Four Maras

[Yklah]

Hi everyone,

According to Buddhism, there are four maras: the mara of Yama the Lord of Death, the mara of the kleshas, the mara of the contaminated aggregates and the mara of the son of the deva.

I have read many times that the mara of the son of the deva makes reference to the obstructor, the tempter that attempted to obstruct Prince Siddartha from attaining full enlightenment. To me, this mara is very similar to the christian concept of Satan.

At some times, I have also found that this type of mara, the son of the deva, symbolizes our craving for pleasure, satisfaction and convenience.

This being the case, my question is: which meaning is correct for the mara of the son of the deva?

[Aemilius]

I have always wondered why the European language word Satan resembles the Sanskrit word Sadhana, which means spiritual practice:

"Sādhanā (Sanskrit साधना; Tibetan: སྒྲུབ་ཐབས་, THL: druptap; Chinese: 修行; pinyin: xiūxíng) is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition that refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the sādhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality. It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.

Sadhana is done for attaining detachment from worldly things, which can be a goal of a Sadhu. Karma yoga, Bhakti yoga and Gnyana yoga can also be described as Sadhana, in that constant efforts to achieve maximum level of perfection in all streams in day-to-day life can be described as Sadhana.

Sādhanā can also refer to a tantric liturgy or liturgical manual, that is, the instructions to carry out a certain practice.

A contemporary spiritual teacher and yogi, Jaggi Vasudev, defines sādhanā as follows:

Everything can be sādhanā. The way you eat, the way you sit, the way you stand, the way you breathe, the way you conduct your body, mind and your energies and emotions – this is sādhanā. Sādhanā does not mean any specific kind of activity, sādhanā means you are using everything as a tool for your well-being.

The historian N. Bhattacharyya provides a working definition of the benefits of sādhanā as follows:

[R]eligious sādhanā, which both prevents an excess of worldliness and molds the mind and disposition (bhāva) into a form which develops the knowledge of dispassion and non-attachment. Sādhanā is a means whereby bondage becomes liberation."

[Malcolm]

Hi everyone,

According to Buddhism, there are four maras: the mara of Yama the Lord of Death, the mara of the kleshas, the mara of the contaminated aggregates and the mara of the son of the deva.

I have read many times that the mara of the son of the deva makes reference to the obstructor, the tempter that attempted to obstruct Prince Siddartha from attaining full enlightenment. To me, this mara is very similar to the christian concept of Satan.

At some times, I have also found that this type of mara, the son of the deva, symbolizes our craving for pleasure, satisfaction and convenience.

This being the case, my question is: which meaning is correct for the mara of the son of the deva?

Devaputra mara refers of Kamadeva, the ruler of the highest desire realm devas. Kamadeva is the Indian analogue of Cupid.

[Yklah]

Hi everyone,

According to Buddhism, there are four maras: the mara of Yama the Lord of Death, the mara of the kleshas, the mara of the contaminated aggregates and the mara of the son of the deva.

I have read many times that the mara of the son of the deva makes reference to the obstructor, the tempter that attempted to obstruct Prince Siddartha from attaining full enlightenment. To me, this mara is very similar to the christian concept of Satan.

At some times, I have also found that this type of mara, the son of the deva, symbolizes our craving for pleasure, satisfaction and convenience.

This being the case, my question is: which meaning is correct for the mara of the son of the deva?

Devaputra mara refers of Kamadeva, the ruler of the highest desire realm devas. Kamadeva is the Indian analogue of Cupid.

In this case then, like human sentient beings, the life span of Kamadeva has a limit, right? Therefore, Kamadeva, before being a deva, may be was a human being, or one of the other six classes of samsaric beings, right?

It seems interesting to me thinking about, for example, that the Kamadeva that tried to obstruct Guru Krakucchandra from attaining full enlightenment is a different one from the one that tried to obstruct Guru Shakyamuni .

[Aemilius]

Parinirmita-vaśavartin परिनिर्मितवशवर्ती or Paranimmita-vasavatti परनिम्मितवसवत्ति (Tib: gzhan 'phrul dbang byed; Chn/Jpn: 他化自在天 Takejizai-ten; Burmese: ပရနိမ္မိတဝသဝတ္တီ; Thai: ปรนิมมิตวสวัตฺติ or ปริเนรมิตวศวรติน) – The heaven of devas "with power over (others') creations". These devas do not create pleasing forms that they desire for themselves, but their desires are fulfilled by the acts of other devas who wish for their favor. The ruler of this world is called Vaśavartin (Pāli: Vasavatti), who has longer life, greater beauty, more power and happiness and more delightful sense-objects than the other devas of his world. This world is also the home of the devaputra (being of divine race) called Māra, who endeavors to keep all beings of the Kāmadhātu in the grip of sensual pleasures. Māra is also sometimes called Vaśavartin, but in general these two dwellers of this world are kept distinct. The beings of this world are 4,500 feet (1,400 m) tall and live for 9,216,000,000 years (Sarvāstivāda tradition). The height of this world is 1,280 yojanas above the Earth.

Nirmāṇarati निर्माणरति or Nimmānaratī निम्माणरती (Tib: phrul dga; Chn: 化乐天/化樂天; Jpn: 化楽天 Keraku-ten; Burmese: နိမ္မာနရတိ; Thai: นิมมานรติ or นิรมาณรติ)– The world of devas "delighting in their creations". The devas of this world are capable of making any appearance to please themselves. The lord of this world is called Sunirmita (Pāli: Sunimmita); his wife is the rebirth of Visākhā, formerly the chief of the upāsikās (female lay devotees) of the Buddha. The beings of this world are 3,750 feet (1,140 m) tall and live for 2,304,000,000 years (Sarvāstivāda tradition). The height of this world is 640 yojanas above the Earth.

[Malcolm]

In this case then, like human sentient beings, the life span of Kamadeva has a limit, right?

Yes.

Therefore, Kamadeva, before being a deva, may be was a human being, or one of the other six classes of samsaric beings, right?

Yes.

It seems interesting to me thinking about, for example, that the Kamadeva that tried to obstruct Guru Krakucchandra from attaining full enlightenment is a different one from the one that tried to obstruct Guru Shakyamuni .

It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

[amanitamusc]

In this case then, like human sentient beings, the life span of Kamadeva has a limit, right?

Yes.

Therefore, Kamadeva, before being a deva, may be was a human being, or one of the other six classes of samsaric beings, right?

Yes.

It seems interesting to me thinking about, for example, that the Kamadeva that tried to obstruct Guru Krakucchandra from attaining full enlightenment is a different one from the one that tried to obstruct Guru Shakyamuni .

It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

[Yklah]

In this case then, like human sentient beings, the life span of Kamadeva has a limit, right?

Yes.

Therefore, Kamadeva, before being a deva, may be was a human being, or one of the other six classes of samsaric beings, right?

Yes.

It seems interesting to me thinking about, for example, that the Kamadeva that tried to obstruct Guru Krakucchandra from attaining full enlightenment is a different one from the one that tried to obstruct Guru Shakyamuni .

It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

I am not sure, but this point reminds me of "the mere labeled I, the mere labeled things". For example, it does not exist a person who is President from birth; first, one must study for so; then, when one has studied for so, certain conditions must be met: one must apply for the job of President, and one must be voted by the majority in the election process. Only then, one can be referred as "President".

I also see it as if it were a gap that must be filled when someone meets with the proper causes and conditions; however, I am not sure if it is all the case: hopefully people more learned than I am can further discuss this topic.

[Malcolm]

In this case then, like human sentient beings, the life span of Kamadeva has a limit, right?

Yes.

Therefore, Kamadeva, before being a deva, may be was a human being, or one of the other six classes of samsaric beings, right?

Yes.

It seems interesting to me thinking about, for example, that the Kamadeva that tried to obstruct Guru Krakucchandra from attaining full enlightenment is a different one from the one that tried to obstruct Guru Shakyamuni .

It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

Yes.

[Tenma]

Yes.



Yes.



It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

Yes.

Would this explain why Yeshe Tsogyal's past incarnations are said to have been the goddesses Ganga and Saraswati? Is the "being" fulfilling the role of Ganga, this sister of Lord Shiva, always changing and likewise Shiva? Would Saraswati be a "position" or a more "solid being" such as Avalokiteshvara, Tara, etc.?

Since the Karandavyuha Sutra mentions Brahma, Indra, Varuna, and all sorts of gods arising from the body of Avalokiteshvara, are they supposed to being literal beings that arose from the body, "conceptions/roles/positions" that arose from a certain "essence," or what? Is the position of "Prithvi," the Earth itself, always changing?

Would Hindus agree with these viewpoints of "Indra" constantly changing, "Ganga" constantly changing, etc? Or would they object and stay solid to the idea that Lord Shiva has always been the same "being" this entire time?

And finally, could you please cite where these explanations could be found? Thank you!

[Malcolm]

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

Yes.

Would this explain why Yeshe Tsogyal's past incarnations are said to have been the goddesses Ganga and Saraswati? Is the "being" fulfilling the role of Ganga, this sister of Lord Shiva, always changing and likewise Shiva? Would Saraswati be a "position" or a more "solid being" such as Avalokiteshvara, Tara, etc.?

Since the Karandavyuha Sutra mentions Brahma, Indra, Varuna, and all sorts of gods arising from the body of Avalokiteshvara, are they supposed to being literal beings that arose from the body, "conceptions/roles/positions" that arose from a certain "essence," or what? Is the position of "Prithvi," the Earth itself, always changing?

Would Hindus agree with these viewpoints of "Indra" constantly changing, "Ganga" constantly changing, etc? Or would they object and stay solid to the idea that Lord Shiva has always been the same "being" this entire time?

And finally, could you please cite where these explanations could be found? Thank you!

For example, Svetaketu is a deva in Tushita. All future buddhas will be Svetaketu in Tushita before their final birth as a buddha.

Khenpo Ngalo, a teacher of HH Sakya Trichen, writes:

Furthermore, it is said that countless people have become Indra and cakravartins as result of the virtue of having perceived the Buddha and thrown a single flower into the sky.

[amanitamusc]

Yes.



Yes.



It is very possible, but these gods, like Indra, Brahma, and so on, are not persons, they are positions.

Are you saying they are sentient beings that fill these certain positions?

Yes.

This being so.Are the positions emanations of Buddha's and if not can you define the positions?