Shortcuts
> Pre-Buddhist Roots > War > The Domain of the Asuras > Rebirth as an Asura > Asura Hierarchy > Individual Asuras > Conclusion
The asuras have cemented themselves in folklore and pop culture alike, and for good reason—their fearsome appearance and warlike nature make them enticing subjects for artists and storytellers. As we have seen in our analyses of hellish existence and ghostly existence, the depiction of asuras in the suttas is rooted in pre-Buddhist mythology and much less elaborate than what is found in later Buddhist materials.
Lazybones says:
『I ain't readin' this whole dang page! 』
_(:3 」∠)_
Here are the highlights:
1. The mythology of the asuras is rooted in ancient Indo-Iranian religion.
2. The asuras wage perpetual war against Sakka and the Tāvatimsa devas, but these battles never seem to result in much carnage.
3. The asuras are said to live in the ocean and have a strong association with the sea, but should not be considered aquatic beings.
4. The Buddhist tradition became divided on how, exactly, rebirth as an asura fits into the cosmological framework.
5. Different classes of asura are mentioned in the suttas, though details are sparse.
6. The asura-lords Vepacitti and Rāhu stand out as the most significant individuals among their kind, with several others being identified in the texts - some with vague details, and some with nothing more than brief references to their name.
The word “asura,” as well as the character of these beings, trace all the way back to a common Indo-Iranian source, which manifested in both the Zoroastrian Avesta and the Indo-Aryan Rig Veda. In the former, we find the word “ahura,” which is most commonly used to refer to Ahura Mazda, the god of the Zoroastrians. Originally, however, these two terms were simply epithets afforded to that god, with “ahura” being a title similar to “lord” and “mazda” meaning “wise.” In fact, some Avestan material uses “ahura” to refer to other divinities as well as human kings, generally signifying power, respect, and the command of a martial force.
This meaning is paralleled in the earliest parts of the Vedas, where we find the term “asura” in Sanskrit, likewise applied to various gods and human rulers alike. Critically, it could also be applied to those identified as enemies of the Aryans. This latter sense, over time, became more common, and the usage of the term to describe enemies specifically opposed by the god Indra became especially important. Eventually, the word seems to have taken on a special significance, referring to a unique race that stood in opposition to the gods, having lost its earlier sense as a title broadly applicable to gods and humans.1
This, more or less, is the idea we find in the early Buddhist texts: asuras are a race of militant beings that exist in perpetual conflict with the gods (devas), specifically the “Gods of the 33” (tāvatimsa devas) who are led by the great god Sakka.2 This detail is significant, since the line between Sakka and Indra in the suttas is somewhat ambiguous.3 In fact, to quote Punnadhammo, “the devas of Tāvatimsa are that group which is most clearly derived from the older Indo-Aryan pantheon found in the Vedas.”4 It’s no surprise, then, that most sutta references to the asuras relate to their warfare with Sakka.
Throughout many suttas, we find references to battles between the asuras and the devas, almost always using a stock phrase that begins with the word “bhūtapubbam,” which functions much like the English phrase “once upon a time.” The impression given by these passages paints a picture of a war made up of many minor skirmishes as opposed to a large, decisive battle. Generally, one side would emerge victorious, and the other side would flee to safety.
One sutta (AN 9.39) tells us about two battles which consisted of three such skirmishes each. In the first case, the asuras won, causing the devas to flee north. When the gods realized they were still being pursued, they regrouped to clash once more, only to lose yet again. After being defeated in a third struggle, filled with terror, they retreated to safety in the “devapura,” a citadel/castle of the gods. In the second case, the opposite outcome played out, with the gods emerging victorious in three skirmishes and the asuras fleeing south, ultimately taking shelter in their own “asurapura.” It seems that the devas were incapable of attacking the asurapura, and likewise, the asuras could not harm the devas inside the devapura.
A man is said to have once seen the asuras fleeing from a losing battle in this way (SN 56.41). He had gone to sit by a lotus pond and contemplate the mysteries of the world, when all of a sudden an asura army stormed through, and four divisions of otherworldly troops dove into the stalk of a lotus, disappearing in this way to confuse the devas and hide away in their asurapura. The man stared in disbelief, certain he had gone absolutely mad.
Once, when the devas were fleeing to the north from the victorious asuras, Sakka realized that there were birds residing in the forest through which they were moving. He commanded his heavenly charioteer, Mātali, to turn around so they could avoid harming any of the nests, even if it meant they would be killed by the asuras. Fortuitously, the asuras misunderstood what was happening, assuming that the devas had regrouped and turned around in confidence. Horrified at the thought of another skirmish, they, themselves, turned and fled south to their asurapura (SN 11.6).
One amusing story (SN 11.1) tells of a time when the asuras had attacked the devas, and Sakka commanded the god Suvīra to lead a counterattack. Suvīra, however, simply lazed around, and after having been told three separate times to go and enter the fray, Sakka grew frustrated and scolded him for being lazy.
The suttas allude to the fact that, ultimately, Sakka and the Tāvatimsa devas prevailed over the asuras. The Buddha once described the asuras as having been “conquered by Vajirahattha” (DN 20). That name means “wielder of the vajira” - a mythological mace-like weapon associated with the qualities of diamond and thunder.5 This almost certainly refers to Sakka, and the commentary makes that claim unambiguously. Sakka himself once mentioned taking the “nectar” (ojā) of the asuras after defeating them in battle (DN 21), which Sujato notes is an ancient theme of Indo-European mythology. In another instance (MN 37), Sakka told the monk Mahāmoggallāna about the time he returned from a battle with the asuras “as a conquerer,” whereupon he manifested his heavenly palace named Vejayanto, which means “Conquering.”
