SN 14.15 Caṅkama Sutta. Walking Back and Forth.

[mikenz66]

SN 14.15 Caṅkama Sutta. Walking Back and Forth.
Translated by Piya Tan
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf

1 At one time, the Blessed One was residing on Mount Vulture Peak near Rāja,gaha.

Birds of a feather
2 Then, the venerable Sāriputta was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
3 The venerable Mahā Moggallāna, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
4 The venerable Mahā Kassapa, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
5 The venerable Anuruddha, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
6 The venerable Puṇṇa Mantāni,putta, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
7 The venerable Upāli, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
8 The venerable Ānanda, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.
9 Devadatta, too, was pacing and down with some monks, not far away from the Blessed One.

The monks’ specialties
10 Then the Blessed One addressed the monks,
“Do you, bhikshus, see Sāriputta pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks of great wisdom. [21]
11 Do you, bhikshus, see Mahā Moggallāna pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“ All of them, bhikshus, are monks of great psychic power. [22]
12 Do you, bhikshus, see Mahā Kassapa pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks of ascetic practice.” [23]
13 Do you, bhikshus, see Anuruddha pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks with the divine eye.” [24]
14 Do you, bhikshus, see Puṇṇa Mantāni,putta pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks who are Dharma speakers.” [25]
15 Do you, bhikshus, see Upāli pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks who are Vinaya experts.” [26]
16 Do you, bhikshus, see Ānanda pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks of great learning.” [27]
17 Do you, bhikshus, see Devadatta pacing and down with some monks?”
“Yes, bhante.”
“All of them, bhikshus, are monks of evil desires.” [28]

Beings gather by way of the elements
18 “Bhikshus, it is, indeed, on account of element that beings associate and fit in. [29]
Those of a low inclination associate, fit in, with those of a low inclination. [30]
Those of an inclination to good, associate, fit in, with those of an inclination to good.
19 In times past, too, bhikshus, on account of element that beings associate and fit in;
those of a low inclination associate, fit in, with those of a low inclination;
those of an inclination to good, associate, fit in, with those of an inclination to good.
20 In future times, too, bhikshus,
on account of element that beings associate and fit in;
those of a low inclination associate, fit in, with those of a low inclination;
those of an inclination to good, associate, fit in, with those of an inclination to good.
21 Even now, in the present, too, bhikshus,
on account of element that beings associate and fit in;
those of a low inclination associate, fit in, with those of a low inclination;
those of an inclination to good, associate, fit in with those of an inclination to good.

Notes


The AN references about the foremost disciples are here: https://suttacentral.net/an1.188-234
Piya Tan's (A 1:23) references would more normally be rendered AN i 23 (volume and page number - see the link above).

[21] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who have great wisdom (mahā,paññā) (A 1:23).
[22] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who have great psychic power (iddhimanta) (A 1:23).
[23] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who keep up ascetic practice (dhutavāda) (A 1:23).
[24] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who have the divine eye (dibba,cakkhuka) (A 1:-23), also called knowledge of death and rebirth” (cut’upapāta ñāṇa) or “knowledge of how beings fare according to their karma” (yathā,kammūpaga ñāṇa). Given in Vbh 334.13 as sattānaṁ cutûpapāte ñāṇaṁ. See Miracles = SD 27.5a esp (5.4). http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... s-piya.pdf
[25] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who are Dharma speakers (dhamma,kathika) (A 1:23).
[26] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who are Vinaya experts (vinaya,dhara) (A 1:24).
[27] He is declared by the Buddha to be the foremost of monks who have great learning (bahu-s,suta) (A 1:24).
[28] On Devadatta, see Intro (2). http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf
[29] “Associate and fit in,” saṁsandanti samenti (pl) of saṁsandati sameti.
[30] Hīnâdhimuttikā hīnâdhimuttikehi saddhiṁ saṁsandanti samenti.

[ToVincent]

Hi,
Interesting sutta that have us think about the "bad guys".

It is interesting to notice the two Chinese parallels to SN 14.15; namely SA 447 & EA 49.3.

In SA 447, Buddha speaks of devadatta in the same terms than in SN 14.15. However, in EA 49.3, devadatta is not mentioned, but the Buddha speaks about the "bad guys," in the same terms than in SN 14.15. And at the end of the sutra, he says something like this:
"Don't be friend with bad people".

What is dubious though is Piya tan's free and own interpretation of the relationship between Buddha and devatta.
"... despite his persistent and numerous evil-doings, does not throw him out of the sangha. We see here the Buddha great compassion in allowing him to stay on..."

