DID DEVADUTTA CREATE A SECRET SANGHA?

The Scriptures narrate that towards the end of his life, at the age of 79 years, the Buddha came to Rajagriha (modern Rajgir) to spend his final rain retreat in the Veluvana Vihara, and Devadatta, Gotama’s cousin, still professing himself as a Buddhist, asked permission to found a new Order under his own leadership, the rules of which would be more stringent than those adopted by Gautama. The refusal of this is said to have determined him to break with Buddhism altogether, and to found a new religion of his own.

What Devadatta demanded of the Buddha was: (a) Stricter rules which he advocated. These were, that the mendicants should live in the open air, and not close to towns; (b) should dress in cast-off rags; (c) should beg for their food from door to door (that is never accept invitations, or food sent to the Viharas); (c) and should not eat meat;  Gautama answered that his precepts could be kept in any place, and that he had no objections to such members of the Order who wished to do so keeping stricter rules, but they were not necessary, and could not be kept at all by the young and the delicate; as to food, the members of the Order might eat whatever was customary in the countries where they were, so long as they eat without indulgence of the appetite. It was possible to become holy at the foot of a tree, or in a house; in cast-off clothes, or in clothes given by laymen; whilst abstaining from flesh, or whilst using it. To establish one uniform law would be a hindrance in the way of those who were seeking Nirvana; and it was to show men the way to Nirvana which was his sole aim. Devadatta upon this returned to his own Vihara (that had been built for him by King Ajatsattru) and founded a new and stricter order, which gradually grew in numbers.

It would appear that Devadatta and his followers, demanding the strictest form of asceticism, rejected Gotama, on account of the latter’s persistent advocacy of the Middle Way, even attempted to assassinate him and failing which, they turned to the Tathagatas, the previous Buddhas, to whom Gotama possibly referred in general terms from time to time as teachers of the ancient doctrine of Selflessness, and to whom in course of time specific names were given.

From Fa Hian we learn that in the fifth century CE, the followers of Devadatta, established near Sravasti a Vihara where they rejected Gotama and reverenced the three previous Buddhas and especially Kasyapa Buddha, who was declared to be the latest in line. Thus Devadatta evidently secured important and lasting support among the more conservative Buddhist merchants (who came from other countries via the Silk Route) who still held to the Hindu ideals of the strictest asceticism as the true road to ultimate bliss, and turned their thoughts to the past, real or imaginary, and were largely responsible for the reintroduction of the sanctions of Samsara and Rebirth.

It is noticeable that in the Ceylonese ‘Kamma-vaca’ the Four Reliance are so stated that the strict form, exactly as demanded by Devadatta, appears first in each case, and the allowable ‘exceptions’ as in the Middle Way follow. The Kamma-vaca rules are very ancient and may have been drawn from India at the time of the conversion of Ceylon during the reign of Asoka.

A century after the Maha-parinirvana of Gotama, the Sangha split into eighteen individual Schools – out of these one is not sure how many followed Devadatta’s path. Nor is one sure as to what happened to this sect in India. But many Scholars do believe that via the trade routes, the Devadatta Sangha migrated to other countries where their philosophy was accepted. It is also widely believed by a number of ‘Research Scholars’ that the images that we claim to be of Gautama Buddha, could in reality be images of Devadatta (financed by members of his Sangha), who are creating magnificent temples globally. In many cases, Monasteries are not aware that the Sangha donating money to them is actually keeping the philosophy and image of Devadatta alive.

This subject is meant to be an open debate for which we invite Scholars and members of the Buddhist societies to give their view on the subject.

SHOULD INDIA CLAIM ITS OWN TREASURES?

An article appeared in the Times of India on July 3, 2006, on this subject and for some reason I preserved the page, hoping that in the near future I would do some research on how much we have actually lost in terms of not only the Kohinoor which the British Government is still unwilling to return it to India. There are also possibilities of the treasures of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Chhatrapati Shivaji stored in British Museum – never to be displayed either in England nor will they be returned to India, the Country from where they were plundered.

In 2006 the J. Paul Getty Trust in Los Angeles decided to return Italian art objects that it had in its possession, back to the Italian Government – it was a noble gesture that showed respect for the cultural heritage of another country where it rightfully belongs.

More than any artifacts, the British took back home a large hoard of Buddha images ranging from the first to the twelfth century CE. If we turn the pages of history to the time of the ‘East India Company, ’who came to India in the year 1612 as traders and soon turned their attention to  collecting some of the finest Images which they took back as personal possessions. The ‘bounty hunting’ continued till the 1900s. One is not sure how much of the loot actually went to the British Museums and how many of these magnificent images still remain as heirlooms or are up-for-sale in Auction Houses. There is no way we can know. However we do know that in the ‘Reserve Stock of Antiquities’ preserved in warehouses – never to be seen by even the Britishers.

We would like to make the British Government aware that holding on to what is an integral part of our history is akin to stealing. Indians need to have access to their rich cultural heritage and no other country has any business holding on to it.

Do you think that the Government of India should actively campaign for the return of its heritage especially its Buddhist past which pilgrims coming to India would prefer to see in an Indian museum….or do you think otherwise? We invite you to give us your view.

The Tree of Confusion…

Recent events over the last one year at the Mahabodhi Temple, Bodh Gaya has left me and a lot of other Buddhist pilgrims concerned about the honesty of the Temple Management Committee and as to why we still need the control of Government in the administration of the most important Buddhist site? One recent event has been the cutting of a healthy branch of the Bodhi tree, which, according to the media was sold for a fabulous amount of money to some person from an Asian country. Eventually the crime was detected and the officers of the Committee taken to task and finally sacked. A new Committee has been installed some months ago, no one is sure how honest this new team is or how well they will undertake the duty of preserving the Mahabodhi Temple, the Bodhi Tree or supervising that all donations made by devout pilgrims are used for the purpose and do not go into private pockets.

 There are many things that pilgrims wish were available on the premises of this holy Temple such as a branch of a Nationalized Bank where pilgrims could make a donation and instantly get a receipt and be assured that the money has been rightly accounted for. There are many things that need to be put in order here, including the myth of the health of the Bodhi Tree…the Buddha image within the temple or whatever else you have observed while on pilgrimage that needs to be put right. We invite you to express your view on this subject or anything else you feel is of importance and should be brought to the attention of others. We invite you to express your views not only about the Mahabodhi Temple but about anything else you would like others to know about.

Suresh Bhatia

Web Content Editor