Māra in the Chinese Saṃyuktāgamas,with a Translation of the Mara Samyukta of the Bieyi za ahan jing.pdf

Buddhist Studies Review 24(1) 2007, 46–74

ISSN (print): 0256–2897

doi: 10.1558/bsrv.v24i1.46

ISSN (online): 1747–9681

Māra in the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama s,

with a Translation of the Māra Saṃyukta

of the Bieyi za ahan jing (T.100)

MARCUS BINGENHEIMER

Dharma Drum Buddhist College, Taiwan

m.bingenheimer@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: This article addresses some philological and structural-narrative issues

concerning the sutta s on Māra the Bad in Āgama literature. Included is a translation of

the Māra Saṃyukta of the Bieyi za ahan jing 別譯雜阿含經 (BZA) T.100, which includes

such famous passages as the suicide without further rebirth of Godhika.

INTRODUCTION

The texts

The Shorter Chinese Saṃyuktāgama , the Bieyi za ahan jing 別譯雜阿含經 (BZA), 1 con-

tains 364 short sutta s in 16 fascicles and is part of the Saṃyutta group of Āgama/

Nikāya literature, collections where short sutta s are grouped thematically. As well

as the BZA, this comprises the Pāli Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN) and the larger Chinese

Saṃyuktāgama , the Za ahan jing (ZA) 雜阿含經 (T.99) (50 fascicles containing 1362

sutta s) and another, earlier and much shorter, Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (T.101) that

contains only 27 sutta s, none of which are on Māra.

The ten sutta s presented here (BZA 23–BZA 32) are the BZA equivalent to the

Māra Saṃyutta of the Pāli canon and to the sutta s on Māra in the ZA, the main

Chinese parallel for the BZA. The Māra Saṃyutta in the SN contains 25 short sut-

ta s (SN I 103–127), while the ZA has 20 sutta s (ZA nos.1084–1103) on Māra. In

the traditional editions of the ZA and in the BZA the saṃyukta s are not marked. 2

1. For a summary of available information on the BZA see Bingenheimer 2006.

2. We know that they existed because some saṃyukta titles have survived in various editions

(Mayeda 1964, 649). The fact that the saṃyukta divisions were lost in the Chinese tradition

attests to the fact that Āgama literature was not considered all that important in Chinese

Buddhism. Only the twentieth-century Taishō edition, in ﬂ uenced by modern scholarship,

moved the Āgama sūtra s to their current prominent position in the canon. The decision to pres-

ent the Āgama s as the ﬁ rst two volumes of the whole collection re ﬂ ects the historical concerns

of Japanese Buddhist studies at that time. The Taishō edition was the last authoritative print

BINGENHEIMER MĀRA IN THE CHINESE SAṂYUKTĀGAMAS

Newer editions of the ZA, like the Āgama edition by Foguangshan 佛光山 Foguang

dazangjing ahan zang 佛光大藏經—阿含藏 (electronic version 2002), try to remedy

this, usually relying on Shi Yinshun’s (1983) reordering of the ZA. 3

In Āgama literature, Māra makes another prominent appearance in the Bhikṣunī

Saṃyukta . The fact that this saṃyukta/saṃyutta too exists in all three main collec-

tions (SN, ZA and BZA) supports the assumption that Māra was the main protago-

nist and interlocutor in two saṃyutta s (his ‘own’ and the one on nuns) from an

early stage. Māra’s role in the Bhikṣunī Saṃyukta and the structure of this group

of sutta clusters, however, will be discussed on another occasion.

Two more suttas on Māra, the Brahmanimantanika Sutta and the Māratajjanīya

Sutta , are included in the Majjhima Nikāya. The Brahmanimantanika Sutta (MN 49),

where Māra poses as a member of the retinue of Brahmā Bako, has its Chinese

versions in the Madhyamāgama (T.26 (78)).

The Māratajjanīya Sutta (MN 50) has three Chinese versions: one in the

Madhyamāgama (T.26 (131)) and two single translations, the Mo raoluan jing 魔嬈亂

經 (T.66) and the Bimo shi mulian jing 弊魔試目連經 (T.67). Both T.66 and T.67 were

translated before c.250. The entertaining opening of the sutta with Māra hiding

in Moggallāna’s belly, and the story of Māra having been Moggallāna’s nephew

in a former life, obviously appealed to the early translators and their audiences.

The four versions share a nearly identical narrative structure, but a philological

comparison has, to my knowledge, not been done so far.

In another sutta , the Mo ni jing 魔逆經 ( Mañjuśrīvikurvāṇaparivarta , T.589; also

translated relatively early (attributed to Zhu Fahu 竺法護 ; active 265–313)), Māra

is debated with and, of course, defeated by Mañjuśrī and other disciples in the

presence of the Buddha. 4 In style and content, however, T.589 is clearly an early

Mahāyāna sūtra and belongs to a later strata of Buddhist literature then the sut-

ta s mentioned before.

Table 1 is an overview of the relationship between the Chinese and Pāli Māra

Saṃyutta s. As one can see, basically all the texts exist in both Pāli and Chinese.

