Role of Mara in Buddhist and Brahmanical Tradition : A Comparative Study

Dr. Archana Sharma

Assistant Professor, A.I.H.C. and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-05

According to the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names 'Mara' is generally regarded as the personification of Death, the Evil one, the Tempter (The Buddhist counterpart of Devil or Principal of Destruction).¹ In Sanskrit one meaning of the word 'Mara' is killing.² Due to this meaning some scholars believes that 'Mara' is a God of death in Brahmanical tradition too and is also known as 'Yama.'³ But in Sanskrit-Hindi dictionary Apte refers the other interpretation of 'Mara' as Kamadeva.⁴ We also get this signification of Mara in Sanskrit Buddhist tradition. So it would be very interesting to compare the concept of Mara in Buddhist and Brahmanical tradition.

The concept of Mara is an important feature in Buddhist canons and supposed as a personification of Death and evil one. The legends concerning Mara are, in the books, very involved and defy any attempts at unravelling them. In the latest accounts, mention is made of five maras – Khandha-Mara, Kilesa-Mara, Abhisankhara-Mara, Maccu Mara and Devaputta-Mara.⁵ Elsewhere, however, Mara is spoken of as one, three or four. The term Mara in the older books, is applied to the whole of the worldly existence, the five Khandhas or the realm of rebirth, as opposed to Nibban. The commentaries speaking of three Maras specify them as Devaputtamara, Maccumara and Kilesamara. When four Maras are referred to, they appear to be the five Maras mentioned in above less Devaputtra Mara.⁶

In view of many studies of Mara by various scholars. Malala sekara explains to attempt a theory of Mara in Buddhism in the following manner- "The commonest use of the word was evidently in the sense of Death. From this it was extented to mean "the world under the sway of death (also called Maradheyya) and the beings therein. Thence the kilesh also come to be called mara in that they were instruments of Death, the causes enabling Death to hold sway over the world. All Temptations brought about by the Kilesas were likewise, regarded as the work of Death. There was also evidently a legend of a Devaputta of the Vasavatti World, called mara, who considered himself the head of the Kamavacara-world and who recognized any attempt to curb the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, as a direct challange to himself and to his authority. As time went on these different conceptions of the word became confused are with the other, but this confusion is not always difficult to unravel."⁷

Various statements are found in the Pitakas connected with which have, obviously, reference of to Death, the Kilesas. Thus those who can restrain the mind and check its propensities, can escape the snares of Mara. By attaining the Nobel Eightfold Path one can be free from Mara. The Samyutta records a conversation between Mara and Vajira. She has attained arhartship and tells Mara- "There is no satta here who can come over your control, there is no being but a mere heap of Sankharas (Suddhasankhararapunja).⁸

A very important question asked by Radha in this Nikaya (Sanyutta) to Buddha who is Mara? (Maro Maro ti Bhante Vuccati Katama nu kho Bhante Mara ti?) The Buddha answered "Rupam kho, Radha Maro, Vedanamaro, Sannamaro, Sankhara maro, Vinnanam maro, yo kho Radha Maro tatra chando pahatubbo."⁹ Thus the whole five, aggregate or the whole body is equated to Mara. Else where in the canon, one's body is called a world or a lok and each individual has his oven world (Loka) So then we can say that entire world is under Mara. In order to became Buddha of arhat, one has to win over Mara.

Mara legends are related to Buddha's life, so to explain the concept of Mara, it is necessary to describe the encounters of Mara with Buddha and all the persons who were trying to follow the path of Buddha and path of goodness. These encounters are described in the canonical, non canonical Buddhist literature, Sanskrit Buddhist literature and also depicted in Buddhist art. These encounters are given below:-

1. At first time Mara appears before Siddharth Gautam when he was leaving his home for renunciation (Mahabhinishkraman). Mara is represented as trying to persuade the Siddhartha to return home on the ground that he would, in seven days, become a universal monarch¹⁰ (Cakkavatti Maharaja).

