Talk:Naraka (Buddhism)

Judaism?

"A Naraka differs from the hells of Abrahamic religions in two respects. First, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment; second, the length of a being's stay in a Naraka is not eternal, though it is usually very long."

Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife, but it does have a mystical/Orthodox tradition of describing Gehenna. Gehenna is not Hell, but rather a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life. The Kabbalah explains it as a "waiting room" (commonly translated as an "entry way") for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 12 months, however there has been the occasional noted exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.102.189 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jainism?

I don't understand why this article is being asked to double as an article about the Jain concept of Naraka, which, I am sure, differs from the Buddhist concept in both details and in general cosmological principles. There is plenty of room for an article on Naraka (Jainism) if someone can be found who's qualified to write it. RandomCritic 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Emphasize the 'very'

I really think we should emphasize the length of the suffering, with the word very at least twice "...the length of suffering is very very long." -Unsigned

Not true

"First, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment" Most Buddhist sects that actually give a shit about the Chinese-derived concept of Narakas do believe that beings are sent there as the result of divine judgment. Namely, the judgment of Lord Yama. Not to mention that the concept of karma itself is a form of divine judgment. --75.49.222.55 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The concept is not "Chinese-derived". The characterization of karma as "a form of divine judgment" is highly dubious. RandomCritic 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He's a Hindu presenting a Hindu view of a Buddhist concept. I advise that we just ignore him. Armyrifle (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic may indeed be more elaborated in particular Mahayanist views, but unless we are representing our prejudices, how is the identity or association of any *editor* relevant here? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Karma is not divine judgment. It's basically a natural law that positive karma leads to a higher rebirth, while negative karma leads to lower rebirth. In fact, some believe that the torments of the Narakas are created by the negative karma of the hell-beings! As for Yama, keep in mind that Diyu is not strictly a Buddhist concept, although there's entanglement and overlap. Xcalibur (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Folk religion grafted onto Buddhism?

Were these hells actually part of Buddhism from the beginning? I'm beginning to suspect that these were folk beliefs that were pasted onto Buddhist dharma. If they were, can we include that in the article? Can we also include how many contemporary Buddhists (don't) believe in Naraka? Of all the Buddhists I run into (mostly Anglophone Buddhists), I find very few who actually think that bad people are punished in grotesque ways from 1,620,000,000,000 to 3,397,386,240,000,000,000 years. Lothar76 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Western budhists are hippy vegans who won't never understand budhist. They just take trendy buddhist things and re-interpret them with their (not very) own beliefs. So, of course, hedonists hippy don't WANT to believe in hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E56:B5D0:2D1E:5182:53AC:4BA8 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The evidence indicates that is not the case. References to the hells are common in what are considered the very oldest sutras, and indeed the concept of different realms (including the hells) is a fundamental aspect of Buddhism and has been from the start. We could include something about westerners choosing to disbelieve this point of doctrine if we can find citable sources for that assertion. Sylvain1972 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To me that is an undiscerning viewpoint. If you treat Buddhism from outside, as a belief system defined by a collection of texts whose authority is defined by their age then you might arrive at that conclusion. But much of popular Buddhist (and Hindu) practice and beliefs is identified elsewhere as a throwback to much older folk beliefs that have little do with the later philosophical systems that gave them their name. A philosophy that rejects the notion of the "soul", together with the reports that the Buddha was reluctant to speculate about anything beyond this life is hardly consistent with these colorful descriptions of imagined hells. This article would be much improved if it made some distinction between Buddhist folk religion and Buddhist philosophy. I doubt whether two millenia from now, the Cognitive Behaviourists would appreciate having their ideas muddled in with Morris Folk Dancing in some future version of WP.

--174.7.56.10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The assumption you make that, based on your understanding of Buddhist philosophy, the Buddhist Narakas are inconsistent with them and therefore can be relegated to "folk religion" is not especially discerning. You cannot claim with certainty that your present understanding of Buddhist philosophy should supersede some twenty-five centuries' worth of exegesis by the Buddhist community (including philosophers), and you certainly cannot ask Wikipedia to privilege your personal interpretation over that exegesis, regardless of the plausibility or value of that interpretation. RandomCritic (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually came back to this page to question why the link, apparently to Devaduta Sutta, in the first paragraph, actually links to Upajjhatthana Sutta article. That article does claim the Devaduta Sutta as a related material but that hardly justifies the substitution. However, while I'm here I'll respond to RandomCritic's response to my comment above his. I suppose that my own high-handededness gave rise to his. Aligning his views with 'twenty-five centuries' worth of exegesis by the Buddhist community (including philosophers)' and dismissing mine as mere present personal philosophy scores well as a sneer but as a result lacks substance. The reality is that there is not one but many Buddhist communities, many in disagreement with one another over key principles, whether explicit or implied. There has not been 'twenty-five hundred years of exegis'. Exegis is typically a word that arises within the scholarly community which has about two hundred years of history at best, is western oriented, and has often been flawed by its early preference for portraying Buddhism and Hinduism as colorful folk religions. And that is my point. If you take an undiscerning scholarly approach you can easily arrive at this conclusion. But I'd be interested to know what your exegis of western ideas would turn up. Most books on Buddhist philosophy present ideas which would question whether any idea of hell is consistent with that view. The most obvious solution is that there was a philosophical Buddhism and a popular one. It's a simple divide but better than trying to claim that beliefs and practices that largely confined to the one audience are representative of the other.

