The Mahāsamaya Sutta (DN 20) which contains a long list in verse of beings who came to visit the Buddha, names a few additional great asuras. Besides Vepacitti, Pahārāda and Rāhu there are named Sucitti, Bali and Veroca. However, the commentary says that Veroca is another name for Rāhu. These characters are nothing more than names; no additional details are given except that Bali was Veroca’s nephew and that he had a hundred sons all named Veroca after their uncle.
3:3:25 LOWER ASURAS—THE KĀLAKAÑJIKA
The same verse of the Mahāsamaya Sutta cited above also mentions two special classes of asura, the dānaveghasā and the kālakañjikā.449 The commentary to the Mahāsamaya Sutta (DN-a 20) tells us that the dānaveghasas are archers; they do not seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the texts.
The kālakañjikas are a lower race of asura. They are very horrible (mahābhisma) (ibid.) in appearance:
They have little flesh and blood, just like a dried up leaf. Their eyes stick out from their head like a crab’s. Their mouth is like the eye of a needle on the top of their head and they go about bent over to find their food. (DN-a 24)
Their body is all skin and bones and they suffer greatly from the heat and the cold. (DN-a 22)
They are also said to suffer greatly from thirst. There is mention of some kālakañjika asuras trying to drink from the Ganges, but the water boiled away when they approached and in the end they had to beg some passing bhikkhus to sprinkle water into their mouths (SN-a 22:79).
There is a discrepancy in the sources regarding the size of kālakañjika asuras. In some places they are said to have bodies of sixty or eight hattha. (A hattha is the distance from elbow to fingertip, about one and a half feet or a cubit).450 This would make them huge in human terms but much smaller than devas or the higher asuras. Elsewhere, they are said to have, like the devas, a three gāvuta body (there are four gāvuta to the yojana) (DN-a 24). However, since they are said to vary in appearance, (AN-a 7, 44) this may not be a contradiction.
There was a somewhat pedantic controversy in early Buddhism as to whether living beings should be classified into five or six gati (stations of rebirth). To the canonical five, niraya, petas, animals, humans and devas, some schools added the asuras as a sixth. This debate is taken up in the Kathāvatthu (“Book of Debates”) where the Theravāda proponent argues for five based on such sutta references as MN 12, where the Buddha tells Sāriputta, “There are the five gati.” The argument goes on to divide the asuras: the higher type, those of Vepacitti’s company (vepacittiparisā) are to be grouped with the devas, while the kālakañjika asuras are too classified as petas. Among the arguments it is said that the higher asuras intermarry with the devas, while the kālakañjikas do so with the petas (Kv 8:1). Each type of asura resembles either devas or petas in appearance, enjoyment, nutriment and life-span, and the commentary goes on to detail this:
To begin with the kālakañjikas, they resemble the petas in having an appearance which is horrible, deformed and ugly. They have the same kind of sex-life as the petas. Like the petas, their food consists of saliva, mucus, pus and blood. Their life-spans have the same limit. They give and receive each other’s maidens in marriage.
The higher asuras resemble the devas in having a body which is beautiful, pleasing and radiant. Like the devas, they are possessed of the five sense pleasures. They eat a similar pure food (sudhābhojana) as the devas. (Kv-a 8:1)
There are several other texts which say that the kālakañjikas are “like the petas” (AN-a 7:44, UDa 2:8). The kālakañjikas who begged the bhikkhus for water, mentioned above, identified themselves when asked as petas (“petohamasmi, bhante.”) (SN-a 22:79) We have seen before that the various classifications of beings which seem so definite in summary lists are often full of overlapping and doubtful cases when we examine the details. Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to see why the kālakañjikas are classed as asuras at all.
Another problem of classification arises with the beings called dānavas. The pre-Buddhist Vedas identify them with a class of lower asura, degraded because of their cruel and lustful natures, and so called because their original mother was the asura Danu.451 Modern Buddhist writers and translators often define dānava as simply another name for asura and usually add the derivation from Danu.452 However, there does not seem to be any passage in the Pali canon or commentaries which identifies dānavas with asuras or with anyone called Danu, and it is to be doubted whether this identification was made at all by Buddhists in the centuries during which these texts were composed. The revival of the Vedic notion can probably be traced to the Abhidhānappadīpikā, a twelfth century work composed in Sri Lanka which was cited by Malalasekera in his influential reference work the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names and therefore picked up by other modern writers.
