The Buddhist Cosmos

by Punnadhammo Mahathero

  We are not told what became of Māra after his conversion. But, as desire and fear continue to torment living beings we may safely assume that some new Māra has taken his place. Perhaps the Māra of our Buddha’s time came to a happier ending than Māra Dūsi and retired to enjoy the pleasures of Paranimmitavasavatti for the remainder of his long life-span.

  3:5:43 MĀRA - CONCLUSION

  It is inevitable that the western student of Buddhism will want to compare Māra with Satan. There are some similarities between these two figures. Just as Māra tempted the Buddha, Satan tempted Christ in the desert. Māra is frequently called by the epithet Pāpima, “the Evil One”, which has a Satanic ring to it. Both Māra and Satan are the great adversaries of the good in their respective cosmologies.

  Nevertheless, the two figures are quite distinct and are almost certainly independently derived.717 Although Māra is described as ruling his quarter of the Paranimmitavasavatti realm “like a rebel prince” (dāmarikarājaputto) (MN-a 1), this is a local rebellion only, in that Māra does not accept the authority of Vasavatti Devārāja. It is not, like Satan’s, a rebellion against the fundamental order of things. For one thing, in Buddhism there is no Supreme God to rebel against. Furthermore, Māra himself is the representative and chief defender of the established order of saṃsāra. In a sense, it is the Buddha who is the rebel.

  Māra is not strictly speaking a demonic being, he is a very high level deva. His power extends from niraya to the celestial saggas, and even to some extent beyond as we saw in the case of the brahmā Baka. Moggallāna was appalled that such a refined being would demean himself so far as to squat in the elder’s filthy bowels (MN-a 50). Māra’s existence is not one of torment, except in so far as he inflicts it upon himself in his endlessly frustrated attempts to subvert the arahants.

  There is also the possibility of interpreting Māra in purely psychological terms, as a literary personification of purely internal states like lust and fear. There is some justification for this found in the canon itself. The Buddha says that the five khandha (“aggregates,” constituents of the body-mind system) are Māra (SN 23:1) and elsewhere that the six senses are Māra (SN 35:48, eng. 35:65). But it would be a mistake to think that this precludes the external existence of Māra as a distinct entity. The commentaries make an explicit distinction between Māra as metaphor and Māra as deva (DN-a 1). In the introduction to his translation of the Mārasaṃyutta, Bhikkhu Bodhi makes a salient point:

  But it is evident that the thought world of the suttas does not conceive of Māra only as a personification of humankind’s moral frailty, but sees him as a real evil deity out to frustrate the efforts of those intent on winning the ultimate goal. The proof of this lies in his pursuit of the Buddha and the arahants after their enlightenment, which would not be credible if he were conceived of merely as a psychological projection.718

  To understand Māra, and indeed Buddhist cosmology generally, we need to avoid the pitfalls inherent in seeing him through modern, western glasses. He is neither Satan nor a psychological projection. If we make the attempt to understand Māra in his own ancient, Indian and Buddhist context, what picture emerges?

  Māra is first and foremost a very high level deva. His position was attained through the making of kamma which must have been predominantly kusala (“skillful”). However, he remains himself a prisoner of the saṃsāric defilements of pride, desire and ill-will and his current activities are storing up a great deal of akusala (“unskillful”) kamma. Although he fancies himself the lord and master of saṃsāra, he is himself very much subject to its impersonal and implacable laws. We have seen how one previous Māra ended up being tormented in niraya (MN 50). Thus he went from the very summit of the sense-desire realm to its ultimate nadir in a single moment.

  Māra’s goal is not primarily to make beings suffer. Although it is said that those in his bonds swell the ranks of the niraya, peta and asura realms, (It 3:5,4) he is content to see them born into the deva or even brahmā worlds, just so long as they do not escape the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Some of the villagers possessed by the Māra Dūsi were reborn in niraya as a result of their actions, but others went to on to deva rebirth (MN-a 50).

  Māra’s weapons are deceit, illusion, fear and desire, the very fabric of continued existence in the round of saṃsāra. Māra together with his host of attendant devas can appear so terrible and awesome that he makes even the devas, nāgas and brahmās flee away in hapless terror (Jāt-nid 2). And yet after his repeated defeats by the Buddha we see him as a small wretched figure squatting by the road side scratching in the ground with a stick (SN 4:25). His power is great, but it is based on illusion. “I know you, Māra,” is enough to disarm him utterly.