As is usual for the suttas, the details surrounding this are vague. Interestingly, the commentarial narrative places this victory at the very beginning of the conflict; the particulars vary between sources, but the general idea is that Sakka and the devas in his company were reborn together in the Tāvatimsa heaven, which was originally inhabited by the asuras themselves! Sakka is said to have had no interest in coexisting with the asuras there - some versions seem to attribute this to their drinking habits, while others take for granted that the devas would simply want to banish the asuras - and so Sakka and the devas cast them out of Tāvatimsa. These narratives, then, paint the conquest of the asuras as a struggle to reclaim their home.6
In any case, we are meant to understand that the war between the devas and the asuras is still ongoing, even if Sakka has already proven to be the winner. A recently-reborn god once told the Buddha that the Tāvatimsa devas had celebrated the fact that, on account of the Buddha’s influence, many people were being reborn in the heavenly realms, while the numbers of the asuras were dwindling (DN 18) - the implication, of course, being that the power dynamics between the two hosts was shifting favorably.
I want to briefly explore a funny implication found in the various allusions to the conflict between the asuras and devas: it’s possible that the war is considerably less violent than one might first assume. I have already mentioned that most discussions of the battles depict tit-for-tat raids which ultimately end in one side fleeing to total safety in their respective fortress (pura). I’m not aware of a single instance in the suttas that describes any participant being killed in these battles. In fact, dying violently seems to be a fate which could not be a kammic possibility for someone with the fortune to be reborn in the Tāvatimsa heaven.
This impression is strengthened by stories where we see Sakka and various high-ranking asuras interacting peacefully. These stories will be discussed below to shed light on those individual asuras; here, let it suffice to say that it is significant that we never see Sakka come to blows with any of these figures. Beyond the canonical texts, the Anguttara Nikāya commentary goes so far as to say explicitly that, in the battles between the devas and asuras, there is never so much as a single cut or drop of blood! Instead, “they fight only like young forest rams,” or “like cow-herd boys,” wacking each other with sticks in hopes of frightening the enemy into submission.7
Details about the domain of the asuras are sparse in the suttas. We have already seen that they have the “asurapura” - their fortress or citadel - and that they may enter it by diving into a lotus pond. Little else is said about their residence, though perhaps the relationship with water is significant.
The Buddha said outright that “the asuras live in the ocean” (samuddam asurāsitā) (DN 20). Other passages link them with the sea as well: an asura lord named Pahārāda told the Buddha that asuras love the ocean, providing eight reasons (AN 8.19)–the specifics aren’t important here, as they mostly serve as parallels for why monks love the Dhamma. It’s of interest, however, that Pahārāda declared that asuras are among “the great beings that reside in the great ocean” (mahāsamuddo mahatam bhūtānam āvāso), alongside several orders of massive sea monsters: the giant fish (timi), the giant-fish-eaters (timingalo), and the giant-fish-eater-eaters (timirapingalo); as well as the nāgās and the gandhabbas.8
The developed mythology presented in the commentaries strengthens the oceanic association, but with some nuance. Above, I mentioned that the commentaries typically depict Tāvatimsa as the original home of the asuras, and in these stories Sakka is said to have cast them out of that heavenly realm, down Mt. Sineru, and into the great ocean at the bottom of that cosmic mountain, where the “asurabhāvana” (asura realm) arose through the mysterious workings of kamma.9
So, even if the asuras reside in the ocean now, it was understood not to be their birthplace, and as such, asuras are never really depicted as oceanic beings. They are usually shown to be much like devas: humanoid, often with multiple limbs and faces, wielding implements of war. Likewise, the commentaries do not describe their present abode as being oceanic in any significant way; it is perhaps best imagined as a magical city that just so happens to exist in the sea. It is sometimes presented as a parallel to the Tāvatimsa abode; for example, it is said to have the “cittapātali tree” as a defining feature, which is explicitly called a “counterpart” of the “pāricchattaka tree” in Tāvatimsa.10 Other commentaries go so far as to record that the two realms are so similar that the asuras did not even realize they were no longer in Tāvatimsa until the cittapātali tree first bloomed, because its flowered blossoms looked different than those of the pāricchattaka tree they had been used to in the heavenly realm.11
When they leave their new domain to climb Mt. Sineru and attack the Tāvatimsa devas, it is said that they must first divide the sea.12 We also find stories of battles occurring on, in, or around the ocean. Sakka is sometimes said to descend to the surface of the ocean when he leads a charge against the asuras, and is depicted as emerging from the ocean when he flees.13 The asuras are said to spitefully destroy the hermitages of seers who live on the shore as they pass by when fleeing into the ocean from a skirmish with the devas, believing that they act as strategists for the gods.14 The asuras themselves are said to have their own little shelters they build on the shores around Mt. Sineru, which they seem to use as pleasure retreats.15
None of these details are found in the suttas, but they don’t present any contradictions either, which is not always the case when comparing the earlier material with its accompanying commentarial work.
