Māra untranslated

Māra. Generally regarded as the personification of Death, the Evil One, the Tempter (the Buddhist counterpart of the Devil or Principle of Destruction). The legends concerning Māra are, in the books, very involved and defy any attempts at unravelling them. In the latest accounts, mention is made of five Māras: Khandha Māra, Kilesa Māra, Abhisaṅkhāra Māra, Maccu Māra and Devaputta Māra as shown in the following quotations: pañcannaṁ pi Mārānaṁ vijayato Jino, the Victor, conqueror of the five Māras (Thag­a.ii.16); sabbāmittehi khandhakilesābhisaṅkhāramaccudevaputtasaṅkhāte, sabbapaccatthike, along with all enemies – namely, the constituents, defilements, volitional formations, death, and the Devaputta – (the Buddha has conquered) all adversaries (Thag­a.ii.46); saṅkhepato vā pañcakilesakhandhābhisaṅkhāradevaputtamaccumāre abhañji, tasmā... bhagavā ti vuccati, in brief, he shattered the five Māras – namely, the defilements, aggregates, volitional formations, the Devaputta, and death. Therefore ... he is called the Bhagavā (Vsm.211).

Elsewhere, however, Māra is spoken of as one, three, or four. Where Māra is one, the reference is generally either to the kilesas or to Death. Thus: Mārenā ti kilesamārena, by Māra means by the Māra of the defilements (Iti-a.197); Mārassa visaye ti kilesamārassa visaye, in Māra’s domain means in the domain of the Māra of defilements (Thag­a.ii.70); jetvāna maccuno senaṁ vimokkhena anāvaran-ti lokattayābhibyāpanato diyaḍḍhasahassādi vibhāgato ca vipulattā aññehi avārituṁ paṭisedhetuṁ asakkuṇeyyattā ca maccuno, Mārassa senaṁ vimokkhena ariyamaggena jetvā, having conquered the army of Death, through the unobstructed liberation by means of the Noble Path, supreme over the three worlds, and the 1,500 (world systems), vast, incapable of being obstructed or repelled by others, he conquered Māra’s army through the liberating Noble Path (Iti-a.198); Mārāsenā ti ettha satte anatthe niyojento māretī ti Māro, here, Māra is so called because he leads beings to harm and destroys them (Ud­a.325); nihato Māro bodhimūle ti vihato samucchinno kilesamāro bodhirukkhamūle, Māra was defeated at the foot of the Bodhi tree means the Māra of defilements was utterly destroyed and uprooted at the base of the Tree of Awakening (Netti Commentary 235); vasaṁ Mārassa gacchatī ti kilesamārassa ca sattamārassa (?) ca vasaṁ gacchi, he falls under Māra’s control means he comes under the power of both the Māra of defilements and Māra as attachment (Netti, p. 86); tato sukhumataraṁ Mārabandhanan-ti kilesabandhanaṁ panetam tato sukhumataraṁ, more subtle than that is the bondage of Māra - indeed, this bondage of defilements is even more subtle than that (SN­a.iii.82); Māro māro ti maraṇaṁ pucchati, māradhammo ti maraṇadhammo, Māra, Māra, he asks about death; the nature of Māra means the nature of death (SN­a.ii.246).