  If Māra is to be seen as a personification at all, it is not something as small as personal defilement that he personifies but the whole vast and impersonal process of birth, death and rebirth that is saṃsāra. Māra is an entity that represents and embodies saṃsāra in the same way that a monarch personifies and represents his kingdom. But he himself is trapped within its bounds and is unable to comprehend what may lay outside its borders. We have seen Māra in the form of “dark smoke” searching in frustration for the rebirth consciousness of a deceased arahant (SN 4:23). Although he appears terrible, he is in the end, when known for what he truly is, a pathetic and deluded figure.

  CHAPTER SIX—BRAHMĀS

  3:6:1 RŪPABHŪMI—THE PLANE OF FORM

  Everything we have considered so far, from the beings writhing in the agony of niraya up to those enjoying the sublime pleasures of the celestial deva realms, is included within the kāmabhūmi, “the plane of sense desire.” This is a realm of bewildering complexity, but all of the diverse beings who inhabit the various levels of the kāmabhūmi share an underlying psychological structure. They all relate to the world primarily through the five physical senses, and unless they have developed enough spiritual maturity to transcend their native sphere, they are all primarily driven by the desire to experience pleasant sense objects and to avoid painful ones. For a being caught in this level of existence, the processes of sensation, desire, gain and loss, pleasure and pain seem all-encompassing. It is nearly impossible for such a being to even imagine a form of existence not dominated by the senses and their tyrannical desires.

  In the Buddhist cosmology, however, there are two higher levels of existence which, although still conditioned and part of saṃsāra, have left subjugation by the senses behind. These are the rūpabhūmi and the arūpabhūmi: the planes of Form and the Formless. The rūpabhūmi is the realm of the brahmās, beings considered to be of a higher spiritual state than even the devas. Devas are, in the most essential aspects, closer to human beings than to the brahmās. Like us, the devas are sensual beings, a state of suffering that the brahmās have transcended. (It should be noted, however, that such transcendence is only temporary as a brahmā can eventually be reborn back into the plane of sense-desire).

  The brahmās dwell in celestial realms far above the sensual plane, in nested hierarchies of brahmalokas (“brahmā worlds”) representing successively more refined levels of spiritual development, sixteen levels in all. The word brahmā is derived from the Sanskrit root bṛh, “to increase, to be great”. It also occurs in compounds in the form brahma. In this form it means “sacred” or “divine”. Words derived from brahmā and brahma include brāhmaṇa (“brahmin”, a member of the priestly caste), brahmacariya (“the holy life”, “celibacy”) and brahmavihāra (“divine abiding”, meditation on loving-kindness etc.).719

  A note on terminology: There is some variation in the use of the words deva and brahmā. Deva can be used either specifically or generally. When used specifically, it refers to deities of the plane of sense desire: the earth-bound or bhumma devas and the devas of the six saggas (“heavens”). In this usage, it is sometimes specifically contrasted to the brahmās as in Suttanipāta 3:6 which speaks of three “fields” (khetta): the human, the deva and the brahmā. When
used generally, it refers to all beings beyond the human level. The word brahmā also shows some variations in use. It is most often used in a highly specific way to refer only to those beings of the first three levels of the rūpabhūmi corresponding to first jhāna which may be called the brahmaloka proper. The beings in the higher rūpabhūmi levels are then called by the specific name of their class followed by the word deva, as in AN 5: 170, which speaks of ābhassarā devas and subhakiṇṇa devas. To add to the confusion, at least one passage of the Abhidhamma Commentary (Vibh-a 18:6) classes the first nine levels of the rūpabhūmi as the brahmāloka. Most modern writers use the word brahmā to refer to all rūpabhūmi beings.720 These variations in terminology need not cause confusion if we pay attention to the specific entities being described; the problem is strictly a semantic one.

  3:6:2 THE STATE OF BEING IN THE RŪPABHŪMI

  The word rūpa means “form” and can be used in at least two senses. It can refer to physical form, i.e. matter or the body, as in the list of the five khandha, the “aggregates” which constitute the totality of a being, body (rūpa), consciousness, feeling, perception and mental formations. Or it can mean “visible form” or the object of eye-consciousness. When used to refer to this particular realm of beings, either or both of these connotations apply. The beings here belong to a state of being called variously rūpadhātu (“form element”), rūpabhava (“form becoming”), rūpāvacara (“form sphere”), rūpaloka (“form world”) or rūpabhūmi (“plane of form”) and the rūpa element is meant to contrast this realm not with the kāmabhūmi but with the arūpabhūmi, because in the latter there is no form in either sense of the word.