A similar gulf in detail is found when we look at the exact nature of rebirth as an asura; it should come as no surprise that the suttas are quite vague. This much is certain: one can be reborn as an asura. One sutta records the Buddha telling Sunakkhatta, one of his attendants, that a certain ascetic was soon to be reborn among “the lowest of the asuras,” the Kālakañjas (DN 24). What is left ambiguous is how existence as an asura fits in the cosmological scheme. The Buddha often spoke of the “five destinations” (pañcagati) (DN 33, for example): hell (niraya); the animal womb (tiracchānayoni), used poetically to refer to existence as any animal; the ghost realm (pettivisaya); humankind (manussā); and the gods (devā). The asuras do not fit neatly into any one of these categories, which presented a dilemma for the early Buddhist community, as evidenced by records of debates over this topic.
For example, let’s look at the Kathāvatthu, a late text in the Pāli Canon that records doctrinal positions considered unorthodox in the Theravāda tradition. The first entry in its eighth book (Kv 8.1) concerns the declaration that rebirth as an asura must be considered as a distinct, sixth “destination” (gati). The text’s commentary attributes this view to two obscure factions—the Andhakas and the Uttarāpathakas, seemingly named after the regions in which they lived—but it would become the default position in most Buddhist traditions.
The Theravādin rebuttal is that, in the suttas, the Buddha only ever explicitly identified the five destinations as such. Later texts simply changed the formula to reference six destinations, with the addition of the “asuravisaya,” the realm of the asuras. Theravādins, instead, used the already-established idea of differing asura classes to divide them between the ghostly realm and the godly realm.
Above, we saw that the Buddha called the “Kālakañjas” the lowest of the asuras. These, according to the Kathāvatthu, must belong to the ghostly realm, being so lowly that they resemble petas, intermarry with them, live like them, and have a similar lifespan. Higher asuras, specified as those among the company of the asura lord Vepacitti (Vepacittiparisā asuras), must be considered like devas.16 This warrants a closer look at how the suttas discuss hierarchy among the asuras.
First, let’s begin with the Kālakañjas. They are only mentioned twice in the suttas, and even then, we see a variant in the nomenclature. In the Buddha’s discussion with Sunakkhatta (DN 24), they are called “the asuras named the Kālakañcikās,” a word which means “black (kāla) sour gruel (kañcika).” This is where it is established that they are the lowest rank of asuras.
They are also referenced in the Mahāsamaya Sutta (DN 20), one of the most important sources of information on the different beings in early Buddhism. This sutta records a time when the Buddha held a great assembly (mahāsamaya) in the forest. Many gods from ten different world-systems manifested there to see the sangha, and word of this spread throughout the cosmos, inspiring many hosts of beings to attend as well. The Buddha, then, introduced the different groups, and some of the individuals in them, to the arahants who were with him. The asuras of our own world-system were among the attendees, and after introducing them as a whole, the Buddha briefly drew attention, specifically, to “the exceedingly dreadful Kālakañcās,” which means “black (kāla) armor (kañca).” Outside of the suttas, more variant names can be found, including the one I have chosen to use here: the Kālakañjas, which Sujato translates as “blue-lotus.”17
This is all we are told about the lowliest of asuras, unless we look beyond the suttas. As we saw in the Kathāvatthu, they were associated with ghosts (petas). Some descriptions of them even seem to be lifted directly from the Petavatthu and its commentary: they are said to be thin and emaciated, with mouths as small as the eye of a needle, racked with hunger and thirst that can never be sated. In one story from the Samyutta Nikāya commentary, some kālakañjas tried to drink from the Ganges River, only to find that the water would boil away before them. They resorted to begging monks for water.18 This story certainly resembles Pv 22, where we see a petī (female ghost) who couldn’t drink from the Ganges because the water would turn to blood, causing her to beg a monk for water.
Again, none of these details are found in the suttas. I think it’s significant that the petas were not among the hosts of beings said to have attended the Great Assembly, yet the Kālakañjas are mentioned by name, clearly belonging to the asuras broadly. I suspect that the association with ghosts is a late innovation that served two purposes: it satisfied curiosity about why the Buddha called them the lowest of the asuras, and it served as a convenient way to establish the Theravādin position that asuras should not be considered as a separate “destination” (gāti) of rebirth, since they could be neatly divided between the already-established destinations of the ghostly realm (petivisaya) and the realm of gods (devaloka).
As obscure as the Kālakañjas are, the other group introduced at the great assembly - the Dānaveghasās - are even more so. Nothing more than their name is given; they are not even mentioned elsewhere, save the commentarial note for this one line, which simply adds that they are archers. Sujato’s translation treats the word as two nouns, which would mean the Buddha instead introduced “the Dānava and the Ghasa” asuras; as far as I’m aware, no other translation renders the line this way. This presents a dilemma: does the text refer to “the Dānaveghasā asuras,” or does it refer to “the Dānava asuras and the Ghasa asuras”?
If Sujato’s translation is accurate, the Dānavas could be a group of asuras found in different “Hindu” texts, from the Rig Veda to the later epics such as the Mahābhārata. The name derives from their mother, Danu, whose name means “rain,” “liquid,” or “river.” In the Rig Veda, her son Vritra - who caused a drought by stealing all of the world’s water - is said to have been slain by the mighty god Indra. Perhaps the aquatic connotation and connection to Indra, who has parallels with the Buddhist Sakka, is significant.