I really don't want to appear "high-handed," but it's apparently difficult to avoid in dialogue with someone who (a) is unaware of the continuous history of Buddhist philosophical commentary going back more than two millennia and (b) cannot spell exegesis. There is absolutely no basis for the assumption that "philosophical" Buddhists rejected the concept of Naraka. To believe that you have to sort all extant Buddhist technical commentary into the "popular" bin and assume that there was a parallel "philosophical" Buddhism which, strangely, was never written down. How could one possibly advocate this point of view on Wikipedia, which is a tool dependent entirely on written sources?

As for the claim that a "western oriented" "scholarly community" has a "preference for portraying Buddhism... as [a] colorful folk religion," in fact the bias has been quite the reverse -- there's been a tendency to ignore popular manifestations of Buddhism in favor of a normative textual tradition which may not always be reflected in actual daily practice.RandomCritic (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that not seem a bit extreme? The entirety of Avīci is more than a sixth the age of Earth squared! Why would anyone need to suffer that long? -juunannio 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juunannio (talk • contribs)

Ouch. Vitriolic: "Give a Shit..." One might be inclined to consider that those who follow the Dharma as taught by the Buddha very quickly became (arguably) the worlds' proselytes,as it occured to them that, "this thing has giant benefit for all, and the compassion it inspires compels me to spread the teaching to those beings in whom the thread runs (which is, of course, all beings).

There is interplay between Buddhism and folk beliefs (eg local deities becoming bodhisattvas), but not to the extent you claim. Certainly the doctrine of the Narakas was not "grafted on", it's an established part of the sutras. As for the gruesome imagery and absurd lengths of time, keep in mind that not everything has to be taken literally. The point is to illustrate that the hells are terrible, and that a life sentence there is significantly longer than a human lifetime. The burning, freezing, slicing, etc and trillion year figures are trying to hammer home a metaphysical point in human terminology. Also, I agree with the IP above on the point that many Western "Buddhists" follow a watered-down version of the faith, liberally mixed with New Age beliefs. There may be a few serious practitioners who study the philosophy and doctrines such as heavens & hells, but they're the exception. Xcalibur (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What Earns One a Spot in 'Hell?'

I had followed this link to find what I believe is the most important information about the "hell realms," which is the "sins" for which the inhabitants of those realms have come to be in them (Hungry Ghost, Animal, Demi-God, God...etc). I cannot speak to the nomenclature here, as my only other language is French (though I maintain "ainsi, soit-il" is the most Dharma-conscious phrase in all of occidental thinking).
Perhaps this article would be better served by the explanation of such an "important" aspect of what the hell-realms (in which we walk daily, moving from one-to-the-other each minute of each day) actual entail and the "karmic sins" which bring one into those states of being.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SereneMajestic (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 

The short version is that negative karma leads to lower rebirth, while positive karma leads to higher rebirth. A significant karmic credit or debit could land you in the heavens or hells, respectively. As for Buddhist morality, that's alot to get into, but you should look into compassion, detachment, skillful means, and the noble eightfold path. Xcalibur (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naraka (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210132827/http://read.goodweb.cn/dyjy/ to http://read.goodweb.cn/dyjy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ussada Niraya/Lokantarika

This article gives a decent, basic summary of the hell realms. However, it's not comprehensive. I've come across other hells besides the major ones (8 hot, 8 cold) which are not covered here. In particular, there's the ussada niraya, the neighboring/minor hells, which are adjacent to the major hells, and include a variety of punishments, such as the razor forest. Sources state that there are either 4 or 5 arranged on each side of a major hell, for a total of 16 or 20 (all together: 128 + 8 = 136, or 160 + 8 = 168).

One source [1] lists them as follows: (1) Gutha-niraya or the Filth Hell, (2) Kukkula-niraya or the Ember Hell, (3) Simpalivana-niraya or the Silk-cotton-tree Hell, (4) Asipattavana-niraya or the Sword-leafed-forest Hell; and (5) Vettarani-niraya or the Caustic River Hell.

Then there's the Lokantaras or Lokantarikas, or inter-world hells, which are described as walled-off, dark, empty, in-between places in the worlds of Buddhist cosmology. There may be 10 of these with 100s of millions of smaller hells attached, or they may be infinite (since world-systems are said to be infinite). This is not to be confused with the 8 dark "vivifying" hells (500 years in each one, then reborn in the next), or with the 84,000 miscellaneous/frontier hells, which are confusingly called "small lokantarika hells", and are divided into mountain/water/desert. [2][3]

This should be seen as preliminary/rough notes on this topic. As you might gather, it's rather difficult to pull all this together from disparate sources, especially when there's the Chinese tradition of Diyu muddying the waters, which I don't believe is strictly Buddhist; the stuff about the pool of blood, 18 hells & 10 courts, Yama as judge, etc all seem to be from Chinese folklore. Hopefully this post & its sources can be a useful starting point. Xcalibur (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreporks

"moreporks, known as kravyāda" in the text for Mahāraurava links to Morepork, which are inoffensive small owls from Australia and New Zealand, so presumably not the same thing. Tslumley (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Eight Cold Hells into Naraka (Buddhism)

already covered in the article Naraka (Buddhism). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)