[ZesePreodaNed]

naturally, i have already disagreed

the realms are insights into the human condition of hell (suffering), heedless/instinctual behaviour (animal), addiction (hungry ghost), angelic or vain bliss (heavenly), reflective morality (human), etc

although the metaphors may be dispensed with, imo, the subject matter is essential

regards

Hate to say it (almost....not really) but, I am far happier when I view the realms this way. I certainly have no ability to alter my true beliefs about realms. I grew up not believing in the and never encountered evidence that convinced me otherwise, though I'm open to it. I've experienced some unusual things in meditation but who's to say what the nature of that is. So this is a better meditation practice for a being like me, who would just be faking it were I do posit hot and cold and sharp and pointy hells located in the hot molten core of earth (or somewhere close).

Tibetan logicians say that, if you have never seen or felt the presence of a ghost, then of course, it's a grave logical error to assert "ghost" on the merely because others assert it. You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. If you see smoke rising on the ridge (absent any fog....say a clear and dry day at noon) you can reasonably assert fire. If the monk Tashi never eats in the morning and he's fat you can assert that he's eating in the afternoon or evening. '

We don't have to look very far to see these kinds of gross and more subtle kinds of sufferings; only at our mind, at our tv (check out the latest war), at our friends and loved ones, at neutral people, at enemies. It's unnecessary to posit realms to bring the message about suffering home. And for those who assert one life then this is clearly the best way to go about it.

Now do I say that the Buddha's students CLEARLY understood what you're asserting here. No way. I don't think so. I don't think conclaves or Arhats (beings which far surpass us) who decided to put all manner of references to the supernatural and superstitious in suttas believed that what they were putting in would be clearly understood to be metaphorical by later students. And what's my proof? That is has NOT been understood that way by most of them. And if these fully evolved beings were completely wrong about the course how future generations would interpret the suttas then why?

Well, I've expressed my view above and you may want to respond to that post.

Take care---I have learned a great deal from reading your posts. You're a wonderful and passionate consolidator and expositor of the Buddha's teachings---thanks for that!

tj