Sujato notes that the word “Ghasa” means “devourer,” and that it appears in non-Buddhist texts (such as the Rāmāyana) as the name of a rakshasa - a type of being which sometimes appears in Pāli texts, where they are called “rakkhasa.” It seems there is little else to be said about these Ghasa asuras.
However, Punnadhammo convincingly argues that we should not connect the word “Dānava” to the asuras in the Pāli texts. He notes that modern works about Buddhism often interpret the word “dānava” as a reference to asuras, in accordance with the Vedic literature, despite the fact that no canonical or commentarial text makes this association. He traces the source of this association within a Buddhist context to a 12th century Sri Lankan thesaurus called the Abhidhānappadīpikā, which was used by Gunapala Malalasekera in his “Dictionary of Pali Proper Names,” a work which many modern Buddhologists and authors have referenced, leading to the confusion.
In fact, beings called ”dānavas” are quite rare in the Pāli texts, and when they are mentioned, it seems unlikely that they should be understood as asuras at all. Punnadhammo points out three Jātaka stories: in two of them (Jāt 436 & 519), the beings in question are depicted as earthly, monstrous things that haunt the wilderness and waylay unsuspecting women. This is not typically how asuras are portrayed. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the most widely-available English translation of Jāt 436 uses the term “asura,” despite the fact that the Pāli terms used in both stories are “dānava” or “dānavarakkhasa.”
The commentary to the third story he references (Jāt 31) strongly suggests that the Buddhists who recorded these stories did not see dānavas as asuras. The story presented there is one we have already discussed: while fleeing from the asuras, Sakka ordered his charioteer to stop and turn around to avoid harming the birds in the forest through which they had been riding. The asuras heard this and assumed that Sakka had regrouped and prepared for a counterstrike—fearing another skirmish, they themselves fled for safety. We are told that Sakka ordered five hosts of beings to stand as guards between the Asura stronghold and the Tāvatimsa heaven; among them were the “Kumbhandas,” which the commentary explains as a type of “dānavarakkhasa.” If the Buddhists from this period saw these beings as asuras, why would they be depicted as serving in Sakka’s defensive line? It is far more likely that they should be understood as entirely unrelated to the asuras within Buddhist cosmology, and that the earlier Vedic context of the dānavas being asuras was either unknown to these Buddhists, or simply considered unimportant.19
Let’s recap briefly before proceeding: the suttas allude to a hierarchy among the asuras, with the Kālakañjas being the lowest. Later texts blur the lines between these beings and ghosts. The only other class mentioned by name are the Dānaveghasās, who must necessarily be of higher status, though nothing else is said about them, save for the commentarial gloss that they are archers. In the Kāthavatthu, we see the Kālakañjas contrasted with Vepacittiparisā asuras - “those among the company of Vepacitti.” The former are likened to ghosts, while the latter are likened to gods. It is unclear whether we are meant to understand these supposedly deva-like asuras as the Dānaveghasās, as a distinct third class, or in some other way entirely. The suttas have nothing particular to say about those beings in Vepacitti’s troop. Vepacitti himself, however, is a prominent figure, so let’s explore the role he plays in the early texts, alongside the other asuras identified by name.
Vepacitti—which Sujato translates as “wise-thinker”—is one of four asuras identified as an “asurinda,” or “asura-lord.” Despite sharing this title with the others, the suttas clearly depict Vepacitti as chief among them. Of eight suttas that feature the term, six feature Vepacitti, including two where another major asura is also identified as a lord. This means there are only two suttas which use the term with no reference to Vepacitti—however, the asura in one of those two texts would later be identified as Vepacitti himself by the commentaries!
Vepacitti is essentially the asura counterpart to Sakka, who is himself called “lord of the gods” (devānam inda). In fact, stories often concern the relationship between the two, which might be more accurately described as a fierce rivalry than a bitter opposition. Here, we should recall how the conflict between the factions of these two is treated as being somewhat theatrical, with little to say about the horrors of war one might expect. The commentaries state plainly a detail that can be teased out of the suttas: Sakka and Vepacitti sometimes hold periods of ceasefire, and in these times they visit one another or travel together.20
One sutta (SN 11.9) records a time they visited a group of holy men in a forest. We are told that Vepacitti rudely strode through the gate of their little hermitage compound, not bothering to remove his boots, take off his sword, or put away his parasol, keeping his left side toward the sages - a gesture which would have been seen as disrespectful. Sakka, on the other hand, observed the proper decorum; he took off his boots, disarmed himself, put away his parasol, and entered the compound through a more humble entrance. Once inside, he approached the sages respectfully, with his palms joined together.
Another (SN 11.23) tells of Sakka visiting a sickly Vepacitti; this is remarkable, because we are told that he went for the express purpose of checking on the asura-lord’s health. Still, we may infer that the visit was not entirely charitable, because when Vepacitti saw Sakka approaching, he called out, “Cure me, lord of the devas!” to which Sakka merely responded, “Vepacitti, teach me the Sambari magic.” We will return to the particulars of this below; for now, we may note the the implications of Vepacitti’s own response: using the word “mārisa,” which is a friendly term that literally means “like myself,” but can be translated as “sir” or “my good fellow,” he explained that he couldn’t divulge the secrets of this magic without first consulting the other asuras. These other asuras are not specified by name, or even title, giving the impression that he would need to field this question to the asuras broadly, as a collective, despite being consistently depicted as the chief among his kind. This, to me, suggests that the asuras are somewhat democratic in their proceedings. The other asuras protested the idea of teaching Sakka this magic, so Vepacitti broke the news to Sakka in verse, calling him a number of respectful epithets, including “Sujampati,” which means “husband of Sujā” - Sujā being a figure we will discuss later.
