SuttaCentral
The yakshas (यक्ष Sanskrit: yakṣa; Pali: yakkha ) are a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, but sometimes mischievous or capricious, connected with water, fertility, trees, the forest, treasure and wilderness.
From wiki.
And we can read in the suttas that one even hit Sāriputta in the head
The Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī Sūtra, a text that dates back to fourth century or earlier (translated from the Sanskrit by Kumarajiva), gives a large list of yakshas that reside in the classical cities of ancient India[9] who are invoked to seek the protection of the BuddhaDharma:
"The deity Krakucchanda resides in Pataliputra.
Aparajita resides in Sthuno.
The great yaksha Bhadra resides in Saila.
The great deity Manava resides in Uttara.
The great sage Vajrapani though lives in Rajagrha
Often dwells in Mount Grdhrakuta.
The deity Garuda resides in the Vipula mountain.
Citragupta resides in Citemukha.
The yaksha Vakula resides in Rajagrha.
…
The yaksha king Mahagiri resides in Girinagara.
The yaksha Vasava resides in Vaidisa.
The yaksha Karttikeya resides in Rohitaka.
This yaksha Kumara is renowned in the great city.
…
Vaisravana who resides in the city Alakavati,
Located along the jewelled stairway of the Buddha’s descent,
Is surrounded by billions of gods and goddesses.
Such yakshas command huge and powerful contingents of troops
To subjugate adversaries and enemies,
Conquering all.
They are famous throughout all directions.
Imbued with great dignity and virtue,
They come to aid
In the battles between the heavens and asuras.These deities of virtues and great yaksha generals are located everywhere in Jambudvipa. They uphold and protect the Buddhadharma, generating compassion."
[10]
From wiki
And I am finding a lot more referring to Yakkhas in the obviously Sri Lankan chinese translated Commentary.
Read good. I am taking screenshots of each moment I encounter about gods etc. I am not yet convinced Buddhism used to be like we know
I am interested in knowing what is mentioned in commentaries and vinaya that are probably before the suttas was written down. Also I am interested to know how many they are mentioned in the oldest suttas. Suttanipata etc. Which even I have noticed some probably added later in same ending as The later suttas meaning nikayas
Why is it that this Lakshmi deities are available at Buddhist stupas? @brooks
Sri-Lakshmi is also associated with the yaksha god Kubera-the possessor and conferrer of wealth. Sri’s relationship with Kubera is significant in so far each of them is preeminently associated with prosperity and wealth. Wherever wealth and abundance are, one or the deity, and in most cases both, is certain to be found. Further, Sri’s association with Kubera also accentuates her identity with the mystical powers of growth and fertility as yakshas often play the part of fertility symbols in Indian art and generally are associated iconographically with vegetation and growth. Hence the association of Sri-Laxmi, the goddess who embodies the potent power of growth, yakshas is natural; for she involves and reveals herself in the irrepressible fecundity of plant-life.
For more info and pictures at stupas
Does God(s) Exist?
imo, some people are very powerful that they create 'G’od and gods, to achieve what they cannot do on their own. On the other end of the spectrum, some others are even more powerful that they obliterate ‘I’.
Does it Matter?
Yes, for some.
I have seen some God Believers happened to have fallen in love with the results of meditation techniques of certain very prestigious Buddhist-ish lineages, seemingly becoming quite skillful with those practices, and still, somehow managed to innocently expound something like "God is Nibbana is Bare consciousness is the Eternal Citta is … blah blah … ".
Another example would be something in the line of: "Buddhist monks don’t even know what they are preaching about, regarding Anatta. They just don’t know anything about the existence of the ‘Soul’ " — said by a late president of Pāli Text Society, the great Caroline Ryes Davids of many Buddhist Reference Books, in her later life, imo.
Interesting. Do you have a source I can check out. I’d like to learn more about her view on this topic. Thanks!
My pleasure.
I hope some discussions around this link may be related --> SC Next: Introduction to Abhidhamma
As for the source regarding her view on soul, I read that in some materials in Burmese concerning biography of Ledi Sayadaw who made some back and forth correspondence with Miss Ryes Davids, most probably during her abhidhamma related works. That info may well be in English somewhere.
Just a little qoute that made me remember about this post.
It’s from the supposed first Chinese buddhist text. It’s kinda parralel with the Householder guidance Buddha gave in Theravada sutta.
