The Here and Now of Mara

My spiritual friends asked me to blog a summary of my talk on Mara yesterday at Samadhi Buddhist Meditation Center. In popular Buddhism, people seem more interested in Mara the so-called Deity, even though we oftentimes hear about all the five Maras, Khandha Mara, Kilesa Mara, Abhisankhara Mara, Maccu Mara, and Devaputta Mara.

 In Buddhist spiritual practice, we are not concerned with the EXTERNAL MARA, the Deity, but the rest of the four INTERNAL MARAS. To a Buddhist enthusiastic about awakening, the so-called external Mara is of no concern.

 Khandha (Sanskrit: Skandha) is our self made of a psychophysical combination, or simply the Mind/Mentality (Pali: Nama), and Body Corporeality (Pali: Rupa); as the mind is again made of five components/abilities: vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (karma-creating response to sensory experience), vinnana (consciousness), it becomes five. Our entire self is then Mara-created. Fascinatingly, the power to subdue this Mara nature, which is the Buddha-potential, is within our self.

 Kilesa (Sanskrit: Klesha) are the defilements/mental impurities that impede our liberation. We continue to nourish this Mara with the best available ‘food,’ viz. evil thoughts, evil bodily actions, and evil speech.

 Abhisankhara (Sanskrit: Abhisanskara) is the karmic energy accumulated and deposited within our subliminal mind, or ‘psycho-microchip’ (Pali: Bhavanga-citta). As the karmic energy coexists with the memories within the psycho-microchip, we easily get dogmatized even in spirituality, thereby giving this Mara an ample chance to manipulate us.

 Maccu (Sanskrit: Mrtyu) is death we die one day. Even though death is part of life, people in general are of a dormant fear from death, therefore, remaining frightened by death. We nurture this Mara, too. A momentous awakening into the ‘khanika marana,’ or death of the moment that corresponds to the perpetual change of mind and body, is the way to deal with this Mara.

 Devaputta (Sanskrit: Devaputra) is the so-called external Mara believed to reign the sixth/highest heaven of pleasure, the Paranimmita-Vasavatti. As he lives on the highest plain of sensual please, he is also the Deity of Celestial Pleasure. It is mentioned that he came down with his retinue and struggled to block Siddhartha’s Awakening. As far as his three daughters, Tanha (Desire), Aversion (Arati), Passion (Raga), which are mental tendencies, are concerned, even the Deity Mara could be taken metaphorically.

 As opposed to the internal Maras, the external Mara is the world we are entangled with. To us the world is whatever we see in our average perspective (Pali: dassana).

Buddha, born out of the Mara-oriented world/universe, remains in the world yet untouched by the Mara. People are governed by the Maras, as long as they remain entrapped in illusion. The entire Mara force is an illusion we create through our wrong dassana.

 Yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana, or Perspective of As-It-Is-Ness, is our inborn might to defeat the Maras. Buddha calls it Awakening.

 And Siddhartha did that, so that he became the Buddha, the Awakened One. As he ‘woke up,’ his ‘dream,’/’illusion’ was gone.

 Mara is here and now. So is the Buddha.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

(Picture: Mara and his retinue struggling to defeat the Buddha, who is represented by his seat. 2nd century CE, Amaravati India) 

 

Dhamma and Dharma

Lots of people have told me they are kind of confused by the usage of these two terms, especially in North America, where Dharma, now an English word, is more frequently heard. The confusion is owing to the fact that everybody uses the word Dharma for his/her own religion. Historically and etymologically,  Dharma, a Sanskrit word corresponding to Hinduism/Veda, came to be used in Buddhism as Dhamma in Pali, the kind of Prakrit language the Buddha used in his teachings. Especially in North America, Dharma and Dhamma are used interchangeably as Indic synonyms for the Buddha's Teaching. 

In Hinduism, Dharma necessarily has a theistic notion as opposed to its counterpart, Buddhism that uses the Pali cognate, Dhamma, with a non-theistic notion. There was a suggestion at Middle Way Buddhist Association, Tampa, today that I blog this. 

Whichever the term you use, when used in a Buddhist sense, regard both Dharma and Dhamma in terms of non-theism, so that a possible confusion could be prevented.

Dharma is Sanskrit, and Dhamma is Pali. 

And the Buddha's teaching is ineffable.  

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

Anger that meditates

I know a whole bunch of meditators that are often angry. It's a kind of spiritual disaster, as those who never meditate are much happier and less egoistic. By the way, the latter party wouldn't take pride in their relatively better mentation, whereas meditators wouldn't feel disappointed that they're relatively worse.  Of both parties ANGER is DORMANT, just like many other mental tendencies. 

I know so many a people remaining angry throughout their meditation, as they're unable to cope with the surroundings that is full of different distractions, such as children playing around, people talking, phones ringing, etc. They're angry, since they DON'T know that the very dealing with distraction is the success story. Inner-peace is the goal of meditation, and the path leading to that is hazardous of distractions. 

By the way the distractions are twofold, outer and inner. You anger, which is inner, is the worse one at this point. YOU HAVE BECOME ANGER, and that's why you retaliate  your surroundings. Are you really meditating? You're still doing, but not the way the Buddha has taught, since retaliation is your meditation. 

Ask yourself. 

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

Dharma and Buddhism

We use these terms interchangeably for the same thing, the teaching of Buddha. Yet, there’s a huge difference between the two, and the usage is quite ambiguous. Buddhism isn’t just the Buddha’s teaching, it includes many things that can again be put into two categories, the teaching itself and culture. In other words, it’s Dharma and culture. The latter includes languages, customs, rites and rituals, food, geographically oriented ‘Buddhist’ identity, and many more, as you break it down to different areas of culture.

Therefore, you may find it extremely difficult to separate the Dharma from culture, and it really is, I bet. Naturally, we do a cultural interpretation of the Dharma, which is OK, yet not absolutely. The true understanding of the Dharma is achieved through ‘transcending’ the cultural level. Culture is the ‘basis’ we rely on even in our spiritual practice. Later on, you’ll be able to remain culturally untouched and untouched at the same time, just like the enlightened people do.

 In introducing the Dharma to somebody from a different background, it often happens that the culture is presented.

 The true mission of Dharma is not a transplant of an alien culture onto a foreign culture, but presenting the Dharma in compliance with the local, inherited way of thinking of those who feel alien to the Dharma. Otherwise, they’d feel alienated by the alien Dharma. By the way, the Dharma is not alien but Buddhism in a relative sense.

 It is inevitable that, decades later, the Dharma thus introduced would become part of the local culture, which is the story of different Buddhist traditions. In such a situation, effort must be made for ‘intra-cultural reintroduction of Dharma.’ As an immigrant in America hanging around with different ethnic Buddhist communities and local Buddhist groups, I’ve been told by many Americans that they’re confused by the fact that they oftentimes happen to hear a ‘cultural version of Dharma.' They’re not wrong, even though there’s no cultural version of Dharma but Buddhism. I personally know they must first be given some Dharma blended with their own cultural version yet on the grassroots level only. This is achieved by means of local similes, metaphors, and in light of their own real life situations. Then, as they smoothly continue with meditation practice, the universal Dharma can be taught.

 In the Universal Dharma you never feel threatened culturally.

 The Dharma, which is universal, is seen through meditation as opposed to philosophical speculations and cultural orientations.

 Now, it’s your time to think of the Dharma and Buddhism, even though it’s basically difficult to separate them from one another.

 Don’t worry, I’m just asking you.

Do meditate, which is the best solution, as the outcome is universal. After a meditation sitting, people from different religio-cultural backgrounds would tell how universal they would feel. That’ my experience in this part of the world where people from different backgrounds co-exist acculturated or assimilated, and feel universal within the universal Dharma, thanks to meditation.

By the way, I continue to use the term Buddhism that’s an established term. I find it OK, as long as I don’t mix up the two terms. So far not, nor will I hopefully.

Don’t stick to labels. Dharma is not patented, and free from trademarks and copyright. There is no religion other than peace. Peace is a mental state. The above children are experiencing that.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

(Picture: Children in meditation, Ehipassiko Buddhist Centre, Calgary, Canada)

[Picture by Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye]

Complex, hence complicated

I've been asked this question thousands of times: What will happen to the world, if the entire human population is enlightened, so that there are no people to come back to samsara, or get reborn, the world will be strange place?

