Isuru

accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

this is the reference for 31 realm

@TedWrigley it seems like you havent read my answer to this question.

Always a Buddha is born to the world to the clear those misunderstnading of the people and direct them to the correct path to the absolute enlightenment.

It doesn't matter what people think, this is what buddhism explains.

@Codosaur, I'm not talking about the creator of god. I'm talking about the gods. There are many gods do exist. And among them there's one who has longer life time, so he thinks he is the creator, but it is not the truth. This is explains in Aggangna sutta in the Pali cannon. And I've added an answer on this below as well.

@Codosaur, Buddhism is not a concept of anything its how the world works. And about god and deva it's the same thing. We Sinhalese in Sri Lanka says deva for the same meaning of god in english. So it's the same thing. And in buddhism what buddha has explained is how all these existence are possible.

Buddhism explains about many gods, so saying no claims on god existence or non existence is wrong.

I've seen all the references and have heard all the sermons on this in Sri Lanka. Which make me realize you just can't reject insatiable meaning of anicca.. Thanks for down voting what a brave action of yours. These are two ideology. Just by saying nothing can be proved. Dhamma is something not to play with. I hope you are aware about 'sanga bedaya' and what's the real meaning of that (it doesnt mean make sangha fight, in case if you don't know) So down vote will help you to find the correct ideology it seems. With Metta!

@dmsp: If you apply the word insatiable instead of impermanence that article references has more solid meaning. eg: anicca watha sankara all sankara are insatiable. So it's hard to take a decision based on this article. Anyway thanks for the reference.

I accept you, and thanks for helping me to understand while others don’t care. Buddha’s teaching on this is don’t just accept anything because your elders did or your teachers told... , check whether it complies with dhamma (paticcasamuppada) and vinaya (raghakkayo, mohakkayo, dweshakkayo nibbanan). So if we are talking Dhamma of Buddha this is what it should be. Anyway thanks for making me understand how the community acts here. With Metta.

No I’m not saying its bad translation, I’m giving facts to say it is when someone say it is not, because they answered without facts. Those people are good for a religion just to pray, but not for buddhism which is not a religion.

I haven’t answered this question, I’m arguing back, to give facts when someone just answered without facts or that’s what everyone knows. Read Payasi Sutta to understand what Buddha said about just following without understanding or realizing something.

May I know why is this down voted?

Let me know why this is down voted please

@AndreiVolkov and @ChrisW, I added a summarized section in the question. If I try to explain with an example: When people are saying world is flat, and in a forum, where lots of discussions are going on explaining about the world based on the fact that the world is flat, I'm asking about another explanation which says the world is round. My question is like that. In this forum it says Anicca is impermanence but I found another explanation which says Anicca is not the way some wants it to be

@AndreiVolkov, I saw the new theory of Anicca which is not impermanence and that's mentioned in that linked article. And just without referring to an article, I've added my view on that as well. So I'm asking which one is correct, if the referred Anicca which says it's not the impermanence is wrong, then why? So if you can suggest me how can I ask this kind of question it would be really helpful.

No. Sorry that’s not what I meant. Bad english. What wanted to say, I’ll update the question with some references so someone can understand how above people are categorized. But I don’t know how to find them. That’s what the question is about. And if want to share what I know there’s an option I can use to answer my own question when asking the question. I didn’t do it, coz I’m here not to teach. But to learn and share.

And No. I’m not a teacher. Because buddha said only teacher is Dhamma. But you will need good friends (kalyana mitra sevanaya) association to reach the correct path. Here good friend is one who already knows the correct dhamma. Anyway I don’t think I can give anything more to this community. I’ll find the answer to this question and post it soon. I can’t find the sutta yet. After that you will realize how aimless this world is

Please don’t judge from the tone, as this is not my mother tongue. What I told was what I’ve understood. And we are grown up with the same kind of Dhamma which was not directing towards Nivana. But recently (within last 10years) the correct dhamma appeared in the world. And most of us are getting benefits of that. We experience the difference. And when try to give some idea about what real dhamma is, few people here acts like crazy. Some people called them self uggatithanna. In Buddha’s days uggatithanna people become arhant after listening to one dhamma phrase (eg: Angulimala)

So I don’t know Aritta bikku in alagaddupama sutta is a pada parama or not. Its about advising him and explaining others how bad it is to do such a thing. Buddhism is not a simple thing. Don’t mix things up. Its all about reality not definitions. We are trying to find a definition to the scenario of reality is a different thing it’s because its what most of us are used to.