It is evidently with this same significance that the term Māra, in the older books, is applied to the whole of worldly existence, the five khandhas, or the realm of rebirth, as opposed to Nibbāna. Thus Māra is defined at CNid. (No. 506) as kammābhisaṅkhāravasena paṭisandhiko khandhamāro, dhātumāro, āyatanamāro, through the force of volitional formations, the connecting consciousness becomes the Māra of the constituents, the Māra of the elements, the Māra of the sense spheres. And again: Māro Māro ti bhante vuccati katamo nu kho bhante Māro ti? Rūpaṁ kho, Rādha, Māro, vedanāmāro, saññāmāro, saṅkhāramāro viññāṇam-Māro, venerable sir, people say Māra, Māra. What, venerable sir, is this Māra? Form is Māra, Rādha. Feeling is Māra. Perception is Māra. Volitional formations are Māra. Consciousness is Māra (SN.iii.195); yo kho Rādha Māro tatra chando pahātabbo. Ko ca Rādha Māro? Rūpaṁ kho Rādha Māro … pe … vedanāmāro. Tatra kho Rādha chando pahātabbo, Rādha, whatever is called Māra - desire for that should be abandoned. And Rādha, what is Māra? Form is Māra... feeling is Māra... perception is Māra... volitional formations are Māra... consciousness is Māra. Rādha, desire for these should be abandoned (SN.iii.198); sa upādiyamāno kho bhikkhu baddho Mārassa, anupadiyamāno mutto pāpimāto, a monk who clings is bound by Māra; who does not cling is freed from the Wicked One (SN.iii.74); evaṁ sukhumaṁ kho bhikkhave, Vepacittibandhanaṁ; tato sukhumataraṁ mārabandhanaṁ; maññamāno kho bhikkhave baddho Mārassa, amaññamāno mutto pāpimato, truly subtle, monks, is the bondage of Vepacitti; yet more subtle than that is the bondage of Māra. One who conceives is bound by Māra; who does not conceive is freed from the Evil One (SN.iv.202); labhati Māro otāraṁ, labhati Māro ārammaṇaṁ, Māra gains an opening; Māra gains a foothold (SN.iv.85); santi bhikkhave cakkhuviññeyyarūpā … pe … tañ ce bhikkhu abhinandati … pe … ayaṁ vuccati bhikkhave bhikkhu āvāsagato Mārassa, Mārassa vasaṁ, gato, there are, monks, forms cognizable by the eye ... if a monk delights in them ... this is called a monk who has entered Māra’s abode, who has come under Māra’s control (SN.iv.91); dhunātha maccuno senaṁ nalāgāraṁ va kuñjaro ti paññindriyassa padathānaṁ, shake off Māra’s army, as an elephant shakes off a hut of reeds (Netti, p. 40); rūpe kho Rādha sati Māro vā assa māretā vā yo vā pana mīyati. Tasmā he tvaṁ Rādha rūpaṁ māro ti passa māretā ti passa mīyatī ti passa … ye nam evaṁ passanti te sammā passanti, when there is form, Rādha, then there is Māra, or the killer, or the one who dies. Therefore, Rādha, see form as Māra, see it as the killer, see it as the one who dies ... Those who see thus see rightly (SN.iii.189); Mārasaṁyogan-ti tebhūmakavattaṁ, the bondage of Māra means being caught up in the three realms (of existence) (Snp­a.ii.506).