Only two Jātaka stories feature dānavas, Jātakas no. 436 and 519. In both of these the dānava is portrayed as an earth-bound demonic or ogre-like being that lusts after human women. In both cases the being is also called dānava-rakkhasa, a rakkhasa being another monster originating in Vedic lore but in the Pali stories almost synonymous with a yakkha. Both of these stories contain archaic features which may indicate a pre-Buddhist source.
Finally, one reference which would strongly indicate that dānavas were not seen by the early Buddhists as asuras is in the description of the five lines of defence set up by Sakka around Tāvatiṃsa as described above. The third line is composed of kumbhaṇḍas and in the Jātaka version (Jāt 31) the text defines them as dānavarakkhasas. It would seem unlikely that asuras of any sort would serve as defenders of Tāvatiṃsa.
CHAPTER FOUR—MISCELLANEOUS BEINGS
3:4:1 MISCELLANEOUS BEINGS
The tidy scheme of the five destinations of rebirth (niraya, peta, animal, human, deva) (DN 33) fails to account for several classes of being. We have already looked at the asuras, which are recognized by the tradition as being hard to classify. We might also note that any organizational scheme fails in many individual cases, as we have seen examples of beings who are considered as minor devas or as petas or yakkhas interchangeably. The only way to make sense of it is to recognize that the cosmos is a very complicated and messy place and any summary can only serve as a partial explanation. We shall now consider a few more kinds of beings who fall between the classifications, beginning with the yakkhas.
3:4:2 YAKKHAS
The category of yakkha (Skt. yakṣa) is especially problematic in this regard. The word is sometimes used so loosely that it may be taken as simply meaning “a being.”453 The distinctions between yakkhas and the lower level of devas, and the better sort of petas are especially blurry. While this should be borne in mind when encountering the word yakkha in the literature, it is also true that there is a specific race of beings known by that name, and it is the yakkhas properly so-called that we will be discussing here. These are fierce and monstrous beings, often possessing great power. They are usually malevolent, but when tamed by the Buddha or one of the arahants, they can become protectors of the Dhamma. In this capacity, an army of yakkhas forms the fourth (of five) lines of defence of Tāvatiṃsa against the asuras. These yakkhas are said to be “intoxicated by battle” (yuddhasoṇḍa) (Jāt 31). The yakkhas are in general subject to King Vessavaṇa,454 one of the Cātumahārājika devas and Great King of the North, but some are identified as “being of Māra’s faction” (SN-a 10:2).
In the Jātaka stories and other literature of the commentarial period the yakkhas are almost always depicted as fierce, magically powerful beings who seek to capture and devour unwary travellers. The picture in the suttas is more complex. In the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, Vessavaṇa, in his capacity as king of the yakkhas, tells the Buddha that although there are some yakkhas who have faith in the Buddha and his teaching, the majority do not, because they find the keeping of moral precepts “distasteful and unpleasant” (DN 32). Later in the same sutta, Vessavaṇa goes on to state that “some non-human beings … are fierce, wild and terrible. They heed neither the Great
Kings nor their officers, nor their attendants. Just as the bandit-chiefs … so do they behave.”455 But, he goes on to say, if a bhikkhu dwelling in a remote place is attacked by one of these, he may call out for succour to “the great yakkhas, their commanders and commanders-in-chief saying ‘This yakkha has seized me, has hurt me, has harmed me, injured me, and will not let me go!” (ibid.)
There then follows a list of forty names of those great yakkhas one may call upon in such circumstances. This list of righteous yakkha chiefs demonstrates the point made previously about the blurring of categories in the source material, and the vagaries inherent in the term yakkha. Most of the names occur only here, or here and in a similar list of beings in the Mahāsamaya Sutta, (DN 20) and we have in these cases no other information about them. A few are names known from other texts as important yakkhas, notably Āḷavaka and Puṇṇaka. At least six of the “yakkha chiefs”, however, are clearly identified elsewhere as devas of Tāvatiṃsa: Inda, Soma, Varuṇa, Pajāpati, Mātali and Pajunna. There is also Mucalinda, a nāga lord, and Janesabha which is probably a variant form of Janavasabha, the name of the gandhabba who was the reborn King Bimbisāra. In the text of the Mahāsamaya itself one of these “yakkhas”, Cittasena, is identified as a gandhabba.