This question arises, when the reality of life is understood within its human dimension. It's common sense that, karmically speaking, nobody is able to determine the exact statistics of living organisms in the universe. Based on their karmic qualifications, living beings run through varied life forms, for instance, gods ending up in places of misery, and humans and animal ending up in places of bliss. Buddha has categorized the complexity of life as one of the realities hardest to comprehend within an average human mind. Karma is a vast subject, so vast it'll take me dozens of blogs to explain it. Anyway, there are trillions of living beings to 're-become' in the cycle of birth and death in human form of any other. Don't worry the world won't be devoid of humans, even if a Buddha appears today and enlightens all of them. In fact, no Buddha is able to enlighten everybody at the same time, since not all are equal and matured enough to get enlightenment in terms of karmic complications and level of perfections (Pali: paramita).

Different beings have different lifespan and mental capabilities, which I'd like to talk about some other time on a new topic: mental tendencies.

By the way, what do you think of the samsaric reality of the moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) in the picture?

Life is complex, hence complicated.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

The grounds for the best start (some not-for-children insight)

High school shootings, under-aged rapists, juvenile drug addicts, teenagers as convicted murders - and many more - are the saddest stories of whom we hear everyday. Childhood is pure and is immune from politics that adults are victimized by. Perhaps, adults as parents were abused in their own childhood -a key factor that most probably unconsciously drive them through incessant miseries for life, thereby being unable to take their own children on the correct path. 
When it comes to adults, even religion is politics, whereas children see almost everybody as no different from their parents and siblings they hang around. Childhood is pure to the extent that children are of the best grounds of spirituality, in other worlds, they are Dharma-minded and have the clearest Buddha-potential. 
Whatever the religion parents belong to, or practice, or not religious/spiritual at all, they children must be enriched with spiritual thoughts. Most parents mistake indoctrination, dogmatizing and conversion as the way of making their children spiritual. Most juveniles and young adults that I work with would spell the anti-organized religion mantra, and are they wrong? Absolutely not. Religion in general has a problem with presenting itself to the modern-day children. 
Any child with any religio-ethnic background has the best inner-potential of awakening. Just forget about the so called Absolute Awakening, which is just a theory to whomsoever unable to have a sense of awakening into real-life situations. Focus on common negative human emotions like anger, jealousy, etc. and show your children how to see how different they are from the common positive ones like friendship, being happy in others' achievements as if they themselves have achieved, etc.
It's funny to say that I practice Dharma with children of different backgrounds relatively much more easily than adults.
The child in the picture is very spiritual thanks his parents' guidance at home. Don't just limit your own and and children's spirituality to the place of worship. Every moment is a moment of Dharma. Let no moment escape you and your children, at least let a few moments catch you. Of course, as you catch the moment, the moment can't escape, the moment is more fundamental to you, as you are what you think and feel given any moment.
Baby Siddhartha and Baby Jesus could be the better heroes to children than the Buddha and Jesus we adult see. In my experience I've gain from my Dharma kids, they better see Buddha and Jesus through the latter parties' childhood, and how is that possible? Unlike us adults, the children have no 'spiritual gap' between themselves and Buddha and Jesus. 
This is some not-for-children stuff. You got it, I guess.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

(Picture: Child in Homage to Buddha, Ehipassiko Buddhist Centre, Calgary, Canada)

[Picture by Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye]

Misinterpreting the Buddha

I was like a dash-board monk, and I still am, vibrating on my own spring of confusion while the fast-moving vehicle of life is being driven by the driver of the Nature. By the way, despite my situation as such, people say they enjoy the way I am, just like the one on the left, or the one on your car's dashboard. I'm happy that, despite the said situation of mine, I do manage to maintain some calm, so that, I'm happy on the dashboard. Yet, as an average man, I have to struggle to make sure I don't hit my head on the dashboard. The dashboard is both the grounds of Samsara (cycle of suffering) and of Nirvana (complete emancipation from the cycle of suffering). 

 

It happened to me years ago when I was a 15 year old novice monk that a man in his late sixties, apparently well-versed in religion, philosophy and logic, terrorized me on a crowed bus, Colombo-bound from Nittambuwa, Sri Lanka, by unilaterally challenging me in an argument over a specific problem. And what was that? According to him (and of course, according to great many a people including many Buddhists I've met) no karma, no Nirvana, no good and evil, no virtue, etc., can be out there, since nothing is truly existent. I was in trouble being child, helpless, as nobody on the bus could come to my rescue. (Poor me, as I saw myself the moment it happened, and lucky me, as I later on would see myself). 