The Commentaries also speak of three Māras: bodhipallaṅke tinnaṁ Mārānaṁ matthakaṁ bhinditvā, having shattered the heads of the three Māras upon the seat of enlightenment (DN­a.ii.659); aparājitasaṅghan-ti ajjeva tayo Māre madditvā vijitasaṅgānaṁ matthakaṁ madditvā anuttaraṁ Sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho, the invincible victor – having this very day crushed the three Māras, having shattered the heads of the conquered hosts – Awakened to the unsurpassed perfect Awakening (CNid­a. p. 47). In some cases the three Māras are specified: yathayidaṁ bhikkhave mārabalan-ti yathā idaṁ Devaputtamāra maccumāra kilesamārānaṁ balaṁ appasahaṁ durābhisambhavaṁ, monks, this is called Māra’s power – that is, the power of Devaputta Māra, Māra as death, and Māra as defilements. This power is hard to overcome, difficult to surpass (DN­a.iii.858); maccuhāyino ti maraṇamaccu kilesamaccu Devaputtamaccu hāyino, tividham-pi taṁ maccuṁ hitvā gāmino ti vuttaṁ hoti, those called conquerors of death are ones who have abandoned the threefold death – namely, the death of physical cessation, the death of the defilements, and the death brought by the Devaputta (Māra). It is said they proceed having completely transcended all these forms of death (Snp­a.ii.508; cp. MN­a.ii.619); na lacchati Māro otāraṁ, Māro ti devaputtamāro pi maccumāro pi kilesamāro pi, Māra gains no foothold. By Māra is meant the celestial tempter, the force of death, and the corruptions of mind (DN­a.iii.846); but elsewhere five are mentioned e.g., ariyamaggakkhaṇe kilesamāro abhisaṅkhāramāro, Devaputtamāro ca carimaka cittakkhaṇe khandhamāro maccumāro ti pañcavidhamāro abhibhūto parājito, at the moment of attaining the Noble Path, the fivefold Māra are completely vanquished and defeated: the defilements that distort the mind, the volitional formations that drive rebirth, and Devaputta Māra’s illusions – while in the final moment of consciousness, the constituents that bind one to existence and the very force of mortality itself are conquered (Ud­a.216). Very occasionally four Māras are mentioned: catunnaṁ Mārānaṁ matthakaṁ madditvā anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisamabuddho, having crushed the heads of the four Māras, he awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening (MNid. 129); indakhīlopamo catubbidhamāraparavādigaṇehi akampiyatthena, like an unshaking gatepost, he is impervious to the assaults of the fourfold Māra, through his utterly unshakable nature (Snp­a.i.201); Mārasenaṁ sasenaṁ abhibhuyyā ti kilesasenāya anantasenāya ca sasenaṁ anavasittham, catubbidham-pi māraṁ abhibhavitvā Devaputtamārassā pi hi guṇamāraṇe sahāyabhāvūpagamanato kilesā senā ti vuccanti, having overpowered Māra’s army along with its allies means he overpowered the fourfold Māra and the endless armies of defilements, along with their allies, were left without refuge. Even the Devaputta Māra’s forces are called an army of defilements because they assist in perpetuating bondage to negative qualities (Iti-a.136). The last quotation seems to indicate that the four Māras are the five Māras less Devaputta Māra.

A few particulars are available about Devaputta Māra: Māro ti Vasavattibhūmiyaṁ aññataro dāmarikadevaputto. So hi taṁ ṭhānaṁ atikkamitukāmaṁ janaṁ yaṁ na sakkoti taṁ māreti, yaṁ na sakkoti tassa pi maraṇaṁ icchati, tenā Māro ti vuccati, Māra refers to a certain troublemaking Devaputta in the Vasavatti realm. He is called Māra because he kills those who wish to transcend his domain but lack the power to do so; even when he cannot kill someone, he still desires their death – thus he is named Māra (Snp­a.i.44); Māro yeva pana sattasaṅkhātāya pajāya adhipaṭibhāvena idha Pajāpatī ti adhippeto. So hi kuhiṁ vasatī ti? Paranimmittavasavattidevaloke. Tatra hi Vasavattirājā rajjaṁ kāreti. Māro ekasmiṁ padese attano parisāya issariyaṁ pavattento rajjapaccante dāmarikarājaputto viya vasatī ti vadanti, here, the term Māra specifically refers to his dominance over beings perceived as creations. Where does he dwell? In the Paranimmittavasavatti Deva realm. There, King Vasavatti rules, while Māra – exercising authority over his own retinue in one region – resides like a rebellious prince ruling a border territory (MN­a.i.28); so hi Māro opapātiko kāmāvacarissaro, kadāci brahmapārisajjānam-pi kāye adhimuccituṁ samattho, this Māra is a spontaneously reborn being, sovereign over the realm of sensual desire. On occasion, he can even manifest within the assemblies of Brahmā’s retinue (Jinālaṅkāra Ṭīkā, p.217).

In view of the many studies of Māra by various scholars, already existing, it might be worthwhile here, too, to attempt a theory of Māra in Buddhism, based chiefly on the above data. The commonest use of the word was evidently in the sense of Death. From this it was extended to mean “the world under the sway of death” (also called Māradheyya – e.g., AN.iv.228) and the beings therein. Thence, the kilesas also came to be called Māra 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 Māra, who considered himself the head of the Kāmāvacara world and who recognized any attempt to curb the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, as a direct challenge to himself and to his authority. As time went on these different conceptions of the word became confused one with the other, but this confusion is not always difficult to unravel.

