It is stated that Buddha said that it is more difficult to achieve nibbana in this realm than in the human realm (due to absence of suffering).

Imagine, that one of these gods, has realized that in fact he is "stuck" there and want to achieve nibbana and get out, even more, he created a whole reality where he "lives" similar to the human realm. This god did this because experiencing suffering, (even in this "simulation"), it will be easier to look for the exit out of samsara.

Imagine that this god realizes that he's created all that, what should be the next steps for those kind of gods, (which actions or intentions), to follow Dharma and finally exit the samsara?

Should he assume a "human form" just to follow Dharma or should he do it "from" the same "gods realm" "perception" ?

Sorry if the question is too "fictious" or not understandable, let me know if you need more clarification.



From the perspective of the old Pali scriptures, I am not aware of anywhere that states: "It is more difficult to achieve nibbana in the a godly realm than in the human realm".

For example, AN 4.123 describes Nirvana ("unbound") in the god realms.

I think the answer to this common view is based in the type of 'godly' realm.

A most common godly realm in the Pali scriptures are higher meditation states (jhana), as described in AN 4.123.

However, there are godly realms that equate to luxurious wealthy lifestyles of sensual pleasures (e.g. MN 37). It is possibly this godly realm called The Sensuous World (kama-loka) that makes it difficult to achieve Nibbana.

Good sir Moggallana, the Vejayanta Palace has a hundred towers, and each tower has seven hundred upper chambers, and each tower has seven nymphs and each nymph has seven maids. Would you like to see the loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace, good sir Moggallana?

  • I reffer to this statement (with the propeer references to those claims): ""Gods realm:[40] the gods (devas)[41] is the second realm, and typically subdivided into twenty six sub-realms.[42] A rebirth in this heavenly realm is believed to be from very good karma accumulation.[40] A Deva does not need to work, and is able to enjoy in the heavenly realm all pleasures found on earth. However, the pleasures of this realm lead to attachment (Upādāna ), lack of spiritual pursuits and therefore no nirvana.[43]"" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra_(Buddhism) – voskyc Sep 25 '16 at 5:54
  • 1
    what you posted seems to be the godly realms of 'luxurious wealth', as i posted. but in Buddhism there are many godly realms, where some are beneficial for meditation. this link may help: accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html – Dhammadhatu Sep 25 '16 at 8:38

It depends, there are three realms Desire, Form, Formless.

Desire realm gods as the name suggests have desires and are more likely to be attached to their luxuries making it hard to study the Dharma.

However, Form and Formless realm gods all attained their positions from high skill in meditation and are far less attached to desire and they probably don't find too much harder than us in following Buddhism


It sounds to me like you are talking about a particularly Vajrayana idea. please correct me if that is not so! If so, it should be noted that in that context, the "realms" are not considered to actually exist (I know they tend to say to the lay people that they do, but that's different from what the monks believe) and are symbols of Human Stereotypes. Another you could have mentioned was The Hungry Ghost Realm. All of them are symbolic of different broad ideas of ego, rather than being places which genuinely exist. So, to answer your question, the same way everyone gets out: The Path.

  • Actually, it is real as there is no real. Just like Nibbana "is" samsara, it is not a magic place, neither are the realms. However, giving that into consideration that does not remove how do you perecieve them (justa like you now perceive are completely real). You wil can live there eons, ¿is that a methaphor?, of course not ;-) – voskyc Sep 30 '16 at 12:46
  • 1
    Yes.. this is another example though of mixing contexts and thus, losing meaning, I think. Buddhists seem to mix a lot of contexts when they talk about The Path, which is fine if you are instructing someone (per Dogen etc), but on a forum like this, my feeling is that it is more useful to restrain the context. – T. B. Oct 2 '16 at 15:55
  • I know, i will recreate the question with the proper budhist branch and who and how. Because this is important for stack exchange. However, I must note, there is a serious problem I've noted in stackexchange, even when it is very formal, it is assumed (due to most secular contributors) that Buddhist teachings are "some kind of metaphor and few times are literal". However it is not the case, e.g. the "clear light" is in fact literal CLEAR LIGHT, it is not a "clear mind metaphor", also the bardo thodol lights, are in fact LITERAL lights. Also are the gods realm. – voskyc Nov 4 '16 at 21:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.