  The words rūpaloka, rūpāvacara, rūpadhātu or rūpabhūmi are sometimes rendered into English as “fine-material realm.” This is a loose translation meant to convey the idea that the material basis of this world is of a subtler nature than the matter (rūpa) known here on earth. Their bodies are said to be manomaya, “mind made” (MN 60). They do not eat physical food, not even the subtle food of the devas, but subsist on the bliss of jhāna.721

  The association of brahmā level beings with jhāna is central to the definition of their status. Jhāna refers to the state of meditative absorption attained through the development of samādhi, the “non-wavering” attention to an object.722 Development of meditation to the level of jhāna is a prerequisite for rebirth into the brahmā worlds (AN 4:124 & Vism 11:123). Furthermore, the various levels within the rūpabhūmi are mainly defined by the level of jhāna to which they correspond.

  The inhabitants of the rūpabhūmi are possessed of two physical senses only: those of sight and hearing (Kv 8:7 & Vism 7.13). There are no unpleasant sights or sounds in the brahmā worlds, although they may encounter them if they turn their attention to the sense-desire realm (Vism 17:180). The brahmā beings are genderless, “the male and female organs are not found there” (AN-a 1: 283). They are said, however, to have the appearance of males (purisasaṇṭhāna) (ibid.). Birth is similar to that found in the deva realms; it is apparitional and the new brahmā simply appears “as if awakening from sleep” (AN-a 11: 15).

  By definition, the beings of the rūpabhūmi are possessed of form. Their appearance is nowhere described in comprehensive detail, but there is good reason to conclude that it is more or less anthropomorphic. It is said, for example, that even though they lack the senses of smell and taste, they are possessed of noses and tongues (Kv-a 8:7). Their bodies are said to be radiant (pabhā) and decorated with ornaments (SN-a 6:5). The natural form of their bodies is too subtle to interact with beings on lower planes, so they must assume a gross body (oḷārika attabhāva) if they wish to manifest to humans or devas (AN 3:128, eng. 3:127 & DN 18).

  Like the devas, they dwell in vimānas of surpassing beauty (E.g. Vism 3: 98). The brahmaloka itself is a level ground covered in jewels. It, and the vimāna, has no maker or creator but arises through the forces of kamma and natural processes (kammapaccayautusamuṭṭhāna) (DN-a 1). One passage gives five characteristics of a brahmā: they are unencumbered with wife or wealth (apariggaha), without hatred (averacitto), benevolent (abyāpajjacitta), pure (asaṃkiliṭṭhacitta) and powerful (vasavattī).723

  3:6:3 PRE-BUDDHIST CONCEPTIONS OF BRAHMĀ

  In later Hinduism Brahmā is one of the trinity of supreme deities along with Śiva and Viṣṇu. It would, however, be anachronistic to assume that the Indians of the Buddha’s time conceived of Brahmā with anything like the attributes and qualities later assigned to him. The idea of Brahmā as the Supreme Being and the creator god was one which developed gradually in Indian thought. Brahmā as a deity does not appear at all in the Ṛg Veda. In the earliest versions of the creation myth, it is Prajapati who fills this role, and later texts retroactively identify him as Brahmā under another name.724 In the Upanishads, a distinction is made between Brahmā (masculine) and Brahman (neuter). The former is a personified deity, and the latter an impersonal supreme cosmic principle. This distinction is not, however, consistently maintained and the Upanishads represent a range of philosophical views.725 For instance, the Talavakāra Upaniṣad has Brahman (neuter) acting as a very powerful personified entity:

  1. Brahman obtained the victory for the Devas. The Devas became elated by the victory of Brahman, and they thought, this victory is ours only, this greatness is ours only.

  2. Brahman perceived this and appeared to them. But they did not know it, and said: “What sprite (yaksha or yakshya) is this?”

  3. They said to Agni (fire): “O Gâtavedas, find out what sprite this is.” “Yes,” he said.

  4. He ran toward it, and Brahman said to him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am Agni, I am Gâtavedas.”

  5. Brahman said: “What power is in you?” Agni replied: “I could burn all whatever there is on earth.”

  6. Brahman put a straw before him, saying: “Burn this.” He went towards it with all his might, but he could not burn it. Then he returned thence and said: “I could not find out what sprite this is.”726

  There is always a problem of chronology when dealing with Indian history, and it is not possible to definitively decide which texts were extant at the time of the Buddha, whose own dates are a matter of some controversy. Furthermore, all the evidence, both external and internal to the Buddhist canon, indicates that there were a great many schools of thought competing in the India of the day, and this also makes it impossible to describe a clear-cut pre-Buddhist or contemporary non-Buddhist view of Brahmā to compare with the Buddhist ideas about the brahmā beings.