The kind of trouble that unreformed yakkhas could cause is well illustrated by the following episode taken from the Udāna:
On a moonlit night, the elder Sāriputta was sitting outdoors, deep in samādhi. Two yakkhas happened to be flying through the air overhead. One of the yakkhas, seeing the moonlight reflected on Sāriputta’s freshly shaven head, said to his companion: “It occurs to me, friend, to strike a blow on that bhikkhu’s head.”
The other was aghast: “Do not do so friend! That is a samaṇa of very great potency.” But the first yakkha did not heed his companion’s warning and descending upon Sāriputta he struck the bhikkhu a mighty blow that could have felled a bull elephant. Immediately that yakkha crying out “I am burning!” fell into Mahāniraya.
It happened that Moggallāna was coming along the road at just this moment and witnessed the entire episode with his divine eye (dibbacakkhu) and when Sāriputta emerged from his meditation he asked him how he felt. “I am well friend, but I do have a slight head-ache.”
“Marvellous it is, friend Sāriputta, marvellous it is that a mighty yakkha can strike a blow upon your head which would fell a bull elephant and you have only a slight head-ache.”
“Marvellous it is, friend Moggallāna, that with your divine eye you can see the yakkhas! As for myself, I cannot see even a paṃsupisācaka!”456
The invisibility of yakkhas may be something they can control. In one story, a yakkhinī is clearly seen by the palace guards as she snatched the royal prince with the intent of eating him. However, she developed affection for the baby when it began to suckle her breast and she raised him as a yakkha, living with him in the charnel ground and feeding on human corpses. The problem was that the boy, being actually human, was unable to conceal his form from sight like his adopted mother, the yakkhinī. She gave him this power by feeding him “a certain root” (eka mūla) (Jāt 513). The implication was that she herself could naturally become invisible without external assistance.
In the following story, we see an example of a yakkha being converted to the Dhamma and even attaining stream-entry.
At one time the Buddha was staying at Taṃkitmañca, which place was frequented by the yakkha Sūciloma. This yakkha had been a lay-follower at the time of the Buddha Kassapa, but because he on one occasion entered the Dhamma hall with his body soiled from field-work and lay down upon a costly rug he was reborn as a yakkha with ugly features and hair on his body as coarse as so many needles. (His name means “needle-hair.”)
When Sūclioma’s friend, the yakkha Khira, came to visit him he remarked about the Buddha, “That one is a true samaṇa.” To which Sūciloma replied, “We shall see just how much of a samaṇa he is.” And he approached the Buddha and rubbed up his body against him. When the Buddha drew away from him, Sūciloma said, “Are you then afraid of me, samaṇa?”
“I am not afraid, but your touch is evil (pāpako).”
“I shall ask you a question, samaṇa, and if you cannot answer then I shall either overthrow your mind, split your heart asunder or grab you by the feet and toss you over the Ganges.”
“I do not see anyone in the world who could overthrow my mind, split my heart asunder or toss me over the Ganges, but go ahead and ask your question and I shall answer it.” (SN 10:3 & Sn 2:5)
Sūciloma asked the Buddha a question on Dhamma, and the Buddha replied in verse. Unsurprisingly, the yakkha’s question reveals the troubled nature of his mind; he wanted to know where lust and hatred come from, and why the thoughts toss the mind around like mischievous boys might toss a crow. The Buddha’s answer was that these defilements arise right here, generated by oneself alone. The commentary goes on to say that at the end of the Buddha’s discourse, the yakkha attained to the state of a sotāpanna and as result of this attainment the needles fell off of his body and he became arrayed in deva clothes and garlands, because “stream-enterers do not exist in monstrous bodies” (SN-a 10:3). Not all yakkhas, apparently, were as evil minded as Suciloma. The very next sutta in the Saṃyutta records the Buddha’s encounter with the yakkha Maṇibhadda who lived in a cetiya (stupa) and addressed his question to the Buddha respectfully.457
Perhaps the greatest of the yakkha chieftains is Āḷavaka. His name means “forest dweller” and the story of his conversion is told in the Suttanipāta, and expanded at some length in the commentary. This episode is listed as one of the critical events in the life of the Buddha,458 and was therefore considered important to the tradition. For this reason, and because the story has many interesting features which shed light on the development of the broader mythological picture, it is worth considering at some length.
