The Buddhist Cosmos
Page 55
Then the Buddha said to Ānanda, “You may go now, and do as you wish.” And Ānanda, taking his leave, went and sat under another nearby tree.
And soon after Ānanda had left, Māra approached the Buddha. Standing to one side he addressed the Blessed One:
“Enter parinibbāna now, venerable sir, Blessed One (parinibbātu dāni, bhante, bhagavā). Enter parinibbāna now, Well-Farer (sugato). Now is the time for parinibbāna, venerable sir. It was said previously by the Blessed One, ‘I will not enter parinibbāna until my bhikkhus and male lay disciples, my bhikkhunis and female lay disciples, become well-trained, learned, confident, knowing the Dhamma by heart and practicing the Dhamma well, and until they can teach the Dhamma, explaining and analyzing it and refuting the doctrines held by others, until they can manifest the wonder of teaching (sappāṭihāriyaṃ dhammaṃ desessantī or “teach with the manifestation of wonders”). But now your disciples have accomplished all of these things. Enter parinibbāna now, venerable sir, Blessed One. Enter parinibbāna now, Well-Farer. Now is the time for parinibbāna, venerable sir, Blessed One!”
Māra’s speech here is much abbreviated from the original which has many repetitions. It is to be noted that Māra speaks to the Buddha in a very respectful way, using his epithets bhagavā and sugato and addressing him as bhante. This may be mere pretence on Māra’s part, but the possibility that Māra has at the end has come to have some genuine respect for the Buddha is an appealing one that cannot be ruled out. After all, he has closely watched this man for more than a half century and in all that time not found a single weakness which he could exploit. Be this as it may, Māra still has an agenda and wants very much to see the Buddha leave the world. No doubt the possibility that the Buddha could remain in existence for the rest of the kappa must have appalled Māra.
On a linguistic note, which has some doctrinal significance, the first time that Māra asks the Buddha to end his life, he uses an imperative verb, parinibbātu, which could be rendered literally as “extinguish” or “blow out” as with a candle.700
Then the Buddha replied to Māra: “Be at ease, Pāpima. It won’t be long now until the Tathāgata enters parinibbāna (parinibbānaṃ bhavissati lit. “will become extinguished”). In three months from now, the Tathāgata will enter parinibbāna.”
There, at the Cāpāla Cetiya, the Blessed One mindfully and with clear comprehension (sato sampajāno) relinquished the life-principle (āyusaṅkhāra). When the Blessed One relinquished the life-principle, there was a great earthquake and thundering, dreadful and terrifying.701
This was to be the last time Māra approached the Buddha. The commentary emphasizes that the Buddha did not make his decision based on Māra’s pleading, nor on that of Ānanda’s, but only according to his own wishes and the well-being of his teaching and his disciples (Ud-a 6:1).
It is to be noted that although he was sitting nearby, Ānanda was unaware of the presence of Māra and of his exchange with the Buddha. That Māra was invisible to Ānanda is not unusual, but it seems that the conversation must have been silent as well, carried on directly mind to mind. A little later, the Buddha informs Ānanda of Māra’s visit and then Ānanda begs the Buddha to remain for the duration of a kappa. But too late!702
3:5:39 MĀRA’S ENCOUNTERS WITH OTHERS I
—THE BHIKKHUNĪS OF ANDHAVANA
Māra did not confine his attention to the Buddha, but also attempted to divert his disciples from the path. There is, for instance, a short collection recounting Māra’s attempts to tempt bhikkhunīs practicing in solitude. These stories are found in the Bhikkhunīsaṃyutta of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, (SN 5:1 f.) and they follow a fixed formula. The sutta begins with the bhikkhunī having gone for alms, resorting to the woods of the Andhavana (“Blind Grove” or “Dark Grove”) for alms. This must have been a forbidding place – it certainly had a grim history. Back in the time of Kassapa Buddha five hundred thieves waylaid, blinded and robbed a lay disciple there. Because he was a sotāpanna, the thieves’ kamma was immediate and they all went blind. They lived there in that forest for the remainder of their lives, and so it got its name (SN-a 5:1).
