Welcome to the Forum @Upasaka_Yasa. I hope you find more to interest you here. If you have any questions just ask, or send a personal message to one of the moderators. 
1 Like
This seems also to find support in Yijing’s account. He claims to have had a face-to-face encounter with those who were alleged to be followers of Devadatta and they denied they were anything of the sort, though Yijing seems not to have believed them:
In these days the ascetic-descendants of Devadatta are spread all over the Western Regions. Their rules are in most points identical with those of the Buddhist teaching such as the five forms of existence, saṃsāra, rebirth in heaven, salvation. The Tripiṭaka which they study is on the whole the same [as the Buddhist canon]. There are no big monasteries or common facilities; they live between village and dam [that means probably: at the border of the village], they beg for their food in the village where they live, they practice asceticism (brahmacarya / jingxing). They use gourds as alm-bowls and only two pieces of garment whose colour is similar to that of cracked mulberry bark. They do not consume fermented dairy products. A lot of them are living in the monastery of Nālandā. They listen to religious texts undiscriminately [that means probably: texts of different schools]. Once I asked one of them: ‘Your rules are quite similar to those of the Great Master [i.e., the Buddha], [but] the bad portions are similar to those of Devadatta. Are you therefore not an adherent of Devadatta?’, and he answered: ‘My patriarch is really not Devadatta.’ For it is a fact that he was afraid that people would despise him, would avoid him, would not be of service to him.
(from Max Deeg, The Saṅgha of Devadatta: Fiction and History of a Heresy in the Buddhist Tradition; see attached file)
7 Likes
Wow, okay, I didn’t even notice that. This is a basic principle of empathy: believe people when they tell you what they are. Any anthropologist or sociologist would emphasize that a people should be classified not according to what others say of them, but what they say of themselves.
It goes to show both how persistent the dialogue around these things is, and also incidentally, how much nonsense gets uncritically bounced around the buddhosphere.
6 Likes
I still say “Buddhisms” and “Christianities.”
lol
I don’t mind this convention either. But really, if one understands that Buddhism is a broad term which applies to many different groups, there’s no need to make it plural.
1 Like
Sometimes people don’t learn their lessons IMO.
I think there will always be a purpose for an -ism with an -s. Just like there will always be a population who is way beyond the need for that -s.
1 Like
While i don’t have the scholarly knowledge necessary to engage in technical details, reading most of this thread triggered thoughts in my mind:
1- What we refer to as “facts” are merely accepted reference points by two or more discussants of which the existence of the text is not disputed, but how it came to be or what does it really mean is open to different interpretations. To show why the assumingly original text could be selective (and therefore not as original as it thought to be) cannot be done without referring to external sources that demonstrates the alleged bias., and which would inevitably rely on selectivity based on a sense of discomfort with the original text or the mainstream interpretations of it (otherwise the original text would have been accepted without questioning). In this state of affairs, questioning the intentions of those who deviate from the mainstream becomes justifiable (why they are not accepting the “facts” as they are presented to them?!), but similar questions can be asked to those who want to preserve the “facts” (why do you want to keep them as facts, why they are not misleading interpretations of actual events). This is why, analyzing and questioning the intention of a certain scholar by referring to his personal life to denounce his work is of little value and potentially dogmatic.
2- If the idea of intention serves to separate the actor from the action, and if the value of any action is determined by its future consequences, then Devadatta can be seen as a saint through his role in constructing the teachings as we know it. For example, our knowledge of what constitutes right speech by not equating it with pleasing speech is owed to Devadatta. Demonizing Devadatta focuses only on linking the consequences of the action to a particular actor (which is a mundane right view), but a more collective view of his actions would make him much more beneficial to humanity than the average “evil doer” out there by virtue of what we came to learn through him.
1 Like
It seems the Buddha often challenged claims that beings made about themselves, like calling themselves “Brahmin,” “ascetics,” “harmless,” etc. - which he would counter by defining what a “true XYZ” is.
But, I think I understand the sentiment of this point…like if someone identifies as a follower of Devadatta, deep down in their hearts, they probably do - it seems unlikely that they might just make it up - but I guess beings are capable of deceiving both themselves and others, so maybe that is yet a third consideration.
This seems really true.
Speaking of nonsense getting bounced around, did the early sources actually say Devadatta would become a paccekabuddha eventually? Or was this claim made is later texts/commentaries? I have heard it been said so many times that I sort of just accepted it as fact without critically thinking about this claim.
It first appears in the Milindapañha.
‘If you divide this Kalpa, O king, into six parts, it was at the end of the first part that Devadatta created schism in the Order. After he has suffered the other five in purgatory he will be released, and will become a Pacceka-Buddha under the name of Aṭṭhissara.’
