I’m reading DN 16 (Walshe’s translation) and at 6:20 Subhadda (a different one from the one mentioned as the Teacher’s last personal disciple earlier in the sutta) goes off saying “we are well rid of the Great Ascetic, etc”.
But in 6.6, the Teacher tells Ananda all the monks in the group he had just questioned were at least Stream-winners.
Was he just a guy who showed up after everything went down, was he being sarcastic to get the other monks to quit crying, or was he dead serious?
Now at that time Venerable Mahākassapa was traveling along the road from Pāvā to Kusinārā together with a large Saṅgha of five hundred mendicants. Then he left the road and sat at the root of a tree.
…
Now at that time a monk named Subhadda, who had gone forth when old, was sitting in that assembly. He said to those mendicants, “Enough, reverends, do not grieve or lament. We’re well rid of that Great Ascetic. And we are oppressed: ‘This is allowable for you; this is not allowable for you.’ Well, now we shall do what we want and not do what we don’t want.”
Then Venerable Mahākassapa addressed the mendicants, “Enough, reverends, do not grieve or lament. Did the Buddha not prepare us for this when he explained that we must be parted and separated from all we hold dear and beloved? How could it possibly be so that what is born, created, conditioned, and liable to wear out should not wear out, even the Realized One’s body?”
Read the story again and it should be clear that this monk is on the road with Arahant Kassapa and couldn’t have been present when the Buddha made his statement.
I read it as representing monks who were junior or simply disliked the amount of precepts that had been created by the Buddha. It occurs in DA 2 as well, which upsets Mahakasyapa (IIRC). It’s one of those passages where practical reality breaks through the perfect picture of religious texts. There are always people who dislike being told do this, don’t do that, etc.
Remember that the Buddha told Ananda that the minor rules could be abolished, so it maybe was a sentiment the Buddha had some sympathy with.
In the Theravada tradition (although I can’t cite sources) this incident is the motivation for Arahant Mahakassapa to call the first council where the rules were all set down (according to tradition) along with the Suttas. And it was at that very council that the arahants decided not to set aside any of the minor rules.
It should also be noted that this Subhadda “had gone forth when old.” In several places in the suttas the Buddha talks about the drawbacks of going forth when old. It is completely believable that this monk did indeed bristle against the rules he was supposed to follow. So I think it is much better to just take this incident on its face.
You don’t have to go very far in the Vinaya to see the reality of the early sangha. Even the suttas are full of examples of problematic people.
I remember a Vinaya story, where the Buddha tells a very, very long story (about some royalty? a war? can’t remember now) to calm down arguing monks and to give them a perspective. The monks listen attentively, and then completely ignore Buddha’s words, arguing as if he said nothing and wasn’t even there. Buddha leaves the place saying “These men are useless…”
Yeah, these kind of bits are always fun to find in the suttas.
Isn’t it in Pli-tv-kd21?
Attributed to Mahākassapa:
On that occasion a monk called Subhadda, who had gone forth when old, was part of that group. He said to the monks, ‘Please stop grieving, stop lamenting. It’s good that we are free from that great ascetic. We were oppressed, always being told what’s allowable and what’s not. Now we can do what we like and not do what we don’t like.’
So then, let’s recite the Teaching and the Monastic Law—before what’s contrary to the Teaching shines forth and the Teaching is obstructed; before what’s contrary to the Monastic Law shines forth and the Monastic Law is obstructed; before those who speak contrary to the Teaching become strong and those who speak in accordance with it become weak; before those who speak contrary to the Monastic Law become strong and those who speak in accordance with it become weak.
Oh, I wouldn’t say its sectarianism … unless there are telling differences in different parallels about an incident or person that shows later opinions colored the story. It’s only natural that when you end up with a huge body of minor rules that people will start to think it’s a bit too much. As did the Buddha, apparently. I think his allowing the minor rules to be discarded is in all versions of the conversation with Ananda. It was only natural that once the one guy who made all the decisions was gone that people would then have disagreements about what to do going forward, IMO.