In that grim place she was approached by Māra, who desired to arouse “fear, stupefaction and terror” (bhayaṃ chambhitattaṃ lomahaṃsaṃ) in her and so to make her fail in her practice. Māra would recite a stanza of verse, playing upon some possible human weakness. The bhikkhunī, hearing this, would ask herself, “Who is reciting this verse? Is it a human being or a non-human being? It is Māra Pāpima!” and she would then utter a reply. Māra would realize that “she knows me!” and “sad and unhappy, he would disappear from that place.”703
Māra’s attacks on the bhikkhunis illustrate a wide gamut of his tricks. Of course, he tried using his most obvious weapon, sensual desire:
(to Āḷavikā)
There is no escaping this world, what use is seclusion?
Enjoy sensual delights, or you will regret it later. (SN 5:1)
(to Vijayā)
You are a young woman, with a beautiful body. I am a young man.
Come, lady, let us enjoy the music of a five-piece ensemble. (SN 5:4)
Māra is not above using grief as a possible point of weakness. Kisāgotamī had lost a child:
(to Kisāgotamī)
Your son is dead, why do you sit alone with a sorrowful face?
Alone in the middle of a forest, do you seek for a man?704
Sensual pleasure is not limited to the earthly kind, and nor are Māra’s snares:
(to Upacālā)
There are Tāvatiṃsa, Yāma, Tusita, Nimmānarati and Vasavatti devas.
Direct your mind there, and you shall experience their delights. (SN 5:7)
Māra’s two principal weapons are sensuality and fear, and his approach to Uppalavaṇṇā blended the two:
(to Uppalavaṇṇā)
Bhikkhuni, having come here you stand at the root of the flowering sāl tree.
Your beauty is second to none.
You fool, are you not afraid of wicked men? (SN 5:5)
Another form of desire is the desire for being, (bhavtaṇhā) and Māra uses that as well:
(to Cālā)
Why don’t you like birth? Once born, a being can enjoy sensual pleasure.
Who told you, bhikkhuni, not to like birth? (SN 5:6)
Māra can also prey upon a person’s insecurities, and he made this attempt also with one of the bhikkhunis:
(to Somā)
That state which is hard to attain, is attained by the seers.
It is not to be had by women, with their two-fingered wisdom (dvaṅgulapañña). (SN 5:2)
In the patriarchal society of ancient India many women must have laboured under a sense of inferiority, but Somā was well beyond this. She replied that “womanhood doesn’t matter to the well trained mind … one who thinks, ‘I am a man’ or ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am anything else’, that one should Māra address” (ibid.). Dvaṅgulapañña might also be rendered as “two-inches of wisdom.” Māra’s statement is clearly meant to imply that women don’t have enough wisdom to develop higher states of consciousness. The commentary explains this phrase as meaning that women have limited wisdom, just enough to hold a thread with two fingers while sewing (SN-a 5:2).
Māra can also attempt to corrupt beings at a higher level, by suggesting wrong views:
(to Selā)
By whom was this puppet (bimba, i.e. the body) made?
Who is the maker of this puppet?
From where did this puppet originate?
Where will this puppet vanish to? (SN 5:9)
(to Vajirā)
By whom was this being (satta) made?
Who is the maker of this being?
From where did this being originate?
Where will this being vanish to? (SN 5:10)
Māra’s attempts to corrupt the bhikkhunīs of the Andhavana were without result, as they were all awakened beings. They knew him right away for who he was and ma
de suitable replies. Ālavikā stated that “sense desires are like swords” (SN 5:1). Upacālā that “all realms of rebirth are under Māra’s bondage, all are on fire,” (SN 5:7) and Vijayā, whom Māra tried to seduce in the form of a handsome youth, spoke about the foulness of the body (SN 5:4). Uppalavaṇṇā’s reply was a little different. She was the bhikkhunī who was foremost in mastery of the psychic powers, (AN 1:237) the female counterpart of Moggallāna:
Should a hundred thousand wicked men like you come here.
My hair will not be raised, I will not be afraid.
Though I am alone, I do not fear you Māra.
I can disappear, or enter into your belly.
I can stand among your eyelashes, and you wouldn’t see me there.
I have mastered my mind, and the bases of power (iddhipādā).