Only two narrative passages in Pāli have no corresponding Chinese version: the

appearance of Māra as elephant in 1.2 and as ox-herd in 2.9. However, the verse

part of both of these sutta s appears again elsewhere, indicating that the narra-

tive might have been added later. The short sutta s Pāli 1.4 and 1.5 are structur-

ally identical, their verses diﬀ er only slightly from each other. Māra here is not

mentioned in the prose part, but he appears rather abruptly to say his gāthā .

There are other cases, where prose and verse are but feebly connected, and in a

comparative study these must carry less weight than better-integrated and bet-

ter-connected sutta s.

edition and future digital editions will have to ﬁ nd other ways to express their priorities.

3. Building on Anesaki (1908), Lü Cheng (1924), Akanuma (1939) and Mayeda (1964), Yinshun

regroups the ZA sutta s according to the matrix found in the Yogacārabhūmisāśtra (at CBETA/

T.30.1579.772 c9 ).

4. Cf. Mitsukawa (2000).

BUDDHIST STUDIES REVIEW

Table 1.

SN Māra Saṃyutta ( sutta titles

and numbering as in the PTS

edition. SN I 103–27)

ZA 1084–1103

(T.vol.2(99),

284–90)

BZA 23–32

(T.vol.2(100), 381–4)

Comments

1.1 Tapo kammañ ca

(Austere Practice – SN I 103)

ZA 1094

1.2 Nāgo

(The King Elephant – SN I

103-04)

Gāthā identical with the

ﬁ rst part of the gāthā in 1.3

1.3 Subham

(Beautiful – SN I 104)

ZA 1093

BZA 32 (Māra changes

into beautiful and

ugly people)

The story in the BZA is

slightly diﬀ erent. The BZA

also lacks a gāthā .

1.4 Pāsa (1)

((Māra’s) Snare – SN I 105)

Gāthā similar to the gāthā

in 1.5

1.5 Pāsa (2)

((Māra’s) Snare – SN I 105–6)

ZA 1096

1.6 Sappo

(Serpent – SN I 106–7)

ZA 1089

BZA 28 (Māra turns

into a snake)

1.7 Suppati

(Sleep – SN I 107–8)

ZA 1087

BZA 26 (Māra disturbs

the Buddha’s rest)

1.8 Nandanam

(He Delights – SN I 107–8)

ZA 1004

BZA 142

In the ZA and BZA the

exchange of gāthā is

between Buddha and a

Devaputta , not Māra

1.9 Āyu (1)

(Life Span – SN I 108)

ZA 1084

BZA 23 (Māra disturbs

a teaching on

impermanence)

1.10 Āyu (2)

(Life Span – SN I 108–9)

ZA 1085

BZA 24 (Māra says life

is eternal)

2.1 Pāsāno

(The Boulder – SN I 109)

ZA 1088

BZA 27 (Māra throws

a boulder)

2.2 Sīho

(The Lion – SN I 109–10)

ZA 1101

2.3 Sakalikam

(The Splinter – SN I 110–12)

ZA 1090

BZA 29 (Māra disturbs

the Buddha’s rest)

2.4 Patirūpam

(Suitable – SN I 111)

ZA 1097

2.5 Mānasaṃ

(Mental – SN I 111)

ZA 1086

BZA 25 (Māra disturbs

the Buddha in

meditation)

2.6 Pattaṃ

(Almsbowls – SN I 112)

ZA 1102

2.7 Āyatana

(Bases for Contact – SN I

112–13)

ZA 1103

2.8 Piṇḍaṃ

(Alms – SN I 113–14)

ZA 1095

2.9 Kassakam

(The Farmer – SN I 114–16)

The gāthā is repeated in

3.4.

BINGENHEIMER MĀRA IN THE CHINESE SAṂYUKTĀGAMAS

SN Māra Saṃyutta ( sutta titles

and numbering as in the PTS

edition. SN I 103–27)

ZA 1084–1103

(T.vol.2(99),

284–90)

BZA 23–32

(T.vol.2(100), 381–4)

Comments

2.10 Rajjaṃ

(Rulership – SN I 116–17)

ZA 1098

3.1 Sambahulā

(A Number – SN I 117–18)

ZA 1099

3.2 Samiddhi

(Samiddhi – SN I 119–20)

ZA 1100

Exceptionally, Māra tries

to scare a monk here.

3.3 Godhika

(Godhika – SN I 120–22)

ZA 1091

BZA 30 (Godhika

commits suicide)

3.4 Sattavasāni

(Seven Years – SN I 122–4)

ZA 1092

BZA 31 (The

daughters of Māra)

In Chinese, 3.4 and 3.5 are

combined in one sutta .

This is the largest cluster

in this group, with many

other versions in Chinese

and Pāli.

3.5 Dhītaro

((Māra’s) Daughters – SN I

124–7)

With regard to content, the ZA sutta s are in general closer to the SN material

than the BZA sutta s. In terms of arrangement, there is a clear parallel between the

order of sutta s in the BZA and the ZA. The BZA sutta s are generally shorter, and

the verse often diﬀ ers from the versions found in the ZA or SN. This hints at the

possibility that the BZA texts branched oﬀ the main line earlier, that is, before

the division of the text into SN and ZA.