The reason given for refusing to teach Sakka the Sambari magic was that a “Māyāvī” - a term which simultaneously means “magician” and “fraud” as a noun, or “deceitful” as an adjective - is doomed to fall into hell for one-hundred years, just like an individual named “Sambara.” The verses offer no explanation of who Sambara was, or why he was associated with this magic. Once again, I must delay elaboration on this figure. It seems noteworthy that Vepacitti would be concerned with the possibility of Sakka condemning himself to hell; the commentary claims that the true reason the asuras refused to share the Sambari magic is because they feared it would make Sakka even more powerful, which would shift the balance in his favor when they returned to war.21
Once, when the armies of the devas and the asuras were preparing to engage in battle, Vepacitti approached Sakka and made a proposition: “Lord of devas, let us determine the victor through well-spoken words!” Note that it was Vepacitti who raised the idea of avoiding a battle! The two parties worked together to form a panel of judges, and Vepacitti said “Lord of devas, speak your verse.” Sakka declined, however, saying “Vepacitti, truly, you are the pubbadevā among us - go on and speak your verse, Vepacitti.” Again, Sakka is speaking to Vepacitti quite respectfully, and the usage of the term “pubbadevā” - which means “elder god” - to refer to the asuras is remarkable as well. This lends canonical credence to the post-canonical stories about the asuras existing in the heavenly realms before Sakka and his gods.
Despite his preceding behavior, Vepacitti’s violent tendencies manifested in his verse: he poetically declared that the only effective way to silence a fool is through a wise man’s forceful opposition. The asuras cheered, but the devas were unimpressed. Sakka took his turn to recite a verse declaring that a fool is only stopped by a wise man who can remain calm through mindfulness. The devas were impressed, but asuras kept quiet. Vepacitti’s response suggested that this would only embolden the fool, thinking the wise man a coward, to which Sakka powerfully said that the wise man should be unshaken, regardless of the fool’s thoughts, confident in the knowledge that patience is the highest goal for one who seeks their own well-being. This line is particularly poignant: “Truly, when the mighty (choose to) endure the feeble, this is called sublime patience - the feeble need to be patient always (for they have no other option).” Sakka’s verse continued, being considerably longer than the ones which came before, driving home the impression that he was really in his element and performing impressively. This impression is confirmed when the story tells us that the panel of judges - including the asuras - declared Sakka the winner, since his words would not lead to violence (SN 11.5).
Another sutta (SN 11.4), immediately preceding that one in the canonical collection, records a strikingly similar story. Once again, the asuras and the devas were positioned for battle, but this time, they were not so eager to avoid conflict. Vepacitti told the asura warriors that, if the devas should fall, they were to capture Sakka, bind him by the neck and limbs, and bring him into their fortress (the asurapura). Likewise, Sakka told the devas that they should do the same to Vepacitti, and bring him into the Sudhamma Sabhā - the “hall of justice” where the gods held regular meetings. The asuras were defeated, and the devas did as Sakka ordered. We are told that Vepacitti was kept in the assembly hall for some period of time, and as Sakka went about his business, Vepacitti would relentlessly harass him. Sakka simply ignored him. Eventually, Sakka’s charioteer Mātali had enough of this, and confronted Sakka in the form of a poetic verse: “Is it fear or weakness that makes you tolerate this brutish speech in Vepacitti’s presence?” Sakka dismissed this criticism, uttering “I am not fearful, nor feeble; I am patient with Vepacitti. Why would one as wise as me bicker with a fool?” The two exchanged verses like this, and the lines that proceed are exact parallels to those found in the sutta where Vepacitti and Sakka compete before the panel of judges. Amusingly, the sutta never returns to the fate of Vepacitti, so we are left to wonder how long he sat there bound in the assembly hall, impotently ranting and raving.
In another story (SN 11.7), we are told of a time when Sakka was spending time in seclusion, ruminating on the virtue of non-transgression, even against one’s sworn enemy. Vepacitti detected this thought in the lord of the devas, and took the opportunity to approach him. Sakka saw the asura drawing near and said “Stop, Vepacitti—you’ve been discovered!” The commentary adds the detail that this made Vepacitti seize, as if he had been bound by his neck and limbs. [Bodhi, SN vol 1] Vepacitti pled for him to keep in mind the topic on which he had just been reflecting, and Sakka responded, “First, Vepacitti, swear that you will do me no wrong.” The asura lord responded in verse, once again using Sakka’s epithet “Sujampati” to address him, declaring that “whatever harm befalls a liar, or a slanderer of the noble ones, or a traitor to a friend, or the ungrateful—that same harm befalls the one who wrongs you, husband of Suja!”
The theme of bonded captivity appears in one last sutta featuring the feuding lords (SN 35.248). The Buddha recounted another time Vepacitti was defeated, bound, and brought to the Suddhama Sabhā before Sakka. This time, something interesting happened: whenever Vepacitti would reflect on the goodness of the devas, and how the asuras fall short of that goodness, he would suddenly become freed! He was able to go about that heavenly realm, enjoying the subtle sense-pleasures. Sometimes, however, he would think, “No, the asuras are greater than the devas - I must return to our fortress,” at which point he would immediately become bound once more, incapable of experiencing the heavenly pleasures around him.