I am freed from all bonds, so I don’t fear you friend (āvuso). (SN 5:5)
3:5:40 MĀRA’S ENCOUNTERS WITH OTHERS II—MOGGALLĀNA
A text in the Majjhima Nikāya705 is of particular interest for the light it sheds on Māra’s nature and history. It involves an attempt by Māra to bother Moggallāna, who was one of the Buddha’s two chief disciples, renowned for his mastery of the psychic powers:
Mahāmoggallāna was outside his hut, doing walking meditation. Māra went into his belly and penetrated into his stomach. Moggallāna wondered, “Why is my stomach so heavy? It feels like it is full of wet beans!” So Moggallāna left his walking path, entered into his dwelling and sat down on the prepared seat. Having sat down, he carefully investigated the matter, and he saw that Māra had entered into his stomach. He said, “Depart, Pāpima! Do not plague the Tathāgata or the Tathāgata’s disciples, or it will cause unhappiness and suffering for you, for a long time.”
Māra thought, “This samaṇa does not know me, he does not see me. Even his teacher would not know me so quickly, so how can his disciple know me?” But Moggallāna said, “I do indeed know you, Pāpima. I know you are thinking that I do not know you or see you, that even my teacher would not know you so quickly, so how could his disciple? Depart Pāpima! Do not make long suffering and unhappiness for yourself!”
Māra then thought, “This samāṇa does indeed know me”, and he left through Moggallāna’s mouth and stood in the doorway. Moggallāna said to him, “I see you there, Pāpima. Do not think, “he does not see me”. You are standing in the doorway, Pāpima.”
Moggallāna goes on to tell Māra a story about a past life, when he himself had been Māra:
“In a previous existence, Pāpima, I was Māra. My name was Dūsi, I had a sister named Kāḷī and you were her son. So you were my nephew.”
The commentary explains Moggallāna’s reason for telling this story to Māra:
The elder thought, “The celestial devas find the smell of humans repulsive even a hundred yojana away. And yet Māra, an urbane (nāgariko), immaculate (paricokkho), very powerful and majestic devarāja entered into my belly, cooking there in that foul place. And he sat in that loathsome space with the intention of doing an evil deed. Another would be ashamed to treat his relative thus. I shall reply to the hostility of my kinsman with kind words.” (MN-a 50)
The commentary also explains that although this Māra was Māra Dūsi’s nephew, we should not assume that the position of Māra, or of any devarāja (king of devas) is hereditary. When one Māra dies, someone else who has made the appropriate kamma is born into that role (ibid.).
Although it is intriguing to speculate on the identity of Dūsi’s sister Kāḷī, and her possible connection to the Hindu goddess of that name, the commentary tells us nothing more about her, and she appears nowhere else in the texts. Kāḷī means “dark” or “black” and was a fairly common name; the DPPN lists nine women of that name.706 Being named “The Dark One” did not necessarily have any sinister or demonic connotations, and in most cases referred only to a dark complexion. Two of the Kāḷīs found in the texts did have something of a “dark” aspect in the other sense of the word. One was a yakkhī who ate children, (Dhp-a 1:4) and the other was an attendant at a burning ground, responsible for performing cremations. She is described as a “huge woman with a crow-like body.” This Kāḷī was nevertheless a devout person. She provided fresh bodies for bhikkhus intent on corpse meditation, and at one time made a milk-bowl out of a human skull and gave it to the elder Mahākāḷa.707 This does sound rather tantric, and suggests a possible precursor to the Hindu Kālī, a goddess who makes her first appearance in the literature some centuries later.708
Returning to Moggallāna’s story:
At that time, the Buddha Kakusandha had appeared in the world. His two chief disciples were named Vidhura and Sañjīva. The Māra Dūsi thought, “I do not know the comings and goings (āgatiṃ vā gatiṃ) of these good bhikkhus. What if I were to possess (anvāvisati) these brahmin house-holders and tell them to abuse, scold, revile and harass those good bhikkhus? Perhaps if they are so abused, it will bring a change to their minds so that I can find an opportunity.”
The commentary explains that Māra not knowing the bhikkhus “coming and going” means that when one died, Māra was unable to determine where he had been reborn (MN-a 50). This implies the bhikkhu was an arahant and had entered nibbāna which is beyond Māra’s ken.