There seems to be little connection concerning the arrangement of the mate-

rial in the Pāli and in the Chinese, except two short parallelisms:

(i) The two sutta s where Māra disturbs a teaching on impermanence (Pāli 1.9/

ZA 1084/BZA 23 precedes Pāli 1.10/ZA 1085/BZA 24). This parallelism makes

it probable that, although similar in structure and content, both sutta s were

indeed transmitted as distinct units and in this order from an early stage.

(ii) The last two sutta s in the Pāli are remembered as only one in the Chinese

versions. Judging from the narrative ﬂ ow, it is perfectly possible that the Pāli

version used to be one sutta as well. It seems that the separation into two

sutta s took place later, perhaps to obtain a more symmetrical numbering for

the third vagga in the Māra Saṃyutta (the third vagga now contains exactly

ﬁ ve sutta s, half of the ten sutta s of the ﬁ rst and second vagga ). Another clue

that the sutta material was split in the Pāli tradition, rather than combined in

the Chinese, is that Pāli 3.5 lacks the opening section and starts in medias res

with atha kho , which, for this saṃyutta at least, would be exceptional (more

on sutta BZA 31 below).

BUDDHIST STUDIES REVIEW

The ﬁ gure of Māra

The ﬁ gure of Māra in Buddhist literature is comparatively well researched. Since

the ﬁ rst monograph Māra und Buddha by Ernst Windisch that was published in

1895 (and promptly forgotten by most of later scholarship 5 ) we have a large

number of monographs and articles on this ﬁ gure. 6 However, none of the mono-

graphs – Windisch (1895), Ling (1962), Boyd (1975) or the thesis by Clark (1994)

– make use of Chinese sources. 7 Arguably, this is not really necessary for a general

understanding of Māra in Āgama literature . As we have seen in the above overview,

the Saṃyuktāgama s of Sarvāstivādin literature (to which both the ZA and the BZA

belong) oﬀ er no new narrative material beyond what is known in Pāli.

On the most general level, Māra is the lord of death and desire, and all saṃsāric

existence is his dominion ( māra-dheyya or māra-visaya ). Since early Buddhism

was in the main a quest to reach an exit from saṃsara , Māra tries to disturb the

practice of meditation and the preaching of the Dhamma , to keep the practition-

ers within his realm. He attempts this by changing his shape, making noises or

involving those he disturbs in an argument. Although he is imagined as powerful

physical being, he never touches anybody. He cannot, of course, do so: his sym-

bolic valence is mental. Māra is a personi ﬁ cation of all those mental attitudes that

Buddhism considers an obstacle to practice. It is remarkable that in all the sutta s

where he appears he never seems to succeed.

In the later commentarial tradition, the ﬁ gure of Māra, as that of the Buddha,

was multiplied and we ﬁ nd the Five (Pāli) or Four (Indo-Tibetan) Māras. 8 Māra

is given minor roles in Mahāyāna sūtra s such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarika , the

Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and others. In the Āgama/Nikāya s, however, Māra is generally the

main interlocutor to the hero: the Buddha himself in the Māra Saṃyutta s, the var-

ious nuns in the Bhikṣunī/Bhikkhunī Saṃyutta s, and Moggallāna in MN 50/MĀ 131.

In the Māra Saṃyukta of the BZA Māra, tries to disturb the Buddha while he is

teaching (BZA 23, 24, 32), meditating (BZA 25, 29), and resting (BZA 26). He tries

to hurt him by throwing a boulder (BZA 27), to scare him by turning into a huge

5. With the exception of Ling (1962), it seems no one else has made use of Windisch’ groundbreak-

ing work. Often he is not even mentioned in bibliographies.

6. See the bibliography, in which I have tried to include all major Western research on Māra. For

this I have used (and added to) the results of a question on Māra on the e-list H-Buddhism and

the resulting summary by Stuart Ray Sarbacker.

7. Little research has been done on the role of Māra in East Asian Buddhist thought, an excep-

tion being the brilliant article by Iyanaga (1996–97), who discusses the confusion of Māra with

Īśvara/Maheśvara in China and Japan, the role of Māra as the King of the Sixth Heaven, and the

in ﬂ uence of the Māra legend on medieval Japanese mythology.

8. ThePāli commentarial tradition mentions khandha-māra , kilesa-māra , abhisaṅkhāra-māra , maccu-

māra and devaputta-māra – māra in the sense of the aggregates, de ﬁ lements, constructing activi-

ties, death and a deity (Malalasekera 1974, vol. II, 611). In the later Indian and Tibetan scholastic

tradition, the most common concept of māra is fourfold ( catvārimāra ): skandha-māra , kleṣa-māra ,

maraṇa-māra , devaputra-māra ; the abhisaṅkhāra-māra apparently included in the skandha-māra.

The Tibetan tradition knows further subdivisions and categories (Clark 1994, 9–14).

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: