[Buddha-l] Devadatta the Renegade: The Thruth History of Buddhism
Benito Carral
bcarral at kungzhi.org
Tue Oct 11 17:08:28 MDT 2005
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote:
>> It's quite interesting how westeners are trying to
>> reinterpret Buddhism.
> If I were Buddhism I would be happy that Westerners
> grant me that honour.
I think that you are a Westerner involved in such a
project and, since I'm a Westerner too, I hope to
contribute to your happiness having said that. :-)
However I was not specifically thinking in you, but
bringing to our post a contemporary trend.
>> The Old Guys could not use the authority recourse,
>> could not take the rebirth issue seriously, could
>> not advocate radical non-violence (even if they are
>> killing us)...
> I have hardly any doubt about the Buddha's belief in
> rebirth or non-violence.
It would be interesting to make an inquiry about
such point among Western Buddhist practitioners. In
fact, I will make a test among my students and friends,
not a representative group, but an interesting
experiment anyway.
> But it doesn't make sense to me that he had the
> authority that you want to give him right from the
> start.
What are you points to doubt the traditional
Buddhist history?
>> It seems quite clear to me that the problem is that
>> westerners can not and want not to admit that the
>> Old Guy had a different agenda.
> You are probably right, but I don't know the agenda
> of those Westerners nor do I know the one of the
> Buddha.
It's my experience with students that they try to
fit Buddhism into their lives instead of fit their
lives into Buddhism.
>> What's the difference between legend and history? I
>> would say that history is just the accepted legend,
>> and it seems that that has been the accepted legend
>> for many centuries in the Buddhist world.
> One can also try and analyse the legends instead of
> taking them at face value. That won't result in any
> historic truths, but one can reflect on what story
> they tell and their possible reasons to wanting to
> tell us whatever they tell us. Why is it important a
> story is told and to whom is it told?
I don't believe in "historical truths," but I agrre
that such an analysis is an interesting one. In fact,
after their first year of study, I teach my students
some elements of analysis before starting with the
Buddhist tradition.
>>> Apparently there were still traces of followers of
>>> Devadatta [...]
>> They could be there, why not?, as Karaites in the
>> Jewish tradition or Bushes in the Christian one.
> Well, if they were there in the 7th century, then the
> Devadatta issue was more than simply about "a jealous
> cousin" and then it perhaps did play an important
> role in early Buddhism.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that
Devadatta played an important role in early Buddhism?
The traditional Buddhist history also tell us that
Devadatta repented and asked the Buddha for
forgiveness.
> And what about all those suttas where the Buddha
> rests his back against a tree and Sariputta teaches,
> after which the Buddha says "Well said Sariputta".
I prefer to think that the sangha was too big and
that the Old Guy was wise enough to delegate some work
to such two wonderful attendants as they.
Some times I ask one of my old students to explain
some points to our little sangha. In fact, this year I
will ask one of them to take care of new students in
their first year.
> I have plenty more ideas about a Buddhist Da Vinci
> Code, but this will do for today. ;-)
Hahaha. In fact, I have also started a new book
titled, "Devadatta the Renegade: The Truth History of
Buddhism." :-)
>> But Buddhist history, as any other history, is not
>> written by minorities.
> The eldest history was written by those minorities
> who were first inclined to write, i.e. rather the
> Sariputtas than the Devadattas.
And what did happen with Devedatta's followers? Did
they all attained parinibbana at once and the order
disappeared with them without leaving any trace?
Best wishes,
Beni
More information about the buddha-l
mailing list