So the brahmin householders, possessed by Māra Dūsi, abused the bhikkhus. “These so-called samaṇas (samaṇakā), dark, menial off-spring of the kinsman’s feet (bandhupādāpaccā), they say ‘We meditate! We meditate!’ With drooping shoulders and downcast faces, weak and stiff they meditate (jhāyanti), they pine (pajjhāyanti), they fret (nijjhāyanti), they ponder (apajhāyanti). They meditate, they pine, they fret, they ponder like an owl in a tree waiting for a rat to come along … like a jackal by the river-bank waiting for a fish to come along … like a cat by a rubbish pile waiting for a mouse to come along … like a donkey with his burden taken off … they meditate, they pine, they fret, they ponder.”
The brahmins were displaying a nasty caste prejudice by calling the bhikkhus “dark and menial.” The bhikkhus, of course, were drawn from all castes and this was a scandal to the haughty brahmins. The phrase bandhupādāpaccā “offspring of the kinsman’s feet” is a common one in similar contexts, (eg. DN 3 & DN 27) and refers to the brahminical origin myth whereby the different castes sprang from different parts of Brahma’s body; the brahmins from his mouth and the suddas (the menial caste), from his feet. The series of verbs used to describe the bhikkhus’ meditation involves a play on the word jhāyati, “to meditate” or more literally, “to do jhāna.”
The sutta goes on to state that most of these brahmins after death were reborn in niraya. This implies that Māra’s possession of a being is not complete control but rather a malign influence. If the brahmin’s actions were not volitional, there would be no kammic result.
For his part, the Buddha Kakusandha urged his bhikkhus to practice the meditation of the four brahmavihāras (“divine abidings”, in English usually given as loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity). In this way, they did not allow the brahmins’ abuse to arouse thoughts of ill-will, and they did not give any opening to Māra Dūsi. Being frustrated in his endeavour, Māra Dūsi tried a different tack:
So Māra Dūsi thought to himself, “Despite my actions, I still do not know the comings and goings of these good bhikkhus. What if I were to possess the brahmins and tell them to honour, respect, revere and venerate the bhikkhus? Perhaps if they are so honoured, it will bring a change to their minds so that I can find an opportunity.”
The brahmins who followed his advice this time went on to rebirth in the deva realms. The Buddha Kakusandha urged his bhikkhus to practice meditations which counter mind-states of greed and sensuality: the foulness of the body, the repulsiveness of nutriment, disenchantment with the world and impermanence. In this way, the bhikkhus did not entertain mind-states of greed and so once again, Māra Dūsi found no opening. But he did not give up. Moggallāna continues the tale of
his former existence:
Then the Buddha Kakusandha went into the village for alms, followed by the elder Vidhura. The Māra Dūsi possessed a certain boy and caused him to throw a rock at Vidhura’s head. Vidhura continued to walk behind the Buddha with his scalp split open and blood trickling down. The Buddha Kakusandha turned and looked with his elephant’s look (nāgāpalokita). “This Māra Dūsi does not know any limit.” As the Buddha looked at him, Māra Dūsi died from that place and was reborn in Mahāniraya.
The “elephant look” of a Buddha refers to the characteristic of all Buddhas that when they turn to look behind them, they do not turn just their neck, but their whole body, like an elephant does. According to the commentary, the bones of a Buddha’s neck are not flexible like those of ordinary people, but are fixed in place. Also from the commentary:
Māra Dūsi did not die there, but returned to the Vasavatti deva realm and died from that place to be reborn in niraya. The Buddha’s look did not cause his death. He died because he had struck a Noble Disciple and that caused the cutting short of his life-span.
Moggallāna goes on to describe his sufferings in Mahāniraya:
My body had a human form, but I had there the head of a fish. The nirayapālas impaled me with stakes. They told me “Friend (mārisa), when one stake meets another in your heart, you will know a thousand years have gone by.” I suffered in that niraya for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years.
The sutta concludes with Moggallāna admonishing Māra in a long series of verses, declaring his own power and warning Māra that by attacking such a bhikkhu, he will incur much suffering. The concluding stanzas are a final warning:
There has never been found a fire
Which intends, ‘Let me burn the fool.’
But a fool who assaults a fire
Burns himself by his own doing.