Testament to Vepacitti’s importance in the Buddhist asura mythology is the fact that an obscure asura-lord, Sambara, became assimilated into his identity. Sambara the asura only appears in one sutta, though a sorcerer also named Sambara was mentioned by Vepacitti in the story of Sakka requesting to learn the Sambari spell. Whether or not these passages are referring to one individual, or two separate beings who happened to share the same name - something which is quite common in the suttas - is impossible to determine from the canonical material alone.
In the one sutta that features Sambara the asura-lord (SN 11.10), we are told of a group of sages who had built leaf huts along the shore of a beach. Seeing that the asuras and the devas were preparing for battle, they figured they would be in danger, and since the unprincipled asuras would be the ones to cause trouble, they decided to visit the asura-lord Sambara to ask him to promise safety. They immediately manifested before him and made their request in poetic verse. Sambara harshly declined, likewise in verse, saying “I’ll give no safety to the sages, hated devotees of Sakka; you ask me for safety, but I’ll only offer harm.” The sages then cursed him, condemning him to endless harm himself, before disappearing once more and manifesting back on the shore. That night, Sambara was afflicted with three bouts of terror.
As the commentarial tradition developed, the detail of Sambara being cursed by the sages became inflated as an origin story for Vepacitti’s identity as a madness-addled asura-lord; in this context, his name was interpreted as deriving from “cittam vepati,” which means “trembling mind.” The commentary ties these stories together by claiming that the illness which afflicted Vepacitti, inspiring Sakka’s visitation, was, in fact, the curse placed on him by the sages.22 So, if we take the commentarial gloss seriously, we have an asura-lord, once named Sambara, who was cursed with madness, leading to his new identity as Vepacitti, the one with a “trembling mind.” Vepacitti refused to teach Sakka the “Sambari Magic” and justified his refusal by alluding to a sorcerer named Sambara - merely identified by the commentator as an “asura-lord,” presumably the very same asura-lord Sambara whom we are now asked to accept is Vepacitti himself - who had been doomed to a century in hell.
By the time of the subcommentaries - commentaries to the commentaries - the obviously convoluted nature of this explanation must have been seen as a dilemma, because the subcommentator clarifies that Sambara was the former leader of the asuras, before Vepacitti, the first who practiced the magic of the asuras.23 All of this seems less likely, to me, than the most simple explanation: Sambara is simply an obscure figure who was not well-recorded in the suttas, distinct from the more well-documented Vepacitti.
Despite Vepacitti’s primacy in the suttas, I would argue another asura-lord emerged as the most culturally significant, due in no small part to his role in Indian astrology: Rāhu. There was even a form of torture called “Rāhumukha” (Rāhu’s Mouth), which apparently involved prying open the victim’s mouth and lighting a fire inside with oil and a wick24 - an allusion to his celestial troublemaking, which will be discussed below.
As the Buddha introduced the asuras during the Great Assembly, he referred to “the august Rāhu” (Rāhubhadda). It’s striking that the Buddha would use this honorific term, bhadda, in referring to the asura-lord, but perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising: the commentarial tradition explicitly identifies Rāhu as a disciple of the Buddha! We are told that he had long considered paying the Buddha a visit, but he was of such a massive size that he doubted he would even be able to see the Blessed One. Eventually, he decided to try anyway, and the Buddha used his mental powers to make his own body, lying low on a restbed, appear so massive that Rāhu had to look upwards towards the sky to see the Buddha’s face. This so impressed the asura-lord that he professed himself a follower from that day forward.25
The canonical texts don’t explicitly identify Rāhu as a devotee of the Buddha, but it isn’t a particularly egregious detail, and it could help explain why the Buddha spoke so respectfully of him. The canon does explicitly speak of Rāhu’s exceptional size, however: in fact, he is identified as the largest being in the cosmos (AN 4.15). His size is such that he is associated with both the oceans and the heavens. As we have already discussed, his connection to the seas is shared with the asuras broadly. He is identified as one of the causes of drought, because he has an affinity for catching rainwater in his hands and pouring it into the sea (AN 5.197). A commentarial text claims that he sometimes stands in the sea, considers how it only comes to his knees, and feels puzzled as to why so many people discuss the depth of the ocean, since it seems so shallow to him.26
Unique to Rāhu is his nature as a celestial figure. The asura-lord is said to be the cause of both lunar and solar eclipses; two suttas tell of times when Rāhu seized the moon (SN 2.9) and the sun (SN 2.10) respectively. In both cases, the texts relate that Sūriya (the sun god) and Candima (the moon god) both called out to the Buddha with a short song of devotion to request his aid. The Buddha heard them, and spoke to Rāhu with his own verses, declaring that those gods had taken refuge in him, and since Buddhas have compassion for the world, he was demanding their release.27 In both instances, Rāhu released his captive and ran fearfully to see Vepacitti, to whom he explained that if he had not done as the Buddha said, his head would have split into seven pieces. These verses of these stories became important protection chants that are still recited today.
