[Vitoethiche]

It seems that some recognize that this and other teachings are allegorical, but there are also some who resist the idea rather vehemently. For one who does not embrace superstitions and the like, it is a good idea to steer clear of such folks when possible.

Stuka, thanks for labelling Element as "superstitious" and as "folks to steer clear of"

Batchelor is a very good source, and I very much recommend his books "Buddhism Without Beliefs" and "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist".

But Batchelor asserts the Buddha did not quench all defilement because Batchelor asserts Mara is exclusively "inner" rather than also "outer" temptation. Batchelor denies Buddha attained Nibbana as it is defined in the suttas.

If we accept the supernormal powers reported in the suttas, then Mara was simply an adversary of the arahants; a deity with supernormal powers who opposed the Buddha-Dhamma, particulary the doctrine of anatta.



In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word "mara" are given.

1. Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.

2. Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.

3. Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.

4. Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Wikipedia