  That the Buddhist conception of brahmā functions, at least in part, as a sustained mythological critique of the non-Buddhist view is nevertheless beyond doubt. Our best guide to understanding exactly what the Buddha was critizising is, by default, the description of non-Buddhist arguments presented in the canon itself.

  We find a good description of the pre-Buddhist Brahmā in the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1). This sutta is a sustained polemic, refuting various wrong-views and the section dealing with the theistic view describes the deluded self-image of a brahmā who imagines himself as the one and only creator god and lists his own epithets: “I am Brahmā, Mahābrahmā, the Overlord (abhibhū), the Unconquered (anabhibhūta), the Omniscient One (aññadatthudasa lit. “one who sees all”), Wielder of Power (vasavattī), the Lord (issara), the Maker (kattar), the Creator (nimmātar), the Excellent One (seṭṭha), the Designator (sañjitar i.e., he assigns each to his proper caste), the Master (vasī), the Father of All Beings (pitā bhūtabhabyānaṃ).” He is (falsely) conceived of as the first of all beings, and as eternal.727

  In the Buddhist texts, the brahmin priests are depicted as the especial devotees of the god Brahmā. Thus, Sāriputta says “these brahmins are intent upon the brahmāloka”, and teaches a dying brahmin the meditation on the brahmavihāras (“divine abidings”: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity), thus neatly merging the pre-Buddhist and the Buddhist conceptions.728

  Brahmins are depi
cted performing ceremonies of worship to Brahmā:

  (A certain brahmin lady) would every day make ritual offerings (to Brahmā). The whole house was sprinkled with herbs and parched corn, banners were raised around the yard, fragrant torches were lit and everywhere around was filled with the scented smoke. This brahmin lady would get up very early and rinse herself all over sixteen times with scented water. Keeping her mind pure, she would ladle out some rice gruel and say, “Mahābrahmā, eat!” She would put it in a golden bowl together with honey and ghee, and bring it to a small spirit chair set up at the back of the house. She would walk around to each corner of the house and sprinkle some of the food offering, until the ghee was running down her arm to the elbow. She would go down on bended knee and chant, “Eat, blessed Mahābrahmā, taste, blessed Mahābrahmā, enjoy, blessed Mahābrahmā!” Thus saying, she would feed Mahābrahmā. (SN-a 6:3)

  We can detect more than a hint of satire in this description. In the sutta an actual Buddhist brahmā manifests to tell her that “The brahmāloka is far away and Brahmā does not eat such food.”729 The Buddhist conception of brahmās as very elevated, but still mortal and conditioned, beings is clearly juxtaposed to the brahminical idea of Brahmā as a supreme deity. Buddhists did not worship brahmās and the implied criticism is that such worship is misplaced and useless. It is to be noted that the supreme deity of the Vedas, Indra, becomes Sakka or “Inda”, in the Buddhist Tāvatiṃsa and the supreme deity of the Upanishads, Brahmā, becomes a class of beings in yet another, and higher, Buddhist realm. Thus, the Buddhist cosmology incorporated and superseded the various older versions.

  3:6:4 BRAHMAKĀYIKA—BRAHMĀS OF THE FIRST JHĀNA LEVEL

  The first three levels of the rūpabhūmi correspond to the first meditation jhāna. This means that the natural state of consciousness of these beings is equivalent to that of a human meditator in the first jhāna, and that attainment of that jhāna is the prerequisite for rebirth there.730 This is the level of rūpadhātu that can be considered the brahmaloka proper, and the beings dwelling here are the ones who are called brahmās in the most specific use of that term. There are three classes or levels of these brahmās, from the lowest to the highest they are: brahmāpārisajja (“Brahmā’s assembly”), brahmāpurohita (“Brahmā’s ministers”) and mahābrahmā (“the Great Brahmā”). While late sources such as the Abhidharmakośa place these levels in three specific locations, each successively further away in space from the earth, the depiction in the suttas is of three separate classes inhabiting one cosmological space,731 just as animals, ghosts and humans share the earth. Brahmakāyika (meaning either “those of Brahmā’s company” or “those with a brahmā’s body”) is a generic word for all three classes.