The core of the story, as found in the sutta459 is very simple.
The Buddha was dwelling in Āḷavi, where was the dwelling-place (bhāvanā) of the yakkha Āḷavaka. The yakkha went up to the Buddha and challenged him, saying “Go out!” The Buddha replied “Yes, friend” (sādhāvuso) and began to leave. The yakkha then told to Buddha to “Come in!” and the Buddha again complies. This is repeated twice more, three times in all the yakkha orders the Buddha to go out and come in (nikkhama … pavisa). On the fourth time, however, the Buddha refuses to obey. “I shall not go out, friend, do whatever you like.”
The yakkha Āḷavaka then says that he will ask the Buddha a question, and threatens that should he be unable to answer he will either overthrow the Buddha’s mind, split his heart asunder or grab him by the feet and toss him over the Ganges. To which the Buddha replies that he does not see anyone in the world “including the devas, Māra and Brahmā, samaṇas and brahmins, devas and men” who can do these things to him. “Nevertheless, ask what you wish.” (This is all exactly as in the story of Sūciloma).
Thus far, the sutta has been in prose, the remainder, including the conclusion, is all in metered verse. This may represent two strata in the text. The verses begin with a series of questions, asked by the yakkha and answered by the Buddha. At the conclusion, the yakkha announces that “today I have come to know what is for my good in the next life (altho samparāyiko) and how a gift can yield great fruit (mahapphala). Henceforth, I shall wander from town to town, village to village praising the Buddha and the goodness of his Dhamma.”
The question and answer format of the doctrinal part of this sutta is common in the Suttanipāta, with a heavy use of metaphor, for example: “How does one cross the flood? By faith one crosses the flood.” The emphasis throughout this series is on the level of worldly Dhamma, i.e. how to live a good life and attain a favourable rebirth rather than on liberation from saṃsāra. The final admonition of the Buddha is that “a faithful house-holder will not come to grief upon his death if he has these four things: truth, righteousness, courage and generosity (saccaṃ, dhammo, dh
iti, cāgo)” (ibid.).
The story as expanded in the commentary to this text is much more detailed. It begins some time before the arrival of the Buddha on the scene. Let us consider that part first:
At one time the king of Āḷavi was out hunting in the wilderness, and he became separated from his entourage. He was returning alone with the carcass of a deer when he strayed under the banyan tree which was the abode of the yakkha Āḷavaka. The yakkha had been granted permission by the yakkha king (Vessavaṇa) to eat everyone who came under the shade of this tree, so he seized the king intending to make a meal of him.
The king, however, struck a bargain with the yakkha. He offered, in return for his life, to send Āḷavaka a human being and a pot of rice every day. Āḷavaka agreed, but warned that the king’s own life would be forfeit should he fail to fulfill his end of the bargain.
For a time, the king was able to supply the yakkha’s meal with prisoners from the jail in his capital city. When this supply was exhausted, he ordered that every family must provide one child. This expedient did not work for long, as people began to flee his kingdom with their families.
The day came when there was no one to send except the king’s own son. The king said that while his son, the prince, was dear to him, nothing is dearer to a person than his own life. The king ordered the boy to be arrayed in his costliest finery and decreed that he would be sent the next day to feed the yakkha. That night, the small child lay sleeping in his mother, the queen’s, lap, as she wept bitterly along with her sixteen thousand hand-maidens. “Tomorrow, he will be a yakkha’s meal!”
In the morning, the Buddha surveyed the world with his Buddha-Eye (buddhacakkhu) and the tragic situation aroused his Great Compassion (mahākaruṇā). The Buddha also saw that the yakkha was ripe for the fruit of stream-entry, and the prince, should he live, would attain in this life to the fruit of non-returning. He arranged his robes and without a companion travelled the thirty yojana to the abode of the yakkha Āḷavaka. (Sn-a 1: 10)
The Buddhist Cosmos Page 34