Denunciation of Devadatta

Devadatta basked in the prestige that he had gained through the patronage of Prince Ajatashatru. In time, he came to believe that he would be a worthy successor of Shakyamuni Buddha. On one occasion he boldly offered to lead the Sangha so that the Buddha could retire. This offer was refused in no uncertain terms:

The occasion was this. The Blessed One was seated teaching the Dharma and surrounded by a huge gathering, including the king. Then Devadatta got up from his seat, and arranging his upper robe on one shoulder, he raised his hands palms together towards the Blessed One: “Lord, the Blessed One is now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life and come to the last stage. Let the Blessed One now rest. Let him dwell in bliss in the present life. Let him hand over the Sangha of monks to me. I will govern the Sangha of monks.”

“Enough, Devadatta. Do not aspire to govern the Sangha of monks.”

A second time Devadatta made the same proposal and received the same answer. When he made the proposal for the third time, the Blessed One said, “I would not hand over the Sangha of monks even to Shariputra and Maudgalyayana. How should I do so to such a wastrel, a clot of spittle, as you?”

Then Devadatta thought: “Before the public, including the king, the Blessed One has disgraced me with the words ‘clot of spittle’ and praised Shariputra and Maudgalyayana.” He was angry and indignant. He paid homage to the Blessed One and departed, keeping him on his right. Now this was his first grudge against the Blessed One.” (Ibid, p. 258)

This strong condemnation and even insult coming from the Buddha is quite shocking. One can easily understand why Devadatta might bear a grudge after being publicly insulted in front of the Sangha and even King Bimbisara. Even if one takes the position that this incident is a story that arose after the death of the Buddha in order to vilify the schismatic Devadatta and his followers, it still seems to be so far out of character that one wonders how anyone could have attributed such words to the Buddha. And yet, there is a discourse in which the Buddha’s rivals used this and later condemnations of Devadatta against him. Prince Abhaya, another son of King Bimbisara though not an heir, was a follower of Nirgrantha Jnatiputra, the founder of the Jains. According to the Abhayarajakumara Sutta, Nirgrantha Jnatiputra made the following request to Prince Abhaya:

 “Come Prince, go to the recluse Gautama and say: ‘Venerable sir, would the Tathagata utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?’ If the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, what is the difference between you and an ordinary person? For an ordinary person would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others.’ But if the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would not utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, why have you declared of Devadatta: “Devadatta is destined for the states of deprivation, Devadatta is destined for hell, Devadatta will remain [in hell] for the eon, Devadatta is incorrigible”? Devadatta was angry and dissatisfied with that speech of yours.’ When the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up. If an iron spike were stuck in a man’s throat, he would not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up; so too prince, when the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able to gulp it down or to throw it up.” (Middle Length Discourses, pp. 498-499)

It is evident that Nirgrantha Jnatiputra is not being portrayed here as a compassionate or even dispassionate observer of events. Nor is his inquiry sincere. In order to attack and belittle the Buddha, he spitefully looked for a weak point to exploit. Again, this is perhaps not an accurate portrayal of the founder of the Jains, but is may be a depiction of the kind of rancorous debates that may have taken place between Buddhists and Jains. In any case, the Buddha easily overcomes both horns of the dilemma and in the course of doing so also provides an explanation for why he spoke so harshly in regard to Devadatta. Prince Abhaya visits the Buddha and asks:

“Venerable sir, would a Tathagata utter such speech as would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?”

“There is no one-sided answer to that, prince.”

“Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this.”

“Why do you say this, prince: ‘Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this’?”

Prince Abhaya then reported to the Blessed One his entire conversation with Nirgrantha Jnatiputra.

Now on that occasion a young tender infant was lying prone on Prince Abhaya’s lap. Then the Blessed One said to Prince Abhaya: “What do you think, prince? If, while you or your nurse were not attending to him, this child were to put a stick or pebble in his mouth, what would you do to him?”

“Venerable sir, I would take it out. If I could not take it out at once, I would take his head in my left hand, and crooking a finger of my right hand, I would take it out even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have compassion for the child.”

“So too, prince, such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has compassion for beings.” (Ibid, pp. 499-500)

In other words, the Buddha only speaks what is true, correct, and beneficial; and whether or not it is welcome and agreeable or unwelcome and disagreeable he will only speak such things in the right time and place motivated solely by compassion. In the case of Devadatta, he was certain based upon his knowledge of Devadatta’s character and activities and the law of cause and effect that Devadatta was heading for a fall. In some versions or translations of this event, the Buddha actually calls Devadatta a “lick-spittle” with the implication that Devadatta’s reliance on the patronage of Prince Ajatashatru is comparable to licking the spit of others. In other words, his reliance on Prince Ajatashatru seems good, but is actually a degrading dependence that is leading him further and further away from the true good of liberation. Furthermore, he had to make it clear to the Sangha and to King Bimbisara that Devadatta did not have his approval nor was he to be looked upon as qualified to lead the Sangha. In fact, once Devadatta left the assembly the Buddha made a further announcement:

The Blessed One addressed the monk: “Now, monks, let the Sangha carry out an act of pubic denunciation in Rajagriha against Devadatta thus: ‘Formerly Devadatta had one nature; now he has another. Whatever Devadatta may do by body or speech neither the Blessed One nor the Dharma nor the Sangha should be held as having a part in it: only Devadatta himself is to be held responsible for it.’”

Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Shariputra: “Now Shariputra, you must denounce Devadatta in Rajagriha.”

“Lord, hitherto, I have spoken in Devadatta’s favor thus: ‘The son of Godhi is mighty and powerful.’ How can I denounce him in Rajagriha?”

“Were you not speaking the truth in praising Devadatta thus?”

“Yes, Lord.”

“Then likewise speaking truth you must denounce him in Rajagriha.”

“Even so, Lord,” the venerable Shariputra replied.

When the venerable Shariputra had been formally authorized by the Sangha, he went into Rajagriha accompanied by a number of monks and denounced Devadatta. Then people without faith and confidence, unwise and indiscreet, said: “These monks, sons of the Shakyans, are jealous of Devadatta’s gain, honor and renown.” But the faithful and confident, the wise and discreet, said: “This can be no ordinary matter for the Blessed One to have had Devadatta denounced in Rajagriha.” (Adapted from Life of the Buddha, p. 259)

Later events would prove this further denunciation in Rajagriha to be a wise move. Note that Devadatta was neither banished nor excommunicated, as he had not broken any of the precepts at this point. Nevertheless, the Buddha judged that it should be made clear from then on that Devadatta was acting on his own. In having this done, the Buddha made it clear to all that the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha should not be held accountable for anything Devadatta might do. This action was especially painful for Shariputra and perhaps some others who had formerly held Devadatta in esteem and did not want to denounce a fellow monk. It was also personally embarrassing as it made it seem as if those who had formerly praised him were being two-faced, and that perhaps they were themselves motivated by jealousy. Nevertheless, this was an occasion in which the painful truth needed to be stated plainly for the sake of everyone involved. As it turned out, there were those who interpreted the denunciation in a cynical manner, believing that it was a case of internal squabbling and jealousy within the Sangha. On the other hand, there were those who looked into the matter more deeply and realized that the denunciation was not something the Buddha had done lightly.