This is an interesting post and the matter of Devadatta is most curious to me. There are a few parts that I would like to remark on.
I suspect that Devadatta was advanced in learning and happened to rattle a few bhikkus who were where they are at relative to their development on the Path. Sometimes this difference in realisation can cause a grating or friction.
When another person points out wobbley conduct in another, such as choosing to eat meat when there are vegetarian options available, can sometimes rattle another person. Growth can be uncomfortable, and emotional, so some have the tendency to point the finger and blame the other. Sometimes friction can develop between two people, or even a single group of individuals who have different outlooks regarding a similar matter.
Devadatta, to me, is someone who rattled the hornets nest but likely not by intention. There is a tendency where people, not so achieved in realisation, starting out, seedlings on the path, lean on one another and develop a ‘strength in numbers attitude’ although their realisation may not be solid. They use the number of people in the group agreeing with them to hold to their position as ‘true’ and justify an emotional response against another person.
Everything else attested to the apparent Devadatta is simply hearsay, and the preoccupation with Devadatta highlights others focusing on the supposed faulty actions and omissions of others. The sole core focus is identifying the root causes of suffering and working to uproot them. The 4NT have always summarised the entire objective of the Buddhist Path.
In regards to the idea that “he caused a schism!”. He proposed ideas that he thought should be compulsory, they were accepted but not compulsory, and he then set forth on his own way where people joined him. Devadatta has no control over the minds of other living beings and it is their choice. To call this a schism is a matter of opinion. Wearing a robe, shaving the head and taking up a system of training does not necessarily guarantee realisation (yet may mislead the innocent layperson who is mystified by the outward displays of holiness). Still, the things I have witnessed, the ways I have seen people speak of him, are most certainly not in alignment with ethics or dhamma practice 101. An enemy, or a rival? Tathagata’s have no enemies or rivals. What is an evil doer other than one so ensnarred by ignorance that they fail to realise the womb-like nature of the Dhammadhatu - our very earth?
All we have is the supposed words and stories written by people who were neither Devadatta nor Siddhartha. It is unwise to blindly trust or to blindly reject but wise to gauge - to listen, to pay attention, to sense.
It is my view that Devadatta is a powerful individual who shun light on the dark patches of people. It is this alone, maybe paired with some arrogance and refusal to budge, that caused a witch-hunt against Devadatta. People are free to come and go from the Sangha as they please. Upon close inspection, one’s own mind is that which has the capacity to know. Siddhartha is only a symbol, a single individual who at the time caused a lot of talk because of what he realised, but the ultimate objective is recognition of the Dhamma & making that one’s refuge. Upon inspection, we find that the path is less about Siddhartha, and more about you.
The Dhammachakkapavattana Sutta lays out the whole mission objective. Identifying and ceasing that which gives rise to suffering.
The true Church isn’t one of four walls, but it is the Universal Church of Loving-kindness. The same applies for practitioners of the Buddhaway: they are threaded together by principles and realisation.
“Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one’s own acts, done and undone." Verse 50.
Whether or not he was or was not a Saint is ultimately up to Devadatta to see, but I think the preoccupation on IS or ISN’T is a misguided focus because of the mission statement laid out in the Dhammachakkapavattana Sutta. The matter is between Siddhartha and Devadatta - for only they know what is and was occuring between them. Also sensible to refer to Verse 50. To be quite frank, whether or not he is X, Y or Z isn’t any of our business. Or, instead of ‘our’, I’ve learned at least to not overly concern myself about the business of others.