2. During the period of austerity (Sambodhi) Gautam is practicing austerity on the bank of the Neranjara where Mara tempting him to abandon his striving and devote himself to good works. Gautam refers to Mara's army as being tenfold (e.g. husts, Aversion, Hunger and Thirst, Craving, Sloth and Indolence, Cowardice, Doubt, Hypocrisy and stupidity, Gains, Fame. Honour and Glory falsely. Lauding of oneself and contemning of others.¹¹ So Mara's army is described as being tenfold and each division of his army in very late account with great wealth of detail. Each division was faced by the Buddha with one paramita and was put to flight. Lastly Mara challenged Buddha to show that the seat on which he sat was his by right. The Buddha having no other witness asked the earth to bear testimony on his behalf and the earth roard in response. Mara and his followers fled in utter rout the Devas and others gathered round the Buddha to celebrte his victory.¹²

3. After Gautam's Enlightenment three daughters of Mara are represented as tempting the Buddha.¹³ Their names are Tanha, Arati, and Raga and they are evidently personifications of three of the ten forces in Mara's army, as mentioned above. But their attempts one in vain.

4. During the ocassion of first Sermon of Buddha (Dharmachakrapravartan) Mara approached him and asked him not to teach the monks regarding the highest emancipation, he himself being yet bound by Mara's fetters. But the Buddha replied that he was free of all fetters, human and divine.¹⁴

5. Making hindrance during alms. Once the Buddha went for alms to Pancasala he entered into the brahmin householders and the Buddha had to return with empty bowl. Mara approached the Buddha on his return and tried to persuade him to try once more, this was, says the commentary, a ruse, that he might inspire insult and injury in addition to neglect. But the Buddha refused saying that he would live that day on peeti like the Abhassara gods.¹⁵

6. Mara appeared before Monks and Nuns to deviate them. There are many such instances described in Pali literature. For example once, at the Sakyan village of Silavati, he approached the monks who were bent on the study, in the shape of old and holy brahmin, and asked them not to abandon the things of this life, in order to run after matters involving time.¹⁶ In many occasions on which Mara assumed various forms under which to tempt Nuns (Bhikkhumis) often in lonely spots-e.g. Alavika, Kisagotami, Soma, Vijaya, Uppalavanna, Cala, Upacala, Sisupacala, Sela, Vijira and Khema.⁽¹⁷⁾ He tempted also laymen and women and tried to lure them from the path of goodness.¹⁸

7. Before Buddha's Mahaparinibban. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, of several occasions on which Mara approached the Buddha, requesting him to die.¹⁹

Above mentioned encounters described in pali literature. In hybrid Buddhist Sanskrit and Sanskrit literature we have some very important sources which described Mara episode in very systematic manner. In Lalitvistara.²⁰ Mara is described as the wicked one closely following the Bodhisattava for six years as he was practicing austerities. In this source we get the names of Mara's daughters as Rati, Arati and Trishna in place of Tanha, Arati and Raga. Buddhacharita²¹ by Ashvaghosha is another important source which devotes two chapters to the victory over Mara and the temptation by Mara's daughters. Here Mara comes not only with three daughters – Rati, Priti and Trishna but also with three sons – Vibrama (confusion), Harsh (Gaity) and Darpa (Pride). Of course Mara himself is represented as an enemy of the perfect Dharma (Saddharmaripu) and as Kamadeva,²² the God of love and desire. We get several quotations regarding Kamadeva in Buddha charita. In which the two other names of Kamadeva occur, Pushpashar and Chitrayudha.²³

All the discussion indicates that Mara opposes the austerity of Buddha and all the persons who were trying for the same. In Brahmanical tradition this work is done by the Indra with the help of Apasaras. There after this work was done by Kamadeva and his army. Also in Buddhist literature we get the description of Indra as a follower of Buddha. In earlier phase Mara is like a demon or evil one but later he is described as devaputa Mara (just like demigod). It may be possible after this transformation in Buddhism, Hinduism associated Kama to Indra as counterpart of Mara. For the explanation of this fact some Brahmanical references are required. In Kumar Sambhava of Kalidasa²⁴ we get the story of Kama. Here Kama was deputed by the Indra to destroy the austerity of Siva. The story is given in following manner. After Dakshayani, otherwise also known as sati, the first wife of Siva committed suicide by plunging into the fire, because her father slighted her Lord Siva by not offering ablations to him, Siva sat upon the Himalaya and began to practice severe penance. The daughter of Himvan, Parvati, who was none other than sati who was reborn to Himvan, began to attend upon Siva, the great yogi. In the meantime the Asura Tarak began to do havoc to the godes'. They (Gods) went to God Brahma and the told that the only person who could destroy this demon would be a son (Skanda) born to Siva. Since Siva had to be diverted from his austerity and be induced to begat a son for the purpose of destroying Tarak. Kama the god of love deputed by Indra to great lascivious thoughts in the mind of Siva, Kama approached Siva and attached his with him flowery arrows. Incensed at the disturbance caused by Kama in his mind, Siva opened his frontal eye and emitted flames of fire and reduced Kama to ashes. But all the same, he fell in love with Parvati, married her and begat Kumara who killed Tarakasura. Rati is described as wife of Kamadeva.