I only did just one thing, I told him that I included him and all his logical arguments in the category of 'nothingness,' so that whatever he had been telling me was utterly bogus and surreal. I, now utterly helpless, enjoyed an innocent joy, as everybody laughed at the man. Whether or not it was dharmic to have joy at that point, I certainly did one thing. I made a vow to myself to find out whether what the man had kind of 'proved' was true or not. As I asked my Grand Master, the late His Holiness Wahakula Somananda Nayake Thera, he explained to me in children's language that the 'existence' and 'non-existence of the same thing is the source of the biggest ever problem people have ever got stuck with since the time of the present Buddha Gotama himself. In fact, a reasonable room within the Buddha's teaching has been occupied by his 'verbal answers' to question raised by many from all walks of life in his time, who basically wished a 'verbal solution,' despite the fact there were moments the Buddha responded with absolute silence, and would sometimes tell the answer is 'verbally limited.' And the problem still haunts in those, incapable of seeing that there is no such problem in terms of 'meditative wisdom' as opposed to 'philosophical speculation' or 'book wisdom.' 

 People in general don't still see that there is no problem. With a deep sense of sympathy to them, I must say they are not to blame, as that's how the ordinary minds of ours including that of average mine, are conventionally designed by the Nature. Please, pardon my relatively more difficult language here in comparison with my other writings, since this is the hardest ever problem ever to be comprehended by the  conventional mind.

According to the Anguttara Nikaya, a book of the Pali Canon, those who misinterpret Conventional Truth (Everything-is-existent) as Absolute Truth (Nothing-is-existent), and vise versa are the gravest misinterpreters of Buddha, yet to no insult to Buddha or his teachings or whosoever practicing or are concerned with the Dharma. Anybody is free to misinterpret the Buddha, and it's their freedom and problem. I thought it good to write on this out of metta (loving friendliness) toward whomsoever needing a short answer. 

By the way, let me tell you that since I made a vow to find some answer to the question the man raised on the bus, I thanked him mentally again and again, and I still and will do, for giving me a wonderful insight of investigation. 

While an absolute answer is impossible, as long as we are not awakened into the Truth of 'nothing-is-existent' and 'everything-is-existent,' there is an answer  that we can see, so that, we at least barely get the Buddha's teaching, and so that we kind of automatically properly interpret the Buddha, thereby we are trouble-free, as opposed to him who is trouble-free anyway. 

Sorry but I haven't purposely delayed answering, the above clarification is must-do. So, what's the answer?

Never to worry that there are two identical truths of the Conventional and the Absolute. Things are conventional or absolute based on our 'dassana,' or 'perspective' (to translate in plain language). For instance, An still-average I see my wrist watch as 'absolutely existent,' whereas the Buddha sees it as 'both absolutely existent and non-existent as well.' It depends on the 'way we see.' Another example that might make you a better sense is that a professional medical practitioner with a  deep knowledge in human anatomy would tend to rape his client/patient, whereas an illiterate, 'conventionally unprofessional,'  person with no knowledge in human anatomy whatsoever would see the ultimate meaninglessness of the conventionally meaningfulness of the human body, so that he has less or no attachment to the body (or self in general), thanks to his awakening he has earned not through philosophical/logical arguments and well-written books on the subject but through awareness in life that is generated through 'MEDITATIVE WISDOM.' 

By the way, don't get me wrong that I'm anti-book or anti-logic. We need them so as for us to have 'background wisdom.' I'm split as academic Upananda and meditating Upananda. (Academics, please, pardon me, you're practicing, too).

The moment I talked to His Holiness I still didn't get it, even though he repeatedly told me the undeniable necessity of meditation wisdom in addition to my 'book wisdom.' Later I would and so that be able to say:

"Wow! I can't put into book form the kind of sense of nothingness of the fullness of everything I get in meditation, while a thousand books on the subject  can't still give a satisfactory answer to the question of the twofold truth."

The said quotation of the Buddha from the Anguttara Nikaya is his 'experiential wisdom,' which still is our 'theoretical wisdom,' as long as we transform the latter into the former.

In a world where we can't even see the Conventional the way it is, how can we manage to see the Absolute overnight. Let's not worry, the moment we see the Conventional the way it is, there will be no Absolute to see the way it is, since we would have already seen it at the same time. You might have achieved it, whereas I still have a long way to go.

Most of you are still confused, I bet. Stop reading now, and let's meditate a moment, I don't need to continue to write this any longer either.

