I recall reading the Buddhist scriptures say those who revile Noble Ones are reborn in hell. Does this also apply to an unenlightened (puthujjana) monk that reviles a Noble Layperson?

I read the following on the internet: > The principle of dependent origination is held to be the law of > conventional reality - as such it is a generalized law. What words of the Buddha are there to support or, otherwise, refute this claim?

There is incident where Mara is trying to get to Buddha even after he became enlightened. Finally Mara win him over by his death. With that knowledge is it correct to assume he had hunger feeling and sexual feelings too? **From [Parinibbana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html)** > 42. There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 43. Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > 44. I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men. > 45. And again today, Ananda, at the Capala shrine, Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples of the Blessed One — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding in the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; and when adverse opinions arise, they are now able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma. > And now, O Lord, this holy life taught by the Blessed One has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular and widespread, and it is well proclaimed among gods and men. Therefore, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord. > 46. And then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away. > 47. And in this way, Ananda, today at the Capala shrine the Tathagata has renounced his will to live on.

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

Everyone born in this world is bound to suffer. Mara tempted Buddha so many times to abandon his quest which he did not. Yet Mara herself never suffered due to her own Karma or due to her belief system. Mara is alive even today. My question is why not Mara, the tempter, suffers or suffered due to her belief system and actions ?

I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge': > In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must > be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not > something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures > in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental > component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature, > of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal > institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women, > yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women > from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address > this deeply irrational male anxiety. > >[On the gandhabba and male anxiety](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-gandhabba-and-male-anxiety/30928) In Early Buddhism: 1. Is marriage a patriarchal institution? 2. Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women? 3. Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father? Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.

Mara is not considered a positive entity in Buddhism. Is ‘Wasawaththi Mara’ a god or a demon? I heard he is one of the powerful gods. Is that true?

I am not asking for an explanation on the whole "What is a Mara?" question. What i'm asking about is the being mentioned in Buddhism who has the command over all normal beings, the one who came personally to challenge,frighten lord Buddha. Is there an explanation to why or how a person become's a "Mara"?

In relation to the question: "*Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?*", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet: > A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda, > > and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato; > > and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ, > > as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato. > > sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu, > > they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā; > > Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya, > > they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo; Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above: 1. What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta? 2. Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: '*there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation*'? 3. How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "*Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happines*s"? 4. Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

I read the following on the internet: > If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between > "staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to > accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly. From the Pali suttas, the word "**anupassi**" is translated as follows: > On that occasion the monk remains **focused** on the body in & of > itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. Thanissaro > > on that occasion a bhikkhu abides **contemplating** the body as a body, > ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and > grief for the world. Bodhi > > That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by **observing** an > aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and > aversion for the world. Sujato > > a monk lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, > covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera > > a bhikkhu lives **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this > world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera > > a monk fares along **contemplating** the body in the body, ardent, > clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the > covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner > > that bhikkhu is considered one who lives **constantly contemplating** body > in bodies, strives to burn up defile­ments, comprehends readily, and > is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the > world... Buddhadasa > > in regard to the body a monk abides **contemplating** the body, diligent, > clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in > regard to the world. Analayo > > **Contemplates** the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati, > eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world... > Payutto > > These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of > these feeling is vedananupassana, **contemplation** of feeling... > Mahasi Sayadaw It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused". Questions: 1. Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc? 2. Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why? 3. Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why? 4. Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Sometime i read that the current mara is a bodhisatta. It seems hard to believe a bodhisatta can be reborn as mara, who oftens damage buddhism. There are two types of bodhisatta, the comfirmed one by a Buddha which will surely become a Buddha, and the not comfirmed yet, maybe mara is the later who can still return to normal being. So, can a bodhisatta, comfirmed or not, reborn as mara?

I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world. Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable? Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

According to the historical story before the day of enlightenment, Mara apparently lured the Buddha with various worldy pleasures. Now, I am not arguing whether Mara really existed or is just Buddha's mind (which would be rather my interpretation). But The Buddha should at that time be a non-returner and he must have abandoned the fetter of sensuous desires. He should've chilled in the 4th Jhana not giving a damn! So my question is: Why was it a struggle for the Buddha if the conditioned fetter of sensuous desire was already uprooted as an anagami?

Does the concept of "Mara Devaputta" (The being called Mara) exist in all schools of Buddhism? What is mentioned about that concept?

In day to day interaction, people treat me as if I exist. They say "'Dheeraj' would you like to see a movie?" They say "'Dheeraj' you are married." They say, "Would you like to eat spicy food or non spicy food?" Socially I am acceptable as an individual called 'Dheeraj'. If society is not collectively wrong in their view, then I exist. If society is collectively wrong about me, then myself is an error, illusion or dream, not just for me but for the entire society... Therefore if there is an escape for 'Dheeraj' from Self then it necessarily means that 'Dheeraj' has to escape from the society which believes that 'Dheeraj' exists. From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self. So my question is: is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

Is this explained in the Pali Canon? >Then the Blessed One went with a large number of monks to the Black Rock on the slope of Isigili. From afar he saw Ven. Vakkali lying dead on a couch. Now at that time a smokiness, a darkness was moving to the east, moving to the west, moving to the north, the south, above, below, moving to the intermediate directions. The Blessed One said, “Monks, do you see that smokiness, that darkness …?” “Yes, Lord.” “That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: “Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?” But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound.”— SN 22:87

The term "non-duality" oft appears in Buddhist English language literature, both contemporary and in translation. e.g. it is sometimes claimed to be the cornerstone of Yogacara philosophy, and its assertion of "mind only", that no part of us exists independently of consciousness, but nevertheless it does tend to have some existence. Obviously the term nirvana means buddhist liberation, that point at which the sage or saint (both words appear in the English language literature) has put out the suffering of samsaric existence, be that its elimination or a realisation that it is, in someway, already so extinct. Mara is the personification of skillessness, a character that deceives e.g. the aspirant away from the holy life, and as such represents (in a sentient being) let's suppose something *like* the opposite of skillful means. I thought that nonduality *often* (if not always) means that opposing terms (good and evil, or illusion and reality) depend upon each other, by convention at least. So, whether or not the last paragraph is correct, does the above not suggest that nirvana is mara?

I heard a Dhamma talk wherein a monk said that Mara blamed the Buddha being lazy cause he laid down and the Buddha replied something like "I am laying down for the benefit of all sentient beings". Can someone explain the logic behind his answer and expand on this issue? Is there a practice wherein you gain a mind set to take action for your own good while thinking you are doing every action? ie. "for the benefit of all sentient beings"

At the Buddha's enlightenment, he pointed to the earth or touched the earth, meaning the earth (or world) was adequate witness to his spiritual accomplishment or new status, or, perhaps the only witness that would be acceptable to Mara. Mara accepted the witness. I do not understand the principle or truth of this event. Earth or the world seems to be personified in some way, or endowed with a capacity to accept or reject a plea for witnessing. Explanations and clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Thx.

Did the Buddha ever say anything about monastics finding "loopholes" in the rules? A loophole would be something like: Showering when bathing is not allowed or living in a building when the opposite sex lives in the building also but as long as the monastic is outside the building for a certain period of time every day the monastic can not be said to be living there. Also what are some of these possible loopholes?