In the epic and Puranic texts, the mythology about Kama is much developed. The opt repeated story about his having been burnt to ashes by Siva, because he tried to excite passion in the latter's mind, explains his particular name Ananga meaning 'one without a body'. The destruction of Kama or Madan by Siva is reminiont of the defeat of Mara by Buddha. Some of the Purana tell us that after Kama was thus destroyed, he was born again as Pradyumna,²⁵ the son of Krisna and the story of his union with Rati, his consort in his former birth and now born as the wife of Sambava, the demon, is elaborately recounted in them. The Gupta inscriptions record many allusions to Kamadeva, the god of love, his two wives Priti and Rati, his bow of flowers, his destruction by Siva and his banner of flowers. In the Mandasor stone inscription of Kumargupta I and Bandhuvarman of the Malwa years 493 and 529, the city of Dasapura is described as 'beautiful being embraced by two charming rivers with tremulous waves as if it were the body of the god smara embraced in secrecy by his wives Priti and Rati, possessed of heaving breats; Maharaja Bandhuvarman is described as resembling in beauty, even though he was not adorned with ornaments, a second Kamadeva armed with the bow that is made of flowers.²⁶ The characteristic attributes of Manmatha in Brahmanical texts are a bow and an arrow, the bow is sometimes described as made of flowers (so one of his names is Pushpadhanva) and other times, especially in iconographic literature as made of a sugar-cane.²⁷

In the early known representations in Buddhist art, a bow is very often placed in the hands of Kamadeva.²⁸ A Loriyan Tangai relief in the collection of the indian Museum, Calcutta, shows the Mahabhiniskramana scene in profile, just in front of Siddhartha riding an Kanthaka is a male fingure wist fully looking up at the rider, with another figure just behind him. Grunwedal thus remarks about the relifef 'two figures, one of them holding a bow (possibly Mara) stand in front of apparently addressing Siddhartha.²⁹ The bow is the characteristic enblem of Mara (Kamadeva) and there is little doubt that this particular Gandhara sculptures illustrates the scene of Mara trying to seduce Buddha from his firm resolve of renouncing the wordly life. In a painting in cave no. 1 at Ajanta, Mara fully decorated with ornaments, grasping a bow and an arrow in his hands accompanied by a host of his daughters or consorts in lascivious attitudes and other demoniacal male attendants tries to unseat Buddha from Vajrasana.³⁰ So the characteristic attribute of Mara seems to have been well established by the early centuries of the christian era and it is presumable that in the plastic representations of Kamadeva, its Bramanical counterpart. Kama is also the subject of the Kamantaka Murti of Siva. The description of the Kamantakmurti are given in Uttara-Kamikagama, the Suprabhedagama and Purva-Karanagam. Here Kamadeva has also described with bow and five difference flowery arrows. His bow is made of Sugar cane. The names of the five arrows of Kamadeva (Manmath) are given as the Lambini, Tapini, Dravini, Marini and Vedini and the companians of Manmatha are given in Karanagama as Mada, Raga, Vasanta and Sisiraritu.³¹

In ancient Greko-Roman culture we also find the gods of love-like Kama. They are Eros³² and Cupid³³. Eros was depicted as beautiful winged youth carrying a bow and quiver of arrows. Roman god of love cupid was usually represented as a winged infant who carried a bow and quiver of arrows which he shot at humans to inflict wounds that inspired love and parrion. He was also sometimes depicted as a beautiful youth. In view of Ancient Indian cultural contact of Greek-Roman cultures we can understand these similarities.