Various statements are found in the Piṭakas connected with Māra, which have, obviously, reference to Death, the kilesas, and the world over which Death and the kilesas hold sway. Thus: Those who can restrain the mind and check its propensities can escape the snares of Māra (Dhp. 7). He who delights in objects cognizant to the eye, etc., has gone under Māra’s sway (SN.iv.91). He who has attachment is entangled by Māra (SN.iii.73). Māra will overthrow him who is unrestrained in his senses, immoderate in his food, idle and weak (Dhp. 8). By attaining the Noble Eightfold Path one can be free from Māra (Dhp. 40). The Saṁyutta (i.135) records a conversation between Māra and Vajirā. She has attained Arahant-ship, and tells Māra: “There is no satta here who can come under your control; there is no being but a mere heap of saṅkhāras (suddhasaṅkhārapuñja).

The later books, especially the Nidānakathā of the Jātaka Commentary (Ja.i.71ff.; cp. MN­a.i.384) and the Buddhavaṁsa Commentary (p. 239f), contain a very lively and detailed description of the temptation of the Buddha by Māra, as the Buddha sat under the Bodhi-tree immediately before his Awakening. These accounts describe how Māra, the Devaputta, seeing the Bodhisatta seated, with the firm resolve, of becoming a Buddha, summoned all his forces and advanced against him. These forces extended to a distance of twelve yojanas to the front of the Bodhisatta, twelve to the back, and nine each to the right and to the left. Māra himself, thousand-armed, rode on his elephant, Girimekhala, one hundred and fifty leagues in height. His followers assumed various fearsome shapes and were armed with dreadful weapons. At Māra’s approach, all the various Devas, Nāgas and others, who were gathered round the Bodhisatta singing his praises and paying him homage, disappeared in headlong flight. The Bodhisatta was left alone, and he called to his assistance the ten pāramī which he had practiced to perfection.

Māra’s army is described as being tenfold, and each division of the army is described, in very late accounts (especially in Sinhalese books), with great wealth of detail. Each division was faced by the Buddha with one pāramī and was put to flight. Māra’s last weapon was the Cakkāvudha (q.v.). But when he hurled it at the Buddha it stood over him like a canopy of flowers. Still undaunted, Māra challenged the Buddha to show that the seat on which he sat was his by right. Māra’s followers all shouted their evidence that the seat was Māra’s. The Buddha, having no other witness, asked the Earth to bear testimony on his behalf, and the Earth roared in response. Māra and his followers fled in utter rout, and the Devas and others gathered round the Buddha to celebrate his victory. The sun set on the defeat of Māra. This, in brief, is the account of the Buddha’s conquest of Māra, greatly elaborated in later chronicles, and illustrated in countless Buddhist shrines and temples with all the wealth of riotous color and fanciful imagery that gifted artists could command.

That this account of the Buddha’s struggle with Māra is literally true, none but the most ignorant of the Buddhists believe, even at the present day. The Buddhist point of view has been well expressed by Rhys Davids (Article on Buddha in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). We are to understand by the attack of Māra’s forces, that all the Buddha’s “old temptations came back upon him with renewed force. For years he had looked at all earthly good through the medium of a philosophy which had taught him that it, without exception, carried within itself the seeds of bitterness and was altogether worthless and impermanent; but now, to his wavering faith, the sweet delights of home and love, the charms of wealth and power, began to show themselves in a different light and glow again with attractive colors. He doubted and agonized in his doubt, but as the sun set, the religious side of his nature had won the victory and seems to have come out even purified from the struggle.” There is no need to ask, as does Thomas, with apparently great suspicion (Thomas: Life and Legend of the Buddha, 230), whether we can assume that the elaborators of the Māra story were recording “a subjective experience under the form of an objective reality,” and did they know or think that this was the real psychological experience which the Buddha went through? The living traditions of the Buddhist countries supply the adequate answer, without the aid of the rationalists. The epic nature of the subject gave ample scope for the elaboration so dear to the hearts of the Pāli rhapsodists.

The similar story among Jains, as recorded in their commentarial works – e.g., in the Uttarādhyayanasūtra (ZDMG. vol. 49 (1915), 321ff) bears no close parallelism to the Buddhist account, but only a faint resemblance.

There is no doubt that the Māra legend had its origin in the Padhānasutta (q.v.). There Māra is represented as visiting Gotama on the banks of the Nerañjarā, where he is practicing austerities and tempting him to abandon his striving and devote himself to good works. Gotama refers to Māra’s army as being tenfold. The divisions are as follows: the first consists of the Lusts; the second is Aversion; the third Hunger and Thirst; the fourth Craving; the fifth Sloth and Indolence; the sixth Cowardice; the seventh Doubt; the eighth Hypocrisy and Stupidity; Gains, Fame, Honour and Glory falsely obtained form the ninth; and the tenth is the Lauding of oneself and the Contemning of others. “Seeing this army on all sides,” says the Buddha, “I go forth to meet Māra with his equipage (savāhanaṁ). He shall not make me yield ground. That army of thine, which the world of Devas and men conquers not, even that, with my wisdom, will I smite, as an unbaked earthen bowl with a stone.” Here we have practically all the elements found in the later elaborated versions.

The second part of the Padhānasutta (Snp. vs. 446f.; cf. SN.i.122) is obviously concerned with later events in the life of Gotama, and this the Commentary (Snp­a.ii.391) definitely tells us. After Māra had retired discomfited, he followed the Buddha for seven years, watching for any transgression on his part. But the quest was in vain, and, “like a crow attacking a rock,” he left Gotama in disgust. “The lute of Māra, who was so overcome with grief, slipped from his arm. Then, in dejection, the Yakkha disappeared thence.” This lute, according to the Commentary (Snp­a.ii.394), was picked up by Sakka and given to Pañcasikha. Of this part of the Sutta, more anon.

The Saṁyuttanikāya (SN.i.124f.; given also at Lalitavistara 490 (378); cp. AN.v.46; see also Dhp­a.iii.195f) also contains a Sutta (Dhītaro Sutta) in which three daughters of Māra are represented as tempting the Buddha after his Awakening. Their names are Taṇhā, Aratī and Ragā, and they are evidently personifications of three of the ten forces in Māra’s army, as given in the Padhānasutta. They assume numerous forms of varying age and charm, full of blandishment, but their attempt is vain, and they are obliged to admit defeat.

Once Māra came to be regarded as the Spirit of Evil all temptations of lust, fear, greed, etc., were regarded as his activities, and Māra was represented as assuming various disguises in order to carry out his nefarious plans. Thus the books mention various occasions on which Māra appeared before the Buddha himself and his disciples, men and women, to lure them away from their chosen path.

Soon after the Buddha’s first vassa, Māra approached him and asked him not to teach the monks regarding the highest emancipation, he himself being yet bound by Māra’s fetters. But the Buddha replied that he was free of all fetters, human and divine (Vin.i.22). On another occasion Māra entered into the body of Vetambarī and made him utter heretical doctrines, where Māra asks the Buddha about the further shore (SN.i.67; cp. Dhp­a.iv.141). In the Brahmanimantanikasutta (MN.i.326) Māra is spoken of as entering the hearts even of the inhabitants, of the Brahma world. The Mārasaṁyutta (SN.i.103ff) contains several instances of Māra’s temptations of the Buddha by assailing him with doubts as to his emancipation, feelings of fear and dread, appearing before him in the shape of an elephant, a cobra, in various guises beautiful and ugly, making the rocks of Gijjhakūṭa fall with a crash; by making him wonder whether he should ever sleep; by suggesting that, as human life was long, there was no need for haste in living the good life; by dulling the intelligence of his hearers (e.g., at Ekasalā; cf. Nigrodha and his fellow Paribbājakas, DN.iii.58). Once, when the Buddha was preaching to the monks, Māra came in the guise of a bullock and broke their bowls, which were standing in the air to dry; on another occasion he made a great din so that the minds of the listening monks were distracted. Again, when the Buddha went for alms to Pañcasālā, he entered into the Brahmin householders and the Buddha had to return with empty bowl. Māra 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 pīti, like the Ābhassara gods. The incident is related at length in SN­a.i.140f. and Dhp­a.iii.257f.; the Commentaries (e.g., Vin-a.i.178f.) state that the difficulty experienced by the Buddha and his monks in obtaining food at Verañja (q.v.) was also due to the machinations of Māra.

Again, as the Buddha was preaching to the monks on Nibbāna, Māra came in the form of a peasant and interrupted the sermon to ask if anyone had seen his oxen. His desire was to make the cares of the present life break in on the calm and supramundane atmosphere of the discourse on Nibbāna. On another occasion he tempted the Buddha with the fascination of exercising power that he might rescue those suffering from the cruelty of rulers. Once, at the Sākyan village of Sīlavatī, he approached the monks who were bent on study, in the shape of a very old and holy Brahmin, and asked them not to abandon the things of this life, in order to run after matters involving time. In the same village, he tried to frighten Samiddhi away from his meditations. Samiddhi sought the Buddha’s help and went back and won Arahant-ship (cp. the story of Nandiya Thera. Buddhaghosa says (DN­a.iii.864) that when Sūrambattha, after listening to a sermon of the Buddha, had returned home, Māra visited him there in the guise of the Buddha and told him that what he (the Buddha) had preached to him earlier was false. Sūrambattha, though surprised, could not be shaken in his faith, being a Sotāpanna). Māra influenced Godhika to commit suicide and tried to frighten Rāhula in the guise of a huge elephant (Dhp­a.iv.69f). In the account of Godhika’s suicide (SN.i.122) there is a curious statement that, after Godhika died, Māra went about looking for his (Godhika’s) consciousness (paṭisandhicitta), and the Buddha pointed him out to the monks, “going about like a cloud of smoke.” Later, Māra came to the Buddha, like a little child (khuddadārakavaṇṇī) (SN­a.i.145), holding a vilva lyre of golden color, and he questioned the Buddha about Godhika (this probably refers to some dispute which arose among the monks regarding Godhika’s destiny.)

The books mention many occasions on which Māra assumed various forms under which to tempt bhikkhunīs, often in lonely spots – e.g., Āḷavikā, Kisā Gotamī, Somā, Vijayā, Uppalavaṇṇā, Cālā, Upacālā, Sisūpacālā, Selā, Vajirā and Khemā. To the same category of temptations belongs a story found in late commentaries (Ja.i.63): when Gotama was leaving his palace on his journey of Renunciation, Māra, here called Vasavattī, appeared before him and promised him the kingdom and the whole world within seven days if he would but turn back. Māra’s temptations were not confined to monks and nuns; he tempted also lay men and women and tried to lure them from the path of goodness – e.g., in the story of Dhaniya and his wife (Snp­a.i.44; see also Ja.i.231f).

Mention is made, especially in the Mahā Parinibbānasutta, of several occasions on which Māra approached the Buddha, requesting him to die; the first of these occasions was under the Ajapāla Banyan tree at Uruvelā, soon after the Awakening, but the Buddha refused to die until the Sāsana was firmly established. Can it be that here we have the word Māra used in the sense of physical death (Maccumāra), and that the occasions referred to were those on which the Buddha felt the desire to die, to pass away utterly, to “lay down the burden”? Perhaps they were moments of physical fatigue, when he lay at death’s door, for we know (see Gotama) that the six years he spent in austerities made inroads on his health and that he suffered constantly from muscular cramp, digestive disorders and headache (it is true that in the Mahā Saccakasutta (MN.i.240ff.), which contains an account of the events leading up to the Awakening, there is no mention whatsoever of any temptation by Māra, nor is there any mention of the Bodhi-tree. But to argue from this, that such events did not form part of the original story, might be to draw unwarranted inferences from an argumentum e silentio.) At Beluvagāma, shortly before he finally decided to die, we are told that “there fell upon him a dire sickness, and sharp pains came upon him even unto death” (DN.ii.99; cp. Divy.203). But the Buddha conquered the disease by a strong effort of his will because he felt it would not be right for him to die without addressing his followers and taking leave of the Saṅgha. Compare with this Māra’s temptation of the Buddha at Maddakucchi (q.v.), when he laid suffering from severe pain after the wounding of his foot by a splinter. It may have been the physical weariness, above referred to, which at first made the Buddha reluctant to take upon himself the great exertions which the propagation of his Dhamma would involve (e.g., Vin.i.4f). We know of other Arahants who actually committed suicide in order to escape being worried by physical ills – e.g., Godhika, Vakkali, Channa. When their suicide was reported to the Buddha, he declared them free from all blame.

Can it be, further, that with the accounts of Māra, as the personification of Evil, came to be mixed legends of an actual Devaputta, named Māra, also called Vasavatti, because he was an inhabitant of the Paranimmitavasavatti Deva world? Already in the Aṅguttaranikāya, Māra is described as the head of those enjoying bliss in the Kāmāvacara worlds (aggo ādhipateyyānaṁ iddhiyā yasasā jalaṁ) and as a dāmarika Devaputta (as mentioned earlier) AN.ii.17. Even after the Buddha’s death Māra was regarded as wishing to obstruct good works. Thus, at the enshrinement of the Buddha’s relics in the Mahā Thūpa, Indagutta Thera (by supernatural power) made a parasol of copper to cover the universe, in order that it might ward off the attentions of Māra (Mhv.xxxi.85).

Can it be that ancient legends represented him as looking on with disfavour at the activities of the Buddha? Buddhaghosa says (MN­a.i.533) that Māra Devaputta, having dogged the Buddha’s footsteps for seven years, and having found no fault in him, came to him and worshipped him. Is it, then, possible, that some of the conversations, which the Buddha is reported to have had with Māra – e.g., in the second part of the Padhānasutta (see above) were originally ascribed to a real personage, designated as Māra Devaputta, and later confused with the allegorical Māra? This suggestion gains strength from a remark found in the Māratajjanīyasutta uttered by Moggallāna, that he too had once been a Māra, Dūsī by name (MN.i.333; cp. DN.iii.79); Kāḷā was his sister’s name, and the Māra of the present age was his nephew. In the Sutta, Dūsī is spoken of as having been responsible for many acts of mischief, similar to those ascribed to the Māra of Gotama’s day. According to the Sutta, Māra Devaputta was evidently regarded as a being of great power, with a strong bent for mischief, especially directed against holy men. This suggestion is, at all events, worthy of further investigation. See also Mārakāyikā Deva.

Māra bears many names in Pāli Literature, chief of them being Kaṇha, Adhipati, Antaka, Namuci and Pamattabandhu (MNid.ii.489; for their explanation see MNid-a.328; another name of Māra was Pajāpatī, MN­a.i.28). His usual standing epithet is Pāpimā, but other words are also used, such as anatthakāma, ahitakāma, and ayogakkhemakāma (e.g., MN.i.118).

Māra is called Namuci because none can escape him Namucī ti Māro; so hi attano visayā nikkhamitukāme devamanusse na muñcati antarāyaṁ tesaṁ karoti tasma Namucī ti vuccati (Snp­a.ii.386). In the Mahā Samayasutta, Namuci is mentioned among the Asuras as being present in the assembly, DN.ii.259; elsewhere in the same Sutta (p. 261f.) it is said that when all the Devas and others had assembled to hear the Buddha preach, Māra came with his “swarthy host” and attempted to blind the assembly with thoughts of lust, etc. But the Buddha, seeing him, warned his followers against him and Māra had to depart unsuccessful. At the end of the Sutta, four lines are traditionally ascribed to Māra. They express admiration of the Buddha and his followers. In this Sutta Māra is described as mahāsena (having a large army).

The Commentary explains (DN­a.ii.689) that Namuci refers to Māra Devaputta and accounts for his presence among the Asuras by the fact that he was temperamentally their companion (te pi acchandikā abhabbā, ayam-pi tādiso yeva, tasmā dhātuso saṁsandamāno āgato). Buddhaghosa says that Māra is so-called because he destroys all those who seek to evade him (SN­a.i.133; cp. MNid-a. 328): attano visayaṁ atikkamituṁ paṭipanne satte māreti ti Māro; he is called Vasavatti (SN­a.i.158) because he rules all, Māro nāma vasavattī sabbesaṁ upari vasaṁ vattati. Kāḷī (Kāḷā) is the mother of Māra of the present age. See Kāḷī (4).