Cross-cousin Relation Between Buddha and Devadatta.

Mitra, Kalipada.
pp.125--128


p.125 CROSS-COUSIN RELATION BETWEEN BUDDHA AND DEVADATTA. BY KALIPADA MITRA. THE attribution of rivalry between Buddha and Devadatta to the cross-cousin system shown in an article entitled 'Buddha and Devadatta' (ante., vol. LII, p. 267), written by Mr. A. M. Hocart is indeed very attractive. I do not feel competent at the moment to say anything for or against the theory, but desire to offer a few observations in regard to the article. Mr. Hocart writes (ante., vol. LII, App. A, p. 271): " I should like to draw the reader's attention to Vinaya, vol. II, p. 188, where Devadatta approaches Buddha most respectfully and offers to relieve his age of the burden of administering the Order. The Buddha replies with abuse, calling him 'corpse, lick-spittle ' (Chavassa, Khelakapassa).(1) This seems scarcely in keeping with the character of the Buddha, but it is with that of a cross-cousin.(2) But in Cullavagga (V. 8.2), we read that when the Buddha heard that Pindola Bhara dvaja had shown his magic power by flying through the air thrice round Rajagaha with the sandal-bowl, which was set high on a pole by a Rajagaha setthi (atha kho ayasma Pindolabhara dvajo vehasam abbhuggantva tam pattam gahetva tikkhattum Rajagaham anupariyasi) , he reprimanded the thera for having displayed his iddhi (magic power) for so trifling an object as a sandal bowl. There he uses the word chavassa, and a simile not at all dignified and becoming (Katham hi nama tvam Bharadvaja chavassa darupattassa karana gihi nam uttarimanussadhammam iddhipatihariyam dassessasi, seyyathapi Bharadvaja matugamo 11 But cf. Grant Duff, Hisxory of the Mahrattas (ed. 1921), I,pp. 11n, 21n. ------------------------- 1 The actual words used in the Cullavagga, however, are chavassa khelapakassa. 2 Italics mine. p.126 chavassa masakarupassa karana kopinam dasseti evam eva kho taya Bharadvaja chavassa darupattassa karana gihinam uttarimanussa dhammam iddhipatihariyam dassitam). The explanation, therefore, that Buddha's use of unbecoming language towards Devadatta was scarcely in keeping with his character, but with that of a cross-cousin, becomes, to my mind, considerably weakened, for that was not the only occasion on which he used language unworthy of his character. In fact the word chava seems to have been used frequently, e.g., in Majjhima Nikaya (Upalisattam, M.N.,I, 371 ff.): chavo manadando....kimhi soshati eko-ciavo purhso, eka chava Nalanda. Then again we get a passage, " Devadatts is hurt and one day when Buddha is walking up and down on Grdhrakuta, hill throws a stone at him (op. cit., p. 193)." Mr. Hocart says that "it is remarkable that in Fiji this kind of legend is often told to account for the cross-cousinship;" and he tells a legend of the island of Nayan and of Vanuavatu bearing likeness to the Grdhrakuta legend. In South Africa the uterine nephew for stealing the offering " gets pelted by the others " (ante, vol. LII, p. 268), and " the pelting of the uterine nephew is part of a religious ceremonial " (ante, vol. LII, p. 271). It appears that all this was "a playful antagonism "(ante, vol. LII, p. 269), and not intended to bring about death. Devadatta however hurled down a rock, intending to kill the Buddha (atha kho Devadatto Gijjhakutam pabbatam abhiruhitva mahantam silam pavijjhi imaya samanam Gotamam jivita voropessamiti)(3). He is said to have hurled the immense stone " by the help of a machine."(4) "Hiuen Tsang saw the stone which was fourteen or fifteen feet high."