These examinations reveals that Buddhist Mara is the counterpart of Brahamanical Kamadeva. Earlier we have described Mara as wicked one, but it is not always true to evaluate Mara as a symbol of demon or evil spirit. It is well known fact the Vedic tradition is famous for the way of attachment (Pravrittimarga). But the same time ascetic and renunciatory tradition is also developed in Vedic tradition. So the former tradition opposed the latter. In this concern we get an important instance in Mahabharat where Draupali said, ^^fJ;k foghuSj/kuS% ukfLrdS laizofrZre~A** So it seems to us that Mara, Apasaras, Kama and its army are the symbol of worldly desires and opposing the popularity of renunciation and ascetism.

REFERENCES:

1. Malalasekar, G.P. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, in two vol. New Delhi, First Indian Edition, 1983, Vol. 2, p. 611.

2. Apte, V.S., Sanskrit – Hindi Dictionary, New Delhi, P. 854, ekj% ¼iq0½] gR;k] o/k] dry v'ks"kizkf.kukeklhnekjks n'k oRljku~ jktrjafx.kh 5@64] ck/kk] fo?u] fojks/kA

3. Sheelaratna, An essay on 'A critical study of Buddhist concept of Mara', University of Kelaniya, 2001.

4.  Apte, V.S., op.cit., p. 854. dkenso] ';kekRek dqfVy% djksrqdojhHkkjks·fi Òkj¨/kee~and xhrx¨foUn] vfu"V ¼c©)¨a ds vuqlkj½ fouk'kd] Òkj vfj%and fjiq f'ko dk fo'¨"k.k] cq) dk fo'¨"k.kA

5. Malalasekar, G.P., op.cit., p. 611

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Samyutta Nikaya (P.T.S.), 1:135

9. Ibid., 3: 198

10. Sanskrityayan, Rahul, Buddhachariya, Varanasi, 1952, p. 11, Guruge, Anand W.P., The Buddha's Encounters with Mara the Tempter, Their Representation in Literature and Art, 2005.

11. Malalasekar, G.P., op.cit., p. 615.

12. Sankrityayan, Rahul, op.cit., p. 16; Nidankatha ed. and translator Mahesh Tiwari, Varanasi, 1970, p. 179-187.

13. Samyutta Nikaya (P.T.S.) 1-124, quoted by Malalasekar, G.P., op.cit., p. 616.

14. Vinaya Pitaka in 5 vols. ed. oldenberg, Vol. 1, London, 1879-83,    p. 22.

15. Sarattappakasini, Samyutta Commentary 1.140 and Dhammapadatthaakatha, 5 vols. (P.T.S.), iii, 257.

16. Malalasekar, op.cit. p. 617.

17. Ibid., p. 617.

18. Ibid., p. 618.

19. Ibid., 618.

20. The Lalit-Vistara english translation by R.L. Mitra, Delhi, 1998,   pp. 14, 23, 40.....

21. Buddhacharita by Ashvaghosha, edited and translated by Suryanarayan Chaudhary, Varanasi, reprint, 1995 Chapter No. 13 and 14, P. 170-195.

22. Ibid, 13.2 ¼;a dkensoa izonfUr yksds---½

23. Ibid, 13.2 ¼fp=k;q/ka] iq"i 'kja---½

24. Tripathi, Brahmanand (Ed.), Kalidas Granthavali, Varanasi, 2012, P. Chap. 2 and 3 183-196.

25. Rao, T.A.G. Element of Hindu Iconography, in Two Vols. and Four Parts Vol. 2, Part I, P. 147-149. This description based on Linga Purana.

26. Fleet, J.F. Corpus Inscriptionum, Indicarum, Vol. III, pp. 81, 85-7.

27. Banerjea, Jitendra Nath, The Development of Hindu Iconography, New Delhi, Fourth Edition 1985, P. 301.

28. Banerjea, Jitendra Nath, Hindu Iconography, Journal of Indian Society of Oriental Art, 14, 1946, P. 37-38.

29. Buddhist Art, p. 103

30. Griffith, Ajanta, Vol. 1, pl. viii.

31. Rao, T.A.G., op.cit., p. 147-149.

32. Britannica Ready References Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, New Delhi, 2005, p. 267.

33. Ibid., Vol. 3, 89.

Received on 12.12.2014

Revised on 20.12.2014

Accepted on 27.12.2014        

© A&V Publication all right reserved

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 5(4): October-December, 2014, 370-373