[Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism

[Benito Carral]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote:

> Well,  either  Devadatta invented democracy there and
> then on the spot, or the habit of voting with Salaaka
> already  existed  among groups of renunciants. And if
> it  did,  then  why shouldn't the Buddha have used it
> too?

   It's clear that the Buddha allowed some decisions to
be  taken  by  the  sangha,  but he always was the last
authority.  (As  I  have  said in an early post, I find
that  the  idea  of  a  democratic  sangha  is  a  most
troublesome one, altmost a nightmare.)


>> It's  my  experience  with students that they try to
>> fit  Buddhism  into their lives instead of fit their
>> lives into Buddhism.

> But  isn't  that  what  everybody (with basic sanity)
> does?

   I  don't  agree.  For  example, I know Buddhists who
after finishing their sitting in the Buddhist center go
out  and  drink  more  than  one and two beers. Is that
basic sanity? I think that it's hypocrisy at best. It's
like  going  to the doctor and refusing to take some of
the pills because they taste bad.


>> Do  you have any evidence to support your claim that
>> Devadatta   played   an   important  role  in  early
>> Buddhism?

> Yes  thanks  to  Brad. ;-) See "Reginald Ray's superb
> analysis  of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in
> his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178."

   I have just read it and it can't be inferred from it
that  Devadatta  played  an  important  role  in  early
Buddhism.   It  tells  us  that  a  group  of  rigorist
followers   decided   to   marginalize  themselves  and
eventually  become decadent having adopting monasteries
instead of trees as their abodes.


>> The  traditional  Buddhist history also tell us that
>> Devadatta   repented   and   asked  the  Buddha  for
>> forgiveness.

> The        traditional        Buddhist        history
> (saddharmapu.n.dariika)  also  tells  us  that  in  a
> previous life Devadatta was the Buddha's eacher.

   I  would  not say that such a Mahayana sutra is part
of the canon of the traditional Buddhist history.


> Which  would  show  that he wasn't that authoritarian
> after all.

   There is a difference between being an authoritarian
and  being  a  stupid.  :-)  He  was  always  the  last
authority,  the Sangha chief, but chiefs don't take all
the decisions nor do all the job.


> What  pleads  in  favour  of  my  naughty  fantasy on
> Devadatta   and   Sariputta's   existence  after  the
> Buddha's  death is that Devadatta, still according to
> Reginal  Rey, isn't mentioned in the earliest core of
> the  skandhaka  discussion  of  the  Sa.mghabheda. He
> suggests  that  the  Devadatta schism arose after the
> death of the Buddha, but also after the split between
> Mahasamghikas  and Sthaviras. Isn't that interesting,
> if  one  considers everything that Sariputta did with
> Devadatta and said to and about him?

   I  see that we have read it in a different vein. :-)
If  I  had  to do something with such info, I would say
that  Devadatta  is  a  character  that latter Buddhist
writers  developed (something similar to Bodhidharma in
the Chan tradition).


>> Hahaha.  In  fact,  I  have  also started a new book
>> titled,  "Devadatta  the Renegade: The Truth History
>> of Buddhism." :-)

> Too  late. The Buddhist tradition has already written
> it.

   Is  there only place for one book? :-) Maybe I would
have  to  think  in a different one, what's about, "The
New Devadattian Tradition: Buddhism with guts"?

   Best wishes,

   Beni