(5) Of course it may be that " the playful antagonism " (such as is preserved in pelting as " a religious ceremonial "), expressive of the liberty of the cross-cousin system, originally existed, but was subsequently mis-represented as a deadly feud, when the memory of the custom was lost, the idea of fighting having been somehow or other regarded as essential, as Mr. Hocart explains. I shall notice only another passage in the article: " If the hostility of Devadatta is merely the record of ordinary hatred, it is difficult to understand why Devadatta possesses the power of flying through the air and of performing miracles (ante, vol. LII, p. 269)."(6) Whatever power Devadatta possessed of " flying through the air and performing miracles" he seems to have lost it, and that for ever, after his miraculous appearance before Ajasat; for we learn that Devadstta " at this time lost the power of dhyana."(7) I do not find anywhere in the subsequent part of the Manual that Devadatta ever recovered his magic power. The possession of the power of flying through the air by Devadatta does not present any difficulty to me. This power was entirely due to the Buddha, and vanished from him even at the very thought of revolt against the Great Teacher. Let me pursue this view a little further. It is related in Cullavagga (VII. 1.4) that when he was ordained by the Buddha (pabbajja) along with Bhaddiya, Anuruddha, Bhagu and Kimbila--the Sakyas, Devadatta attained only pothujjanikam iddhim (the lower grade of Magic Power). He exhibited his power by assuming the form of a child (or a. Brahmin?), wearing a girdle of snakes and suddenly appear ing in Ajatasattu's lap (atha kho Devadalto sakavannam patisamharitva kumarakavannam abhinimminitva ahimekhalikaya Ajatasattussa Kumarassa ucchange paturahosi). But as soon as the evil thought of administering the Order possessed him, his Magic Power diminished --------------------------- 3 C.V., VII. 3.9. 4 (Spence Hardy, Manual of Buddhism (1860), p. 320. 5 Quoted from the article, p. 271. 6 Mr. Hocart refers to Hardy's Manual of Buddhism, p,. 326. This page corresponds to p. 315, of the edition (1860) I am consulting. Apparently he refers to the passage: " By the power of dhyana he became a rishi, so that he could pass through the air and assume any form." All my referances are to be found in the edition of the Manual published in 1860. 7 Hardy's Manual, p. 316. p.127 (saha cittuppada 'va Devadatto tassa iddhiya parihayi). His magic power, small as it was, became smaller. Even before this event he does not seem to be much in request; and feels the anguish of it. "When the Teacher and the monks went into residence at Kosambi, great numbers of people flocked thither and said, " Where is the Teacher? Where is Sariputta? Moggallana,? Kassapa? Bhaddiya? Anuruddha? Ananda? Bhagu? Kimbila?" But nobody said, " where is Devadatta? " Thereupon Devadatta said to himself, " Iretired from the world with these monks; I, like them, belong to the warrior caste; but unlike them I am the object of nobody's solicitude."(8) And then with the help of Ajatasattu he tried to kill Buddha. When all his attempts failed, he went to the Buddha, and with a view to cause a schism in the Order (Samghabhedam) made (C. V., VII, 3. 14) a request of five things, which the Buddha flatly refused. He persuaded 500 monks to follow him to Gayasisa. Then " Sariputta and Moggallana, convinced them of the error of their ways by preaching and performing miracles before them, and returned with them through the air."(9) The Magic Power, therefore, of Devadatta was very meagre by comparison with that of Sariputta and Moggallana. It has already been related that this he attained after his ordination by the Buddha, and was there fore in a way owing to him, and even that was only pothujjanika. Other disciples of the Buddha such as Ayasma Sagata (M.V., V, 1. 5-8) and Ayasma Pilindavaccha (M.V., V1, 15. 8-9) showed Uttarimanussadhammam iddhipatihariyam. On the occasion of the exhibition of the Great Miracle by the Buddha, even his lay disciples, such as Grhapati Luhasudatto, Kalo Rajabhrata; Rambhaka Aramika, Riddhilamata Upasika, and Bhikshuni Utpalavarna, offered to exhibit their riddhi (apparently Sarvacravakasadharana).