read this sutra, for me the message is very clear: just like killing our parents leads to hell, denying the supramundane knowledge of Buddha leads to hell. That is to say that in the same way that the Buddha says that killing our parents leads to hell, denying the supramundane knowledge leads to hell: it is not simply a story of samsara which would necessarily end up making us taste hell, but it is well that compared to someone who remains in samsara, the one who commits these “crimes” will have one more hell compared to the one who has not committed them.
And frankly, it’s true that it’s a little bit weird I think. Hell is something that lasts for an extremely long time with a lot of suffering… Just because a person denies supramundane knowledge, he ends up in hell? Wow.
Finally it’s a bit like monotheistic religions that say that if you deny the existence of God, you can end up in hell, but here it’s not God but the supramundane knowledge of Buddha.
I try to find an explanation that seems reasonably aligned with the rest of the text. The reason I go for the samsara angle is because there should be no reason for a deva to simply appear in hell immediately after they die. Yet the Buddha said their destination is hell.
The Buddha was quite good at motivating people to practice by painting pretty grim pictures (e.g. He says we have shed more tears through the course of samsara than all the waters in all the oceans). So the hell thing could plausibly be another motivator. As far as I know, he didn’t say hell would be the destination in the very next life.
I think even with the hell via killing parents may not be straightforward. The Buddha knew that Angulimala would go to hell if he killed his mother. But whether that is the immediate destination, in the next life, of anyone who kills a parent is unknown to me.
It would be interesting to compare the Pali, and see whether it is specific enough to say that you go to hell in the very next life in all cases.
The simile of the stick might provide useful context for interpreting suttas about kamma and rebirth. In “The Art of Disappearing” Ajahn Brahm writes:
One of my favourite teachings of the Buddha is the simile of the stick (SN 15:9, 56:33). When I first read it I almost shivered in fear. The simile makes the point that the ripening of kamma at death is as uncertain as which end of a stick will hit the ground first when it is thrown into the air. Everybody has a store of bad kamma. Even if bad kamma doesn’t ripen when you die this time, as long as you remain in samsara, you will eventually experience tremendous suffering in hell, in the animal realm. You are only safe if you become a stream-winner.
This seems to support the idea that what is meant is that the act of rejecting the Buddha in itself leads towards hell, but doesn’t necessarily make you go to hell in your very next birth. If the simile of the stick weren’t true, then you could say for certain that lesser bad deeds like killing an ant or rejecting the Buddha will definitely make you go to hell right away. But if it is true, then you can’t say that because it’s much more uncertain. It appears to also suggest that no belief will save you from hell by itself, which is a big distinction from monotheistic religions.
I can see how this might be unconvincing, but interpretation is also a matter of choice. Those of us who aren’t enlightened can’t know for sure whether the Buddha was right. I choose to operate under the assumption that he was. I could be wrong, but that would also apply if I made a different choice.
I would put this in the category of unimportant question.
If you are a Buddhist who believes in rebirth, you already believe the Buddha has supramundane knowledge, so the answer doesn’t change your practice.
If you are a Buddhist who does not believe in rebirth, there is no hell, so the answer doesn’t reflect reality, and would not change your practice.
If you are a member of another religion, what Buddhist scripture says would be irrelevant and would not be considered true, so the answer wouldn’t change your practice.
With Metta! 
If Christians and Muslims are intuitively practicing non-attachment by walking the Noble Eightfold Path, whether they know it by that name or not, then they are ending suffering and not likely to be making extended visits to the hell realms.
Bearing in mind how rare and incredible sotapatti is, it seems most Buddhists are headed for the lower realms as well. The name doesn’t guarantee anything.
Hi Walkabout,
Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.
If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
Regards,
Danny (on behalf of the moderators)
I think as mentioned in multiple suttas, people who practice 5 precepts won’t go to hell or lower realms.
If even a non-buddhist practice 5 precepts he still likely won’t go to lower realms.
You have the unstated premise here that the only thing that is important is what happens to oneself.
On the other hand, most people care about other people. If my friend says he or she does not believe that the Buddha had supernatural powers, and I believe that will lead him or her to hell (!), then I have a strong incentive to do whatever possible to change their mind!
It would be helpful if, while discussing this, the specific suttas in question were referenced.
No. You have assumed that when I use the term “practice” it doesn’t include ethics and helping others. I would say how one treats others, acts compassionately, helps others is central to one’s practice. Sila is a core component of the path.
Regardless of whether there is a hell of not, I wake up every morning and strive to act compassionately. So the answer to the question doesn’t change anything. For me.
I understand that isn’t true for you. Thanks for correcting me on phrasing it in a way that sounded too much a generalization. Also, in retrospect, the way I phrased my answer seems unnecessarily provocative.
I’m very confused how this could possibly be conflated with the 5 heavy acts. The sutta in question says,
unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as surely as if he had been carried off and put there he will wind up in hell. Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration, and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as surely as if he had been carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.
Which is fundamentally different than the 5 heavy acts, in that it’s explicitly reversible. Ajjasattu couldn’t unkill his father to achieve stream-entry, Devadatta couldn’t un-draw the buddha’s blood, etc. I think this is enough to say that what the buddha is describing here is different from the sort of immediate condemnation of the 5 heavy acts.
Once we accept that distinction, I think it makes sense that obviously someone who denies the truth of Buddhism necessarily will not follow the noble eightfold path, thus will not attain stream-entry, thus will achieve lower rebirth. I think this interpretation is strengthened by the contrast made to one who practices earnestly achieving nibbana.
Of course, there’s a sort of hyper-literal reading where you’d imagine 1st year philosophy students whisked away through a portal to hell the moment they write a paper saying, “Siddharta Gautama logically deduced…” but that same sort of hyper-literal reading would tell you that every monk on this forum is an arhant because they “are possessed of virtue, concentration, and wisdom”. Clearly, neither is what is meant by this passage.
I don’t think that’s true. Five precepts lead to good rebirth and don’t lead to bad rebirth, but they don’t guarantee you won’t be reborn in a lower realm (due to other / prior actions).
You may be thinking of this sutta, but I believe that’s specifically about 5-precept lay followers who are also stream-winners.
check this sutta AN 10.211 where Buddha teaches those who have 10 qualities go to heaven and those who don’'t go to hell.
They’re content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’
They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!
And right view is described as following:
They have right view, an undistorted perspective: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are such things as mother and father, and beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
Someone with these ten qualities is raised up to heaven.”
It doesn’t say you have to believe in Buddha or his super mundane knowledge, just that the belief that there are ascetics who have practiced and described afterlife.
It could easily be christian ascetics who also mediate.
Since christian afterlife(heaven and hell) is also a valid but limited description of how samsara works, I think it’s considered right view.