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

[Joy Vriens]

Benito Carral wrote:

>    It's clear that the Buddha allowed some decisions to
> be  taken  by  the  sangha,  but he always was the last
> authority.

Often a very absent one as it seems.

>  (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.)

Isn't the idea of any sangha? ;-)

>>>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.

I know someone who doesn't even go and sit in a Buddhist center at all 
and still drinks two or three glasses of wine.

Are thoese Buddhists pretending to be monks? Khenpo Nyishul told me once 
"One should do what one can do".

>>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.

We define ourselves against the world, against others. Don't 
underestimated those who play second roles or baddies.

>>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.

Ok point taken. No Mahayana sutras either. So when does the traditional 
Buddhist history stop?

>>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).

You better would after what Reginald Ray wrote...


>    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"?

I believe Curt is already writing about Buddhists with guts. ;-)

Joy