From THE SUTRA OF FORTY-TWO SECTIONS
To worship heaven, earth, spirits, and gods is not as worth-while as being filial to one’s own parents, for parents are most divine.”
Here the Chinese had most divine for where in suttas it’s said they are as Brahma.
Would be interesting to see what Chinese word they actually used.
I agree with you. I think the Dhamma states that gods/dieties/etc. do actually exist in reality and not otherwise.
I think it matters in the same way these questions do:
Because animals, humans, and gods are all beings that are looking for happiness.
The gods are said to be living a happier life overall than humans and animals are…so it is important and relevant to claims about whether the human beings have the most pleasurable and happy life - the answer to which is no, the divine beings tend to have more pleasurable and happier lives than humans do.
All of this seems (indirectly or directly) relevant to the topic of happiness, which seems to be the goal of Buddhism.
Nice reply. I like that mentality. Where it’s about happiness. Your right. It seems Buddha talked about gods in heaven. They where called gods as a high rank in happiness. Like all are actually being still in samsara. But they are ranked in names according to the level of happiness. But at the end it’s just that. Beings in high to low happiness. The highest being in easier situation and the lowest being in a difficult situation. But seeing them special. Is like seeing yourself in the wrong view. As inferior. And they are superior. We have to overcome seeing this way. That’s why Buddha taught that the same the gods has inside themselves(faith etc) we have also. Meaning to remove the mentality that they are much different than us. As to remove the tradition that they are something special and superior to us.
Nice! One of the countless benefits I have enjoyed from taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha is a much improved family life that flows over into every other part of my life. One of my parents is sometimes difficult to get along with, and I had some resentment toward them. However, after I understood and followed the Buddha’s teachings to pay respect to and appreciate my parents regardless of that fact, my life has greatly improved. My whole family’s life has improved, too.
There are numerous named arahants in the EBTs. Who of them has interactions with deities? In SN 6.5 it’s Moggallāna, Kassapa, Kappina, and Anuruddha.
There are several other suttas with Moggallāna (e.g. MN 37, MN 50) and Anuruddha who famously had supernatural powers.
Which other examples of named arahants do you find who interact with deities (incl. Mara and Brahmas)?
There is one thing to consider, it seems when nikayas was written down things got added to suttas.
Like Bhikkhu Bodhi explain one here. About Dhaniya Sutta.
In the fourth part, 33–34 , Māra takes over the role of challenger and praises “acquisitions” ( upadhi ) here children and cattle as a source of joy. The Buddha responds by articulating the viewpoint of the renunciant, who sees acquisitions as a cause of sorrow. This exchange appears to be an interpolation, for the sutta would have been complete if it had ended with Dhaniya’s act of going for refuge. The same exchange with Māra occurs in SN 4:8 (I 108). By reason of similarity of themes, it is possible the pair of verses was taken from that source (or from a floating store of verses) and inserted into the Dhaniya Sutta.
That might have happened in Buddhism. Early Buddhism maybe had no such things. But later they where added. And here he is explaining about suttanipata sutta. Meaning early sutta. But still Māra here was probably added when suttas was written down or even later. Same happened with many stories in nikayas probably. Oral tradition from beginning might have been different. It seems the generation of Agamas and Nikayas like adding these mythical creatures. It’s all symbolism.
A Yakkha on Sakka’s Throne
How did Yakkha get up there? 
Or actually it’s not so far?
I Read this. It was interesting. Thought to share with you. @brooks
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUDDHISM AND INDIGENOUS BELIEFS AND PEOPLE AS REFLECTED IN THE NAMES OF LOKAPĀLAS IN EARLY BUDDHIST LITERATURE
http://www.arts.chula.ac.th/~manusya/journal/index.php/manusya/article/view/61/323
I haven’t searched this query before, and as I mentioned above there are over 700 suttas that contain the word Brahma, 500 that contain the word god, and 561 that contain the word deva. So, this could be a sizable research project.
I usually relate to most of your posts, but I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from on this topic. Would you mind sharing more about your view about Brahmas, Maras, devas, and other deities in the EBTs? That way we could probably have a more meaningful dialogue.
The Buddha!
See Mara samyutta, Brahma samyutta, deva samyutta, etc.
With my last question I’d like to investigate another aspect of deities in the EBT. So far we have statements like ‘deities are an important part of the EBTs/ the Dhamma’. Many people might not care about it but to me it’s relevant how many of the named arahants according to the suttas had direct interactions or experiences of deities.