I don’t think this is relevant to the question (not to offense anyone). Because if you read the full sutta you can see its about Aritta bikkhu who has mis interpret the buddhas word, and the advice from buddha is not to do that as it add more bad karma to Aritta bikkhu. Pada parama is something else. No matter what pada paraama person can’t understand the dhamma. Because he doesn’t got enough karma (reasons or paramitha) to attain Nivana in this life. These are two different thing. Eg: Devadatta was a bad monk but he was not pada parama, he could attain nibbana if he could control his anger.

Buddha haven’t taught about, students and teachers. Dhamma is the only teacher and all the puthagjanas (people who haven’t entered the path to Nivana ) are the students of Dhamma. Always asked to make Dhamma the teacher not a person. And there, above four types of persons are defined. And the pada parama people are just talk,” with lots of references from the books and etc. but they don’t really understand the dhamma, as they haven’t done enough karma to obtain Nivana. I’m also trying to find and answer to above question from the canon.

@ChrisW, Thanks for trying to understand the question, I updated the question accordingly. I think its bit clearer now. Appreciate the work you are doing on the community. With Metta.

@ChrisW, The duplicate you pointed is not a duplicate of my question. All of the answers are like. When answering is that a real Rabbit in the moon? Everyone responses: You can see that rabbit very clearly when the full moon is. And the moon is round and every month we can see full moon. And the Rabbit is still there. And some another language Rabbit is called Hawa. Kids always love that Rabbit ....` This kind of answer I saw there. Anyway I understand your attempt to improve the question / answer base in this forum, but it would be great if you understand wha exact my question is.

@ChrisW, Clearly its about difference about two things and one of that is Avijja. Eg: When someone ask whats the difference between a bike and car, answers are focused on difference (like: that has 2 wheels and the other has 4... etc.) But not what the car is. Whether it has engine, whether what are the variations of cars so on. And in that answer I don't see any clear answer to what exactly in Avijja. It just gives some other words to that or quoting from a translated sutta.

@ChrisW, to summarise my understanding of that topic, "avidya is uprooted" when it's replaced with ñāṇa This is not what I'm asking, I know that. If I rephrase my question again `what EXACTLY is Avijja? Because everyone is referring to some other thing, when asked about Avijja. This seems no one knows what Avijja is, is it?

@ChrisW, if you read the question again, what I'm asking is what exactly avidya? In simple language, when some one uproot avidya he bocome arahat right. So does the explanations in the other question make you Arhat. Budhism is not words, its the feeling. Otherwise we all are arhat by now. So giving some reference doesn't mean that we've understood the fact. With Metta (no offense). English is not my mother tongue, so please excuse me if my words are harsh.

Rev. @SamanaJohann, I updated the question with more words, We use Pali, as Sanskrit is a language which Buddha has asked not to translate Dhamma, as it changes the meaning of the word.

I've deleted that part, please change the vote.

If you have time can I continue the chat on the same matter please

Done.

ok, that's what I'm saying . Thanks with Metta.

I'm still not familiar with the reference that you are giving, but the down voting just make me leave this community with out feel like being part,

The thing is, i can give you evidence but i don't know whether you can read pali, where the original thripitaka is in. It's with sinhala letters

Then please clarify that in the comments, that's why there's a comment section.

I'm not here with anger. But that has to be discussed, with out down voting a correct answer (according to you its partially)

Still you didn't get what I'm saying, I'm saying as a community you should suggest what to be correct in part of a correct answer with out down voting. There are many people out there in the world, who know better than us and actions like down voting with out contributing is like fighting. I'm buddhist from the birth, and also I hv been in this system for many years, this is not how this community grows. Feeling sorry for this action.

You are not helping as a community, you accept the other part is correct, but with out asking it you are down voting the whole answer, which contains the exact answer he has asked for. You can suggest others to improve the answers with depressing them. This doesn't seems like an action of buddhist (no offense though)

@Dhammadhatu, If you want it you can ask the evidence right, or you can edit it Without down voting. This is against coc and not helping as a community.