Talk:Desire realm

Removal of references to pleasures
I removed the references to pleasures. Pleasures would fit well into the realm higher that of Asuras. There are different classifications, that usually confuses. Above human realm, there are either two realms (semigods/Asuras and gods/Devas) or just one (and you hear it called either 'asuras' or just gods).

Asurase are active, intelligent and prone to jealousy and figts. Gods are completely satisfied with what they have (and they have a lot), they live in harmony and do not fight (except when Asuras attack).

Hope this helps.


 * Thanks a lot, ExitControl. I'll keep that part as you have written it, until i'll get more info... and then i'll see. Please sign your posts though, it really helps out to see who i'm talking to without actually having to go through the page's history. Beta m (talk)

Library of Congress image
Does anyone know if the image that i'm linking to on the Library of Congress website can by uploaded and used on Wiki (without copyright problems). If it can't and somebody has another one that is either in public domain or under a free license please feel free to edit the reference... Beta m (talk)

Plants, Germs, and Earth
What about plants, germs, and earth? Where are the ten? lysdexia 03:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As far i can tell in Buddhism those three are said not to be sentient beings, and therefore are not in the ten realms (whether lower six (aka samsara) or higher four). However, i believe i have seen references to plants as sentient beings in some krishna texts, but i'm no expert to comment on that.
 * As for where is the article on the whole ten spiritual realms, it's on my ToDo list... q;-) Beta m (talk)


 * Some said they have buddha nature. see Soul Mendel 56 (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A little frightening?
Isn't the idea of possibly coming back into the world as an animal, hungry ghost, or in the Narakas seem scary? Do people who believe this believe that this happens to everyone? Or is it just really bad people and not the average Joe Blo? This always confused me about Buddhism. It seems so nice, yet has some terrible ideas about the afterlife with the Buddhist hell realms. This is all just my opinion and I mean no offense to any Buddhist who reads this.

You don't gwt reincarnated at random, good karma you get a better life, bad karma worse life. Zazaban 06:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Pali Canon, the vast majority of people are reborn in lower realms. Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the original poster on this topic, I in no way mean to offend; I am just starting out in this so please take my question as one of ignorance. If the majority of people are reborn in lower realms (by which I assume is meant in animal form) how is the rapid incease in human population explained? Is there a definite number of souls? What is the source of 'new' souls and where did the original ones come from (which I guess implies a measurable 'beginning' of time)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.34.64 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been here for a while. There is no beginning. We've been here for ever. We go up & down. Mostly down, in the sense that most of our lifetimes are in lower realms: animals, ghosts, hell. Over time, the proportions of beings in different realms can vary, so population growth isn't a problem. This is the Theravada position. Mahayana probably agrees on the whole, but I have much less knowledge of the subject. Peter jackson (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Dis)order?
As far as I know, the asura realm follows the god realm and precedes the human. Haiduc 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Layout
The way the introductory text interacts with the pivture results in a detached 1/2 line, which looks daft to me. Perhaps someone with the requisite technical knowledge can fix it. Peter jackson 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

karma
The article states:

"The Buddhist view of Hell (Niraya) differs significantly from that of most monotheistic religions in that those being punished in this realm are not trapped permanently. Rather, they remain there until their negative karma is used up, at which point they are reborn into another realm."

As far as I understand, karma is not something that "accumulate" or can be "used up".

Karma is just action -- if you drop a glass, it will break. If you don't, it won't. Of course, there are external factors as well. You may not break the glass, but someone else can.

The result of past karma is what it is. You can't "use" it.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu:


 * "Karma is one of those words we don't translate. Its basic meaning is simple enough — action — but because of the weight the Buddha's teachings give to the role of action, the Sanskrit word karma packs in so many implications that the English word action can't carry all its luggage. This is why we've simply airlifted the original word into our vocabulary.


 * But when we try unpacking the connotations the word carries now that it has arrived in everyday usage, we find that most of its luggage has gotten mixed up in transit. In the eyes of most Americans, karma functions like fate — bad fate, at that: an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. "I guess it's just my karma," I've heard people sigh when bad fortune strikes with such force that they see no alternative to resigned acceptance. (...)


 * This misperception comes from the fact that the Buddhist concept of karma came to the West at the same time as non-Buddhist concepts, and so ended up with some of their luggage. Although many Asian concepts of karma are fatalistic, the early Buddhist concept was not fatalistic at all. In fact, if we look closely at early Buddhist ideas of karma, we'll find that they give even less importance to myths about the past than most modern Americans do.


 * For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.219.162 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Desire realm. 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/20110728081715/http://www.taoistic.org/wdb/wdbread.php?forumid=16&filename=f_95 to http://www.taoistic.org/wdb/wdbread.php?forumid=16&filename=f_95

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)