May the man of 'friendliness' who gave me wisdom by confusing me on the bus be well, happy and peaceful, wherever he is! If I meet him, I'll get stuck again, this time with no sufficient language to thank him.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

Absence and Presence of Buddha

Vakkali, a Buddhist monk, who lived during the time of Buddha Gotama, followed the Buddha wherever the latter resided, and why was that? Devotionally motivated with the marvel of physical beauty of the Buddha, he thought he always saw the Buddha, as he followed him. Asked by the Buddha why he was doing this, he explained. The Buddha advised him not follow the Buddha, as he wouldn't still see what the Buddha was. Sometime later, he was advised for a second time. Despite the fact that so far twice being advised, Vakkali would continue his practice of 'seeing the Buddha' thereby himself becoming the talk of the town. On a third occasion, tough in words yet with the same great compassion ins heart (Pali: maha karuna) for the benefit of Vakkali, the Buddha asked him to leave immediately and practice the Dharma. Sad and disappointed yet absolutely obedient given the no-choice situation, Vakkali walked away never to return, till he had meditated as per the Buddha's advice. Months passed with no presence of Vakkali in the Buddha's audience. On seeing him, who appeared all of a sudden but apparently wasn't interested in his old practice, other ordinary  monks would kind of tease Vakkali and ask whether he was fed up with seeing the Buddha. As I followed him, I didn't see him, and even though now I don't, I really do see him, said Vakkali. Informed of Vakkali's new behavior, Buddha said to the monks: 'Vakkali no longer needs to follow the Buddha, as he sees him from wherever he is, which he never achieved when he was following the Buddha.' 

In the physical presence of the Buddha, Vakkali still didn't see him. In the absence of the physical Buddha, Vakkali did see him. 

To see the Dharma is to see the Buddha, to see the dependent arising that is the conventionally existent and really non-existent nature of everything, is to see the Dharma. Daily incidences like breaking your cup, loosing your temper, missing the sight of loved ones,cramping your legs, getting stuck on the highway, etc. are avenues to the realm of Buddha. It doesn't matter whether the incidence is negative or positive, it's a matter of transformation.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

Awakening

Are we dreaming, or awakened? Most of us only 'awakened' within the dream. The dream is so long that it's hard in the true sense of the word to see how long the dreaming continues. Buddha, the one who has awakened knows that most of us are yet to awaken ourselves. To most of people the dream is real, and the awakening is a myth. Meditation (Pali: bhavana), or mental elevation gives us higher dimensions of momentous awakening from the dream into the real. It's of no point trying to earn the ultimate awakening (Buddhahood) all at once, since it is none other than that which we earn within a moment. Each moment of awakening into the very being of ourselves and the world is another experiential breakthrough along the path of Buddhahood. Awakening, both momentous and ultimate, is a living experience achieved as living beings, and is not an otherworldly experience. As we close our eyes, as we enter bhavana, we would see our dream world that we live in, and see as real. After each successful session of meditation, we open our eyes, and come back where we started, but with a different perspective (Pali: dassana), so that we say: 'Yeah, now I know.' And how is that possible? Because we know there is the real as opposed to dream.

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

(Picture: Children in meditation, Ehipassiko Buddhist Centre, Calgary, Canada)

[Picture: By Somananda Thero Werapitiye]

Compassion vs. Karma

Nowhere has the Buddha said that all happenings in life are owing to karma, as there are other conditions governing life. Anyway, looking down upon the poor as karmically unqualified is utter abuse of the doctrine of karma. In the eyes of Dharma, the riches have no moral right to say to the poor: 'you deserve misery, as it's karmic.' Instead, they must have the tendency of compassion to help the poor whatever way possible. Seeing compassion as a reality that mustn't be mixed up with the reality of karma, the rich must extend a helping hand to the poor. There are, of course, great many a rich people helping the poor. There are poor people sharing their hardly earned, humble meal with their poverty-stricken fellow human beings. 

This point has to be made, as the there's a popular misconception that the  people of good karmic inheritance must enjoy theirs with no moral obligation whatsoever that they must help the poor. 

I've seen people calling the poor and homeless 'miserable,' so as to kind of intentionally or unintentionally 'justify' the former party's reluctance to help the latter by referring to the poor karma of the latter. Don't judge the karmic suitability of those needing a helping hand, but give them a helping hand whatever way possible. That's an excellent karma you earn. 

It's better to walk away from the poor rather than abusing them in order not to give and to justify the reluctance to help. 

By Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye

(Picture by courtesy of  The Sydney Morning Herald)