Certain points of devadatta still needs to be considered Original Buddhism

If you see this said. It’s obvious where he got the ideas from. From Buddha himself. It’s just that Buddha knew he lived in a generation that can not handle the old tradition.

Just so, Kassapa, in the past the elder bhikkhus were forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling; they were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating almsfood; they were rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes; they were triple-robe users and spoke in praise of using the triple robe; they were of few wishes and spoke in praise of fewness of wishes; they were content and spoke in praise of contentment; they were secluded and spoke in praise of solitude; they were aloof from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society; they were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy.

Then, when a bhikkhu was a forest dweller and spoke in praise of forest dwelling … … when he was energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy, the elder bhikkhus would invite him to a seat, saying: ‘Come, bhikkhu. What is this bhikkhu’s name? This is an excellent bhikkhu. This bhikkhu is keen on training. Come, bhikkhu, here’s a seat, sit down.’ Then it would occur to the newly ordained bhikkhus: ‘It seems that when a bhikkhu is a forest dweller and speaks in praise of forest dwelling … when he is energetic and speaks in praise of arousing energy, the elder bhikkhus invite him to a seat….’They would practise accordingly, and that would lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time.

In only reading this you will understand Ven. Maha Kassapa of not accepting invitations. And forest-dweller.


The Buddha spoke in favour of austerity. But this was not Extreme and not Forever.
The Buddha had already gone down that track and seen that it did not lead to Enlightenment.
The cunning of Devadatta was that he took the views of the Buddha on austerity and twisted them in favour of Super Austerity. He asked for the monks to live in the forest forever, to eat only alms food forever, to wear rag robes forever, to never live under a roof and never ever eat meat.
The difference is not minor.
If followed, these suggestions would have alienated many, would not have benefited the task of enlightenment of the monks and would instead have caused the decline of the order.
Devadatta was cunning and manipulative, a true Psychopath… so convincing that people are still being taken in centuries later.


You don’t understand Buddha was talking about the past Buddhas sasana. Many misunderstandings in Buddhism

My friend I gathered many sutta for your benefit! :pray:t4:

“Those who dwell deep in the forest,Peaceful, leading the holy life,Eating but a single meal a day:
Why is their complexion so serene?”

“Good, good, Kassapa! You are practising for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans. Therefore, Kassapa, wear worn-out hempen rag-robes, walk for alms, and dwell in the forest.”

Maha Kassapa was trying to maintain the long tradition from Past Buddhas. And Buddha compared him as himself in accomplishments. So Buddha alike.

Inspiring are the forests in which worldlings find no pleasure. There the passionless will rejoice, for they seek no sensual pleasures.

The following one cleary shows that following Buddha’s example is living in the forest.

Master Gotama, those gentlemen who have gone forth from the lay life to homelessness out of faith in Master Gotama have Master Gotama to lead the way, help them out, and give them encouragement. And those people follow Master Gotama’s example.”

“That’s so true, brahmin! Everything you say is true, brahmin!”

“But Master Gotama, remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest are challenging. It’s hard to maintain seclusion and hard to find joy in it. Staying alone, the forests seem to rob the mind of a mendicant who isn’t immersed in samādhi.”

“ I considered thus: ‘Whenever recluses or brahmins devoid of wisdom, drivellers, resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest, then owing to the defect of their being devoid of wisdom and drivellers these good recluses and brahmins evoke unwholesome fear and dread. But I do not resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest devoid of wisdom, a driveller. I am possessed of wisdom. I resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest as one of the noble ones possessed of wisdom.’ Seeing in myself this possession of wisdom, I found great solace in dwelling in the forest.

As long as the mendicants take care to live in wilderness lodgings, they can expect growth, not decline.

Bhikkhu Nanamoli recounts Sutta Vibhanga to illustrate this episode in ‘The Life of the Buddha’.

“…Lord, what was the reason why the holy life did not last long in the time of the Blessed Ones Vipassi, Sikhi and Vessabhu?”

Those Blessed Ones habitually read their disciples’ minds and advised them accordingly. Once in a certain awe-inspiring jungle thicket the Blessed One Vessabhu, accomplished and fully enlightened, read the minds of the Sangha of Bhikkhus a thousand strong, and this was how he advised and instructed them: ‘Think thus; do no think thus. Give attention thus; do not give attention thus. Abandon this; enter upon and abide in this.’ Then by following his instructions their hearts were freed from taints through not clinging. And that jungle thicket was one so awe inspiring that normally it would make a man’s hair stand on end if he were not free from lust. That was the reason why those Blessed Ones’ holy life did not last long.”

And the last one is what I meant with Original Buddhism. But like you saw Buddha said

As long as the mendicants take care to live in wilderness lodgings, they can expect growth, not decline.

That’s the reason why there is still Buddhism. :slight_smile:


May you dwell in the forest one day and full accomplish as Maha Kassapa. :pray:t4:

It’s still Tradition that the period of rains retreat was the only moment Buddha didn’t allow living in the forest. But that rule came after because the householders complained. The same is for full moons. Before Monks just stayed silent then Buddha changed the tradition because householders complained.

The point of Buddha was not against the points asked but thinking that in the future we will have city monks etc. But real Buddhas followers is like Maha Kassapa.

I found the story in Vinayas how it was before buildings etc

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove at the squirrels’ feeding place. Now at that time lodgings had not been permitted to monks by the Lord. So these monks stayed here and there: in a forest, at the root of a tree, on a hillside, in a glen, in a mountain cave, in a cemetery, in a forest glade, in the open air, on a heap of straw.

Buddha at that time was also strict.

Very well put. This statement would have served well as the end of this thread.

1 Like

Dear nun it doesn’t make sense to believe those stories in my opinion. I can’t believe them 100%. See my reply of the strictness of Buddha. My point is the forest dwelling was 100% Real Buddhism. People became weak in newer generations. What is commonly believed that Buddha tried living extremely is confused with the moderately living in forest dwellings that he recommended.

That’s actually a terrific point. I think there’s something deep inside us that wants to be taken in, to be consumed by a special knowledge that feeds our ego and lifts us above the crowd.


I believe it’s all symbolic. Like Bhante has explained about some cultures nails God to a cross. It was the transition story Made to go from the old , that was living in the forest, the vinaya said they did, to the new, monastic life.

Can you elaborate on your point further and try to more fully explain it?

What is the relationship between “forest dwelling,” “100% Real Buddhism,” “strictness,” “Ven. Maha Kassapa,” and “Devadatta”?

It seems a bit hard to follow your line of thought.

Like are you suggesting that “monks should always live in the forest and never come out of the forest, like say, the way that forest animals do?”

Are you saying that “Devadatta was right in relation to forest-dwelling” and the Buddha was wrong to reject Devadatta’s point regarding forest-dwelling?

A little more clarification would be helpful in understanding the full scope of what you are claiming.

1 Like

:joy: Was this written with Daniel Ingram in mind? Or are the timings of these two posts just a happy little coincidence? :joy:

1 Like