(10) Gharani, Sulu-anepidu and others offered to show astounding miracles, before which Devadatta's miracles pale.(11) Even the titthiyas or heretics, much hated by the Buddhists, seem to have exercised iddhi. In the Cullavagga (V.8.1) and the Divyavadana (p. 143, et sep.) the heretic leaders Purano Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, and others claimed to be arahats endowed with Magical Power (aham, araha c'eva iddhima ca; vayam sma riddhimanto....yady ekam cramano Gautamo' nuttare manushyadharme riddhipratiharyam vidarcayishyati vayam dve)(12). Though no where in the Buddhist boobs are the latter made to show their iddhi, abundant references to this are found elsewhere. In the Bhagavati Sutra, a Jaina book, it is related that Makkhali Gosala, destroyed by his Magic Power two disciples of Mahavira (Nigantha Nataputta), and tried to kill Mahavira himself, but was for his pains killed by the Magic Power of the latter, The heretics undoubtedly were " utterly wicked "; still they seem to have exercised Magic Power. I therefore do not see anything very peculiar in the attribution of magical power to Devadatta. References to the cross-cousin system are to be found in the Brahmana and Sutra literature. Westermarck in his History of Human Marriage (p. 304) says, " yet in the older literature marriage with the daughters of the mother's brother and sons of the father's sister is permitted " and quotes passages in support of this in the footnote. Weber: (Die Kastenver- haltnisse in dem Brahman und Sutra' in Indische Studien, vol. X, pp. 75 et sep. Pradyumna married the daughter of Rukmi, his mother Rulrmini's brother.(13) Arjuna married his mother's ----------------------------- 8 Burlingame, Buddhaghosa's Dhammapada Commentary (Proc. of the American Academy: 45--20), p. 504. 9 Ibid., p. 505. Also C.V., VII, 4. 3. 10 Cowell and Nail, DivydvadanadBn,a, pp. 160, 161. l1 Hardy's Manual, p. 297. 12 See also Sarabhamigo Jataka, (483). 13 Srimabdbhagavata, Skandha, X, sl. 22, 23, Uttaravdha, 61. Vrtah svayamvare sakshadanango' angayutastaya, rajnoh sametan nirrjitya jaharaikaratha yudhi ¢x¢x 22 ¢x¢x yadyapy anusmaran vairam Rukmi Krshnavamanitah. byatarat bhagineyaya sutam kurvan svasuh priyam ¢x¢x 23 ¢x¢x p.128 brother's daughter, Subhadra (Krshna's sister). We need not examine here whether Krshna and Arjuna were Aryans or Non-Aryans, to determine whether the custom was Aryan or Non-Aryan. Anyhow it shows that the custom prevailed in Northern India. Arjuna married her in the Rakshasa form by abducting her, which involved him in a fight with the Yadavas, his cross-cousin relations. This may point to the rivalry adverted to by Mr. Hocart, but then it militates against the great friendship which existed between Krshn a and the Pandavas. King Avimaraka in Bhasa's drama Avimaraka marries Kurangi, the daughter of his mother's brother, Kuntibhoja. Madhavacarya in his commentary on Parasara Samhita says that though marriage with a mother's brother's daughter is against the practice of wise men in Northern India (Udicyacishta garhilam) yet being a good practice in the Dekhan, this system is not indecorous (avinita) in Northern India. The Crutis support it (matulasutavivahasyanugrahakah Crutyadayah), and he quotes Rg Veda (7. 4. 3. 22. 6--trptam jahurmatulasyeva yosha, etc.) , as being the mantravarna used in that marriage. References to this marriage are also contained in Kumarila Bhatta's Tantravartika (pp. 127--129, Benares edition) and Viramitrodaya-Samskara-prakaca (pp. 139--141, 172, 203)(14) But as I have not sufficiently investigated this line of evidence, I am unable to say if it strengthens Mr. Hocart's theory of cross-cousin rivalry. Mysterious are the ways in which the seeds and pollen of a myth or custom are carried and propagated and Mr. Hocart's theory demands serious investigation.