Do most Buddhists and for that matter Zen Buddhists, if at all, discuss or even mention the fact that Mara is the five aggregates (P., khandha; S., skandha), who is the equivalent of the Buddhist devil? Let me also say that Mara is an important part of Buddhism. We can learn a lot about what Buddhism is and is not by studying Mara.
Rarely, in Buddhist publications have I seen Mara and what he is all about mentioned. In Walpola Rahula’s book, What the Buddha Taught there are a lot of references to the five aggregates but not a single one, from what I can see, telling the reader that these five aggregates are also Mara.
"At Sāvatthī. Seated to one side, Venerable Rādha said to the Buddha: “Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘Māra’. How is Māra defined?” “Rādha, form is Māra, feeling is Māra, perception is Māra, choices are Māra, consciousness is Māra. Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence’” (Mārasutta, S. iii. 195).
On the part of Walpola Rahula, is this just a mere scholarly oversight — an accident? No, not if you are writing a serious book that is to have any credibility.
However, if you can manage to sneak it by, i.e., not mention that Mara is the five aggregates for what reason might someone like Rahula do this? I have one likely answer. It is to maintain the false belief that not-self is the crown jewel of Buddhism and that self or ātman was rejected by the Buddha.
However, simple logic should tell us that if, in fact, the aggregates are Mara—which they are—and these aggregates are also not the self—which they are—which in Pali and Sanskrit would be, respectively, anattā and anātman, then we have a major problem with the crown jewel. It’s a fake. Not only does the not-self belong to the five aggregates but by implication it belongs to Mara. Yes, the not-self is Mara!
Let’s be honest, the Buddha never taught a not-self or no-self doctrine. He only taught us to reject it, that is, abandon desire for whatever is not the self (S. iii. 178). But don't you think it strange or at least odd that so many people who are curious about Buddhism may have learned a false doctrine? Was this just a coincidence in which there is no apparent concerted effort to distort the Buddha's teaching? And when we get to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which states, clearly, a Buddhist Ātman doctrine, why has it been such a stumbling block for many Westerners?
The simplest answer for now is that there has been a gross misinterpretation by Buddhist monks who sold their misinterpretation to western scholars but really have no leg to stand on when you plug Mara into the equation and the fact that the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are Mara, which by implication means that Mara is also not [the] self or anātman. This surely cannot be Buddhism's crown jewel. So what is the real crown jewel? It is the attainment of the unconditioned or nirvana by the very self (P., paccatta; S., pratyātman).
We are living in a Brave New World.
In modern times, since the industrial revolution, the belief in the Soul and God or any philosophy which suggests that the mind can exist outside the body has been denied by the intellectual class. This allowed humanity to focus on science, technology and commerce above all else.
Today, we have computers and artificial intelligence which have taken over the minds and bodies of humanity even more so. The very computer which we are using now to communicate from a distance is only possible because of these developments...
This also may explain why Soto Zen with it's emphasis on Shikatanza, and not Satori, is the most popular branch of Zen in these times.
Posted by: Aryeh | October 22, 2018 at 05:18 PM
MN 34 fits nicely with what you're saying here.
Posted by: david brainerd | October 22, 2018 at 10:34 AM