The commentary punches up the mythology of these eclipses by explaining that the sun and the moon are actually “vimānas,” or celestial mansions capable of flying about through space, inhabited by gods - presumably, companions of Sūriya (in the case of the sun) and Candima (in the case of the moon). What inspires Rāhu to seize these celestial bodies is, apparently, jealousy of their shining brilliance. Driven by this envy, the asura-lord is said to stand in the paths of their orbits, sometimes swallowing them, sometimes covering them with his hands. The gods inside become terrified and cry out. He is incapable of doing any real harm, however, because the movement of those vimānas is a mechanism of kamma, over which Rāhu is ultimately powerless. He must move along their trajectory until eventually releasing them, lest his head tear apart.28
There are two names found in the suttas that may or may not be aliases of Rāhu. At the Great Assembly, the Buddha said that “the august Rāhu” had been informed of the event by an army of “one-hundred of Bali’s sons, all named Veroca.” There is nothing more to be said of this Bali, but the commentary adds two notes about this Veroca: first, that Veroca is merely another name for Rāhu, and that he is the uncle of the one-hundred sons, who are named after him.29 This becomes more complicated when we find one lone story about an asura-lord named Verocana (SN 11.8). There, we are told that he once went with Sakka to visit the Buddha, with each standing at either side of the door frame where the Blessed One was staying. Verocana spontaneously recited a verse about the importance of exerting effort, practicing patience, and achieving one’s goals, with the declaration “this is the word of Verocana!” Most authors assume that this Verocana is the same as the Veroca mentioned by the Buddha at the Great Assembly, but the commentary does not draw this connection; in fact, the commentary does not address Verocana’s identity at all.30
This leaves us with the well-established Rāhu, and two obscure names tenuously linked to him: Veroca, associated with him by the commentary, and Verocana, associated with him on the even more tenuous observation that “Verocana” sounds a lot like “Veroca.”
There is one last figure identified as an asura-lord: Pahārāda. Aside from his attendance at the Great Assembly, he had previously spoken with the Buddha about the eight reasons asuras love the ocean (AN 8:19), as mentioned above. The commentary claims that this was his first meeting with the Blessed One, following twelve long years of procrastination from the day the Buddha attained enlightenment.31
Of the asuras who do not carry the title of “lord,” the most significant must be Sujā, though most of what can be said about her is less to do with her nature as an asura maiden (asurakaññā), and more to do with the fact that she is wed to Sakka. There is only one canonical depiction of her beyond passing references to Sakka being “Sujā’s husband” (Sujampati). In that story (Ud 3.7), the Venerable Mahākassapa had recently emerged from a week of intense meditation alone in a cave. Five-hundred gods all sought to make offerings to the great monk, but he refused all of them, presumably because he would have preferred to make a more humble round of almsbegging among the people in the nearby capital. Sakka was determined to put food in Mahākassapa’s bowl, however, so he disguised himself as a weaver, while his wife Sujā helped him operate the loom. They pretended to be human householders so that Mahākassapa would stop at their residence, allowing him to make a meritorious offering to the monk. This story is preserved outside the primary body of the Nikāyas, and even there, her role is limited to “Sakka’s wife.”
The commentators, of course, endeavored to fill in the blanks, and in the post-canonical material we find an elaborate backstory connecting Sakka and Sujā in past lifetimes. Before he was born as the lord of the devas, Sakka was a wealthy man named Magha, and Sujā was the most beloved of his four wives. He oversaw the building of projects to be donated for charity, and three of his wives helped him in his efforts, but Sujā didn’t bother participating. For their meritorious deeds, the other three were reborn in Tāvatimsa with Magha’s new incarnation as Sakka; having neglected to accure her own merit, Sujā was reborn as a crane. When Sakka learned the fate of his former love, he paid a visit to the forest where she lived to retrieve her and bring her back to his heavenly abode. He advised her that she, too, could find her way here in the future, if only she accrued merit through observing the five ethical precepts of Buddhism.
One day, he decided to test her. He took the form of a fish and lay perfectly still. Seeing the fish, and presuming it was dead, she went to eat it—before she could swallow it, however, the fish began to wiggle. Knowing that eating the fish would mean violating the first precept - to abstain from killing - she spit it back out. Sakka revealed himself and praised her for keeping her commitment. In her next lifetime, she was reborn as the daughter of a potter, and again Sakka kept a watchful eye on her to ensure she was staying true to the precepts. Finally, she was reborn in the form we know now: Sujā, the asura-maiden. Here, we find the added detail that she was actually the daughter of Vepacitti himself, adding an extra layer of drama to the rivalry between these lords of the devas and the asuras. Despite being born among the asuras, generally an unfortunate fate in the Buddhist framework, the previous merit she built keeping the precepts manifested as stunning beauty in her new form.
Vepacitti told her that she was free to marry any asura she fancied, and organized an assembly for her to take her pick. Sakka infiltrated the gathering, disguised as an old asura, and their eyes met, their kammic bonds from past lifetimes sparked a fire in her heart, and she chose him without hesitation. As the crowd erupted in protest, Sakka took her hand, dispelled his glamour, and shouted “It’s me, Sakka!” The heavenly charioteer Mātali swooped down they made their escape. The commentary claims that this was when Sakka and Mātali stopped in the forest to refrain from harming the birds living there, a story from the suttas we have already discussed. When they arrived in Tāvatimsa, Sakka declared Sujā as the highest of his many maidens. Reunited with her love after lifetimes apart, she had one request: “I have no one here but you—all I ask is that you take me with you wherever you go.” Sakka promised her that he would do so.32
Before concluding, we should briefly touch on a few other figures that find themselves named in reference to the asuras, even if there is little to be said about them as individuals. I have already drawn attention to “Bali,” mentioned by the Buddha at the Great Assembly, who had one-hundred sons named “Veroca.” There is also “Sucitti,” whose name Sujato translates as “good thinker.” He was mentioned in the same line as Vepacitti, which, in addition to the similarity of their names, might suggest some sort of connection between the two which has been lost to time.