If for example all named arahants had suttas with conversations with deities it would create an impression of normalcy with the audience, i.e. that liberation necessarily brings about the ability of perceiving/communicating with the gods. Obviously this is not the case, and I don’t know for example if it’s conceptually clear why Sariputta in spite of having all jhanas/ayatanas available to him still wasn’t conversing with the deities as Moggallana did.
So on how many ‘feet’ does the existence of deities stand in the EBTs?
“The Buddha is enough” many will say - I allow myself to have a more differentiated interest.
Sariputta’s dedication to the text would have included a study and recollection of the deities as mentioned in the text.
AN4.172:1.4: Sāriputta said this: “Reverends, I realized the textual analysis of the meaning—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained.
and Sariputta does encourage others to recollect the deities:
DN33:2.2.114: Six recollections: the recollection of the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, ethics, generosity, and the deities.
But Sariputta’s teaching basis was the text. Teaching requires a shared experience and deva experience would be highly individual. Experiences that corroborated the text would be secondary to the text itself and not a teaching tool for Sariputta.
AN4.172:5.2: In many ways I explain, teach, assert, establish, clarify, analyze, and reveal it. If anyone has any doubt or uncertainty, let them ask me, I will answer. Our teacher is present, he who is so very skilled in our teachings.”
In contrast, Mogallana would frequent heavenly realms and hang out with the devas:
AN7.56:3.7: Tissa the Brahmā was very mighty and powerful. And then Venerable Mahāmoggallāna, as easily as a strong person would extend or contract their arm, vanished from the Vulture’s Peak and reappeared in that Brahmā realm.
In fact, Mogallana used to be Mara Dusi, who reminds me of Loki. So perhaps it was only natural for him to hang out with the good devas after leaving the assembly of Maras.
MN50:8.1: Once upon a time, Wicked One, I was a Māra named Dūsī, and I had a sister named Kāḷī.
And MN50 does indeed matter to me with all the deva talk–it has provided insights about trolls and their ownership of their deeds. I’m not sure anything Sariputta could say would compare with Mogallana’s own troller-got-spiked experience. 
How do you see gods? It seems it was the Indian things roaming in the sky of India.
So actually in our region is not explained.
He is one of the four Regent Gods, and the Ātānātiya Sutta (D.iii.199ff) contains a vivid description of the Yakkha kingdom of Uttarakuru, with its numerous cities, crowds of inhabitants, parks, lakes and assembly halls.
Vessavana is also called Kuvera, and the Yakkhas are his servants and messengers.
Here and elsewhere Yakkhas are the gods. So actually we are talking about spirits.
The case of the Yakkha Vajirapāni is of special Interest. D.i.95.
The Commentary (DA.i.264) says he is not an ordinary Yakkha, but Sakka himself.
And I once shared that in the Chinese sinhala vinaya commentary said all deities fall under Yakkhas.
By Ratana Sutta already Yakkha cult is seen. In it > bhūta (部多). A living being or the ghost of a deceased person. was used.
In the commmentary is also mentioned that Mara is a Yakkha.
It seems the cosmology of Buddhism resolve around the death spirits. So ancestors cult.
Thanks, I was aware of the 6 recollections being taught to householders in the EBTs but wasn’t sure if they were also taught to mendicants. I find them effective and this sutta gives me even more confidence in them:-)
I understand gods as pure essence of being.
I am not Indian, so I had to look up these mysterious Gods of the Thirty-Three in Wikipedia. And what I saw caught my eye because Earth is a god of the Thirty-Three.
I am a rock climber, an ant who climbs Earth. Way before I read the EBTs, every time I visited the mountains I asked for permission to climb and gave thanks after. Earth is vast and non-percipient–my requests and gratitude go unanswered. But it just feels right to pay homage to the Earth. Even now, in the garden, it is that very same Earth I do not violently rip up–it nurtures and protects the plants that feed me. Here too there is permission and gratitude. From that personal understanding of Earth, it is natural to extrapolate to the other devas described in the suttas. Indeed, the four elements are represented in the Thirty-Three, so suttas such as MN140 make sense.
Have you found the recollection of the deities to be of use? I’ve always scratched my head about this one. It seems odd to recollect a rather long list of deities. Almost like memorizing the periodic table.