The following sutta seems not to agree with Piya Tan:

At one time the Blessed One was living among the Gijja peaks in Rajagaha soon after devadatta had gone away and the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus on account of Devadatta.
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā rājagahe viharati gijjhakūṭe pabbate acirapakkante devadatte.

Acirapakkante (not long after he departed).
Cira: for a long time (acira = not long ago).
Pakkanta: [pp. of pakkamati (go away)] gone, gone away, departed.

Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Just as the banana tree blossoms for its destruction and defeat. In like manner Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Just as the bamboo grove blossoms for its destruction and defeat. In like manner Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Just as the reed blossoms for its destruction and defeat. In like manner Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat. Just as the she mule conceived for its destruction and defeat. In like manner Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat.

Bearing fruit, indeed destroys the banana tree, bamboo grove and the reed,
Hospitality destroys the low man as conception the she mule.
AN 4.68

Other suttas explain the last paragraph:

Sitting those monks said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, prince Ajātasattu attends on Devadatta morning and evening with five hundred chariots carrying about five to six hundred bowls of boiled rice.”

“Monks, do not envy Devadatta's gain, honor, and fame. As long as prince Ajātasattu attends on Devadatta morning and evening with five hundred chariots carrying about five to six hundred bowls of boiled rice, it is decrease to him not increase in meritorious things.
SN 17.36

https://suttacentral.net/en/sa-2.3/3-5

AN 6.62 (8. Purisindriyaññāna sutta) shows how Buddha was weighing people (in this case devatta):

Here, Ānanda, I penetrate and see the mind of a certain person and know, in this person are evident meritorious and demeritorious things. After a certain time I penetrate and see his mind and know, this person is not endowed with any pure things as much as the tip of a hair This person is completely endowed with dark demeritorious things After death he will go to loss, to decrease, to hell.

The question is: "did devatta got kicked out of the Saṅgha, or did he leave under pressure or not?".

There is a sutta (maybe more than one,) where Buddha did purge the Saṅgha. I can't remember which #; nor do I remember if it had parallel(s).
Nevertheless, devatta left the Saṅgha one way or another; and no sutta is showing that Buddha did anything to have him come back.

[mikenz66]

Thanks. The Chinese parallels are here but without translation, though the automatic translation can be adequate to give the flavour:
https://suttacentral.net/sn14.15

Presumably the comments about Devatta:
"... despite his persistent and numerous evil-doings, does not throw him out of the sangha. We see here the Buddha great compassion in allowing him to stay on..."
are referring to him being part of the sangha at the time of this particular sutta, in spite of the Buddha knowing of his evil tendencies.


Mike

[santa100]

It's not clear what Piya Tan's (A 1:23) references mean.
The AN references about the foremost disciples are here: https://suttacentral.net/an1.188-234

Per suttacentral's Volume/Page ordering, it meant A i:23, which the ID ordering (a more specific ordering) points to AN 1.192:

Bhikkhus, the foremost of my bhikkhu disciples among those with the divine eye is Anuruddha

What is dubious though is Piya tan's free and own interpretation of the relationship between Buddha and devatta.
"... despite his persistent and numerous evil-doings, does not throw him out of the sangha. We see here the Buddha great compassion in allowing him to stay on..."

The following sutta seems not to agree with Piya Tan:...

But the provided suttas didn't state that the Buddha "throw him[Devadatta] out" or put any kind of "pressure" on him to leave. The Buddha simply stated the obvious truth of evil unwholesome actions would bear evil unwholesome fruits. And so there's yet any clear evidence to see Prof. Tan's statement as dubious.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

The question is: "did Devadatta got kicked out of the Saṅgha, or did he leave under pressure or not?"

After the Buddha rejected Devadatta's suggestion that he hand over the leadership of the Saṅgha to him, the Buddha made a formal declaration that Devadatta's actions were not to be seen as representative of the Saṅgha. It's fair to call that proclamation "Kicking him out of the Saṅgha." The story is related in the Cūḷavagga Vinaya text. However, as far as I can see, Devadatta was still a bhikkhu, and had not yet fallen into defeat, though his nature had changed, and he was inevitably heading for downfall.

After that, Devadatta made several unsuccessful attempts to kill the Buddha.

He committed a heinous crime when he successfully split the Saṅgha on the five points. (Edited: Not an offence of defeat).

The Milindapañha explains why the Buddha ordained Devadatta in spite of knowing what he would do in the future.