Finally, we have “Namuci,” who was said to have come to the Great Assembly with Pahārāda. This is an odd detail; Namuci means “not letting go,” and is generally a name applied to Māra33, the ever-antagonistic tempter who seeks to keep beings trapped in the cycle of birth and death. This doesn’t make sense, because there’s no reason for Pahārāda to be keeping company with Māra the Wicked One, and the text itself tells us Māra made his appearance at the assembly shortly afterwards, looking to cause trouble. The commentary claims that Namuci - who supposedly should be understood as Māra - was brought along with the asuras against his will.
The asuras hold a strange place in early Buddhist mythology. They are well-represented in the suttas, but much has been obscured by time; most of what can be said about them is sourced from later texts. They are clearly discussed as lowly beings, despite being incredibly powerful. They are depicted as vicious, terrifying humanoids, but most stories involving asuras do not involve any exceptional degree of violence or wrongdoing. The commentaries even go so far as to say that their warfaring is bloodless, and they are depicted in canonical and commentarial texts alike as being interested in the Buddha's teaching. In any case, they are fascinating figures, and all across the world, their appearances in folklore, art, and pop culture suggest that many other people feel likewise.
Notes
[1] Hale
[2] I wanted to avoid going on a tangent here, but if you’re curious, the significance of the number “33” is likely another piece of Vedic influence. The commentarial tradition would explain the Tāvatimsa heaven’s name as a reference to the number of men who were first reborn as gods in Sakka’s company, but the name is never explained in the suttas. In any case, one shouldn’t take the name to imply that there are only 33 gods in the Tāvatimsa heaven.
[3] I will save a further exploration of this topic for an essay on the Tāvatimsa heaven; it would be quite a diversion here.
[4] Punnadhammo
[5] The vajira, known in Sanskrit as “vajra,” is not unknown in the suttas, though it would become much more important in Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions - the latter, obviously, being named after the vajra!
[6] Punnadhammo
[7] AN-a 9:39, cited by Punnadhammo
[8] This reference to the gandhabbas residing in the great ocean is odd, because they’re usually depicted as residing among the devas in the heavenly realms; I have no explanation for this.
[9] Again, details vary from one source to the next, but this is a pretty consistent idea in the stories. Here, I am relying on the Sutta Nipāta commentary, cited by both Bodhi and Punnadhammo, as well as the Dhammapada commentary, cited by Punnadhammo.
[10] Sutta Nipāta comy, trans. by Bodhi
[11] MN-a 37 & SN-a 11:1, cited by Punnadhammo
[12] SN-a 11:1, cited by Punnadhammo
[13] Jātaka 31, cited by Punnadhammo
[14] SN commentary, cited by Bodhi
[15] Ud-a 5:5, cited by Punnadhammo
[16] Aung & R.D.
[17] I chose this one because it seems to be more common in referential material than the two terms found in the suttas.
[18] The descriptions come from DN-a 24, while the story comes from SN-a 22:79, both cited by Punnadhammo; a detail I didn’t reproduce from his citations is that they are said to have eyes that poke out of their heads like a crab’s, and that their tiny mouth is on top of their head; because of this, when they search for food, they walk around hunched over with their heads down. These specific details don’t resemble any descriptions of petas that I’m aware of.
[19] the information from the above three paragraphs, of course, comes from Punnadhammo’s book
[20] SN-a 11:19, cited by Punnadhammo
[21] Bodhi, SN vol 1
[22] ibid
[23] ibid
[24] This torture is mentioned in several suttas, such as AN 2.1, AN 4.121, MN 13, MN 14, and MN 129, as well as some later texts. The explanation comes from the MN commentary, cited by Sujato in the sidenotes for MN 13.
[25] DN-a 4 & MN-a 95, cited by Punnadhammo
[26] DN-a 15, cited by Punnadhammo
[27] These texts are mostly identical, but interestingly, the Buddha’s verse regarding Sūriya is longer, featuring a few extra lines extolling the worthiness of the sun. He even calls the sun “my child” (pajam mamam). This is likely related to the Buddha’s traditional association with solar motifs, such as being called “kinsman of the sun.”
[28] Bodhi, SN vol 1
[29] DN-a 20, cited by Piya Tan
[30] Bodhi, SN vol 1
[31] AN-a 8:19, cited by Punnadhammo
[32] Jāt 31, Dhp 2.7, paraphrased quite liberally from Punnadhammo
[33] Piya Tan
Bibliography
[1] Aung, Shwe Zan & Caroline Rhys Davids : Points of Controversy
[2] Bodhi (Bhikkhu) : The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikāya (Volume 1)
[3] Bodhi (Bhikkhu) : “The Suttanipata: An Ancient Collection of the Buddha's Discourses Together with Its Commentaries”
[4] Hale, Wash Edward : Asura in Early Vedic Religion
[5] Punnadhammo (Mahāthero) : “The Buddhist Cosmos: A Comprehensive Survey of the Early Buddhist Worldview according to the Theravada and Sarvastivada sources”
[6] Tan, Piya : Sutta Discovery 54.4 - Mahāsamaya Sutta