Tag Archives: councils

Why Devadatta Was No Saint

Devad­atta is depic­ted as the archetypal vil­lain in all Buddhist tra­di­tions. Regin­ald Ray has argued for a rad­ical reas­sess­ment of Devad­atta as a forest saint who was unfairly maligned in later mon­astic Buddhism. His work has been influ­en­tial, but it relies on omis­sions and mis­taken read­ings of the sources. Ray’s claim that ‘there is no over­lap between the Mahāsaṅghika treat­ment [of Devad­atta] and that of the five [Sthavira] schools’ is untrue. On the con­trary, the man­ner in which Devad­atta is depic­ted in the Mahāsaṅghika is broadly sim­ilar to the Sthavira accounts. Such dif­fer­ences as do exist are lit­er­ary rather than doc­trinal. The stor­ies of Devadatta’s deprav­ity became increas­ingly lurid in later Buddhism, but this is a nor­mal fea­ture of the myth­o­lo­giz­ing pro­cess, and has noth­ing to do with any ant­ag­on­ism against forest ascet­ics. In any case, the early sources are unan­im­ous in con­demning Devad­atta as the instig­ator of the first schism in the Buddhist community.

The First Council

The First Coun­cil was a crit­ical turn­ing point in Buddhist his­tory, defin­ing the dir­ec­tion Buddhism was to take after the death of its founder. Here is the account from the Mahīśā­saka Vinaya, trans­lated from the Chinese canon.

Mahāsaṅghika—the Earliest Vinaya?

The search goes on for some­thing that we can identify as the earli­est Vinaya, the prin­ciples of mon­astic con­duct that have set the stand­ard for Buddhist mon­ast­ics from the Buddha until now. For schol­ars this is part of the enig­mat­ic­ally mean­ing­ful need to search for the ori­gins of things. For myself as a prac­ti­cing monk, it

Dhamma or Vinaya?

We have examined at some length the more import­ant sources deal­ing with the first schism, and it is evid­ent that it is not pos­sible to fully resolve the dif­fer­ences. Clearly there were mul­tiple forces act­ing to break the Sangha apart, and it is not easy to tell which may have been the decis­ive factor in