Devadatta's Ordination

[ToVincent]

Hi Bhikkhu.

The Milindapañha explains why the Buddha ordained Devadatta in spite of knowing what he would do in the future.

Milindapañha; hmm. Early Buddhist text? - Common text?

Let us stick to something shared between schools as AN 6.62, as already noted above.

Here, Ānanda, I penetrate and see the mind of a certain person and know, in this person are evident meritorious and demeritorious things. After a certain time I penetrate and see his mind and know, this person is not endowed with any pure things as much as the tip of a hair This person is completely endowed with dark demeritorious things After death he will go to loss, to decrease, to hell.

That is how he weighed devatta.

This and the rest of the sutta definitely show that Buddha did weigh people twice. First, he weighed the presence of both goodness and badness in a person; [which might lead us to infer that he rejected thoroughly bad people at once.] Then Buddha weighted them a second time (particularly while they were in the Saṅgha, I presume). This is what the sutta says.

As I said before, I do remember a sutta where Budha purges the Saṅgha of its bad elements. However, I am not sure that this sutta is shared between schools.

So up to now, the question remains on how did devatta split?

However, being compassionate towards these people is one thing. Accepting them is another.
There is much probability that the Milindapañha was right, as far as devatta being gently ousted from the Saṅgha.
But saying that the Buddha did know what devatta would do (Milindapañha,) is as dubious as saying that he allowed him by compassion (Piya Tan).

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Let us stick to something shared between schools as AN 6.62, as already noted above.

Why should we ignore all Commentaries and early works like Milindapañha? They offer some valuable insights that would be inaccessible otherwise.

As I said before, I do remember a sutta where Buddha purges the Saṅgha of its bad elements. However, I am not sure that this sutta is shared between schools.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Aggikkhandhopama Sutta, but there are also formal acts of banishment and so forth in the Vinaya texts.

So up to now, the question remains on how did Devadatta split?

There is no doubt at all about how it happened.

However, being compassionate towards these people is one thing. Accepting them is another. There is much probability that the Milindapañha was right, as far as Devadatta being gently ousted from the Saṅgha.

He was not gently ousted. He was formally proclaimed as no longer to be regarded as a representative of the Saṅgha

Saying that the Buddha did know what devadatta would do (Milindapañha,) is as dubious as saying that he took him by compassion (Piya Tan).

Neither are dubious. The Buddha was endowed with the knowledge of the spiritual potential of others, and he was undoubtedly compassionate even when he said things that were displeasing to others such as when he referred to Devadatta as "lick-spittle." Due to these hard words, Devadatta hated the Buddha, and started plotting against him. It was the beginning of the end for him, puffed up as he was with gain, honour, and fame due to some magic tricks that he performed for Prince Ajatasattu.

[ToVincent]

...there are also formal acts of banishment and so forth in the Vinaya texts.

I am not too acquainted with the Vinaya; but I suppose that trying to kill someone (Buddha in this case,) while in the Saṅgha, would have been a sufficient reason to do so. Maybe you could tell us about the punishment granted to bhikkhus guilty of an attempted murder.

Why should we ignore all Commentaries and early works like Milindapañha? They offer some valuable insights that would be inaccessible otherwise.

Because they are not shared by more than two schools. So there is the probability that many things were added. I doubt that people would have gone as far as taking off part of the texts. But who knows.
Moreover, your Milindapañha is not even accepted by all the Theravadins.

Again, as I did say once on this forum, you dont betray a school if you stick with what is shared with the other schools. I don't betray Theravada.
So let's stick to AN 6.62, which is shared.

Now as far as insight is concerned, explain to me the logic of having to weigh someone twice (as in AN 6.62,) if you already know what that person is going to do in the first place. Why bother?
So what kind of insight can I get from the commentaries, if they are confusing me?

Also, you say that Buddha in MN12 has the "knowledge of the spiritual potential of others". I see nowhere in the (shared) suttas that Buddha did have the power to read people's future. Reading minds, certainly. But reading the future of people; I'll wait for a shared sutta in the Nikayas to prove that.
Again, why would Buddha need to penetrate and see the mind of others "after a certain time", if He can see it right away?

Again, that goes against the late aberrancy, about people not being able to choose. But this is not what appears in the shared suttas.
Buddha did have to weight twice. This means that people knowing the Dhamma, had the possibility to determine their own fate; acting accordingly. Buddha could not see that in advance.
This devatta episode goes much further than we expected.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I am not too acquainted with the Vinaya; but I suppose that trying to kill someone (Buddha in this case,) while in the Saṅgha, would have been a sufficient reason to do so. Maybe you could tell us about the punishment granted to bhikkhus guilty of an attempted murder.

From Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code:

Result. If a bhikkhu fulfills the factor of effort with the intention of causing a person’s death, and the person dies as a result, he incurs a Pārājika. This holds even if the person does not die immediately, but succumbs later, say, to complications arising from a wound caused by the bhikkhu. If the person does not die, but experiences pain or injury as a result of the bhikkhu’s efforts, the penalty is a Thullaccaya. If the bhikkhu’s efforts result in neither pain nor death, the penalty is a Dukkaṭa for each separate action leading up to them.

If a bhikkhu intends simply to injure the victim or cause him/her pain, and yet the victim dies as a result of the bhikkhu’s actions, the case is treated under Pācittiya 74.

Now as far as insight is concerned, explain to me the logic of having to weigh someone twice (as in AN 6.62,) if you already know what that person is going to do in the first place. Why bother?

The meaning of the word "Potential" means that the outcome is not fixed. To assume that having examined Devadatta's spiritual potential only at the time of ordination should be sufficient would be to accept the false doctrine of determinism. It was only after he had committed crimes against the Buddha and the Saṅgha that his fate was sealed. The Milindapañha was written after the events, so the author had hindsight.

The Purisindriya-ñāṇa Sutta quote also makes it clear that a person's potential changes with time.

There are other examples where the Buddha weighs up an individual's potential, e.g. the Weaver's daughter. First, he sees that her mother has died so she will be receptive to the teachings. The Buddha goes to Ālavi to teach her. Three years later, the Buddha checks again, and seeing that her potential is now ripe to attain Stream-winning just before she dies, he goes to teach her again.

In the case of Bahiya Dāruciriya, the Buddha reflects three times within a matter of seconds: "Please teach me the Dhamma," "It is not the right time, I am on my almsround," a second time with the same result, a third time, now he's ready, so the Buddha teaches him. "When you see something just know that you see it ..."

[ToVincent]

Hi Bhikkhu.

According to wisdomlib.org:
Thullaccaya is considered as "light offences, lahukdpatti, which are remediable and incur the penalty of having to confess the transgression to another bhikkhu. After carrying out the prescribed penalty, the bhikkhu transgressor becomes cleansed of the offence."

So, according to the Vinaya, devatta's attempted murder on Buddha (an offence derived from the fourth Pārājika), would not have him ousted from the Saṅgha.

Therefore, we might infer from AN 4.68:

At one time the Blessed One was living among the Gijja peaks in Rajagaha soon after devadatta had gone away.
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā rājagahe viharati gijjhakūṭe pabbate acirapakkante devadatte.

[ī]Acirapakkante (not long after he departed).
Cira: for a long time (acira = not long ago).
Pakkanta: [pp. of pakkamati (go away)] gone, gone away, departed.[/i]

That devadatta did leave on his own.

However, the next pericope tells us the following:

Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his destruction and defeat.
Attavadhāya, bhikkhave, devadattassa lābhasakkārasiloko udapādi. Parābhavāya, bhikkhave, devadattassa lābhasakkārasiloko udapādi.

Is parābhava the "defeat" in "an offence of defeat"?
Is parābhava the pali term for "defeat" in the Pāṭimokkha's sense of "an offence of defeat)?.

---

To assume that having examined Devadatta's spiritual potential only at the time of ordination should be sufficient would be to accept the false doctrine of determinism.

I am glad you are making this clear.

[santa100]

They're 2 different terms. Parabhava's rendered as ruin or downfall, like in AN 7.31 - Parabhava Sutta. Ven. Bodhi's AN 4.68 alternative translation:

Bhikkhus, Devadatta’s gain, honor, and praise led to his own ruin[parabhava] and destruction[attavadha].

The Patimokkha's term for "defeat" is Parajika.

[ToVincent]

The Patimokkha's term for "defeat" is Parajika.

Thanks for that.

AN 7.31 - Parabhava Sutta

This kind of sutta with no parallel, is exactly what I would call a probably later added sutta.

PTS definition of Parābhava: defeat, destruction, ruin, disgrace.
Although I think that Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna's translation is quite good; it's true that she should have used "destruction" or "ruin" instead of defeat.

To summarize, there seems to be a good probability that devadatta left the Saṅgha on his own. Unless, (but that seems not to be mentioned in the early suttas,) he did break at least one of the parajika rules.
If rules there were at the time.