3 Likes
Thank you 
for the reference, Venerable!
So basically…there is no solid evidence that Devadatta was predicted become a Pacceka-Buddha? Or to the contrary, that he might even be unlikely to become a Pacceka-Buddha?
There’s no evidence in the Pali suttas that the early sangha held any views of any sort about Devadatta’s long-term prospects beyond his present stay in Avīci.
4 Likes
This seems to have been popular in later text.
By contrast, if someone who has undergone horrendous suffering in Avīci Hell can acquire the key to liberation, regard him as someone in nirvāṇa. Good man, therefore I pity Udraka-Rāmaputra, but not Devadatta.
From
Sūtra of the Upāsaka Precepts
Translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in the Northern Liang Dynasty
by
The Tripiṭaka Master Dharmakṣema from India
1 Like
Interesting.
I’ve forgotten its name, but I vaguely recall a passage from a Mahayana sutra that goes something like: “I pity Śāriputra, Maudgalyayāna, Mahākaśyapa, Ānanda… etc. Alas, none of them will ever get a chance to become Buddhas.”
2 Likes
Interesting to unpack why being an arahant (and Teacher, under dispensation of a Buddha) is considered inferior to being a Buddha at some later time.
Hierarchy is very precious in some views. When mixed with identity view… it’s mixed with identity view!
Pity, envy; just side diversions maybe.
4 Likes
Because they, as non-returners can’t return as a Buddha?
The Buddha himself went forth as Jotipala under Kassapa Buddha. He returned.
MN81:23.4: I myself was the student Jotipāla at that time.”
2 Likes
Friend, I think you’ve stopped short of offering an answer to the question.
Perhaps, the answer turns on Generosity. Is it supreme in virtues? Is it without cessation? Without meditation*, by other qualities?
*mediated
1 Like
MN81 is interesting in that the Buddha unabashedly describes his former self as slow and stubborn. For a good part of the discourse, his mentor insists more than the traditional three times that Jotipala go see Kassapa. Jotipala keeps scoffing at the idea and calls Kassapa:
MN81:7.15: What’s the use of seeing that baldy, that fake ascetic?’
So Jotipala is a stubborn as a mule, holding on tightly to his view, refusing to budge. I wouldn’t say he was working on his Generosity. Instead, I think he had a bit of work to do yet on his entrenched views and defilements. Contrast with Sariputta, who completely understood the Dhamma in a fortnight.
AN4.172:3.1: I realized the textual analysis of the text—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained. …
I would simply say that the Buddha as Jotipala was not as swift or certain as his own disciples Sariputta and Mogallana. He needed a lot more time. He needed the time between Buddhas.
2 Likes
Isn’t non-returner 3rd stage of Nibbana?
I don’t think Jotipala attained 3rd stage of Nibbana and thus wasn’t a non-returner, I don’t think.
1 Like
I agree that Jotipala was not a non-returned, because he then would not have come back as Gotama Buddha. The time between Buddhas is vast, and Jotipala went forth in Buddha Kassapa’s time. Hopefully our own journeys won’t take quite so long. Jotipala was remarkably skeptical and stubborn. I guess perfection takes time.
I’m actually not sure what the “3rd stage of Nibbana” is. Would you explain?
1 Like
I agree with the overall sentiment of this and of your previous post.
I have only a superficial conceptual understanding of this.
Here, an anagami seems to be described/defined in the following way:
The Pali terms for the specific chains or fetters (Pali: saṃyojana ) of which an anagami is free are:
- Sakkāya-diṭṭhi : Belief in atmān or self
- Sīlabbata-parāmāsa: Attachment to rites and rituals
- Vicikicchā: Skeptical doubt
- Kāma-rāga: Sensuous craving
- Byāpāda: Ill will
The fetters from which an anagami is not yet free are:
It seems to me that non-returner might be the highest stage of Nibbana that a layperson can achieve and remain living the household life (as opposed to say passing away or going forth as a monastic).
I think those who have reached the 3rd stage of Nibbana are called non-returners maybe because they are reborn in a high-level heaven called the pure abodes after passing away/dying, attain Arahatship from there, never to be reborn in any lower level realm relative to that heaven, including “never again returning to the human realm.”
Perhaps those who have achieved the 1st or 2nd stage of Nibbana are not called non-returners because they could potentially “return” to the human realm, and suffer from the kinds of dukkhas that are associated with the human realm, but say, absent from the heaven called the pure abodes?
This is my conceptual understanding so far. Others are free to add any important details that I might have missed regarding what the “3rd stage of Nibbana” is.
2 Likes