Why Devadatta Was Admitted To the Order

‘Venerable Nāgasena, who was it that admitted Devadatta to the Order?’
‘Those six young nobles, O king, Bhaddiya and Anuruddha and Ānanda and Bhagu and Kimbila and Devadatta, together with Upāli the barber as a seventh—they all, when the Master had attained to Buddhahood, left the Sākya home out of the delight they felt in him, and following the Blessed One renounced the world. So the Blessed One admitted them all to the Order.’
‘But was it not Devadatta who, after he had entered the Order, raised up a schism within it?’
‘Yes. No layman can create a schism, nor a sister of the Order, nor one under preparatory instruction, nor a novice of either sex. It must be a Bhikkhu, under no disability, who is in full communion, and a co-resident.’
‘And what Karma does a schismatical person gain?’
‘A Karma that continues to act for a Kalpa (a very long period of time).’
‘What then, Nāgasena! Was the Buddha aware that Devadatta after being admitted to the Order would raise up a schism, and having done so would suffer torment in purgatory for a Kalpa?’
‘Yes, the Tathāgata, knew that.’
‘But, Nāgasena, if that be so, then the statement that the Buddha was kind and pitiful, that he sought after the good of others, that he was the remover of that which works harm, the provider of that which works well to all beings—that statement must be wrong. If it be not so—if he knew not that Devadatta after he had been admitted to the Order would stir up a schism—then he cannot have been omniscient. This other double-pointed dilemma is put to you. Unravel this tough skein, break up the argument of the adversaries. In future times it will be hard to find Bhikkhus like to you in wisdom. Herein then show your skill!’
‘The Blessed One, O king, was both full of mercy and had all knowledge. It was when the Blessed One in his mercy and wisdom considered the life history of Devadatta that he perceived how, having heaped up Karma on Karma, he would pass for an endless series of Kalpas from torment to torment, and from perdition to perdition. And the Blessed One knew also that the infinite Karma of that man would, because he had entered the Order, become finite, and the sorrow caused by the previous Karma would also therefore become limited. But that if that foolish person were not to enter the Order then he would continue to heap up Karma which would endure for a Kalpa. And it was because he knew that that, in his mercy, he admitted him to the Order.’
‘Then, Nāgasena, the Buddha first wounds a man and then pours oil on the wound, first throws a man down a precipice and then reaches out to him an assisting hand, first kills him and then seeks to give him life, first gives pain and then a subsequent ease to the pain he has given.’
‘The Tathāgata, O king, wounds people but to their good, he casts people down but to their profit, he kills people but to their advantage. just as mothers and fathers, O king, hurt their children and even knock them down, thinking the while of their good; so by whatsoever method an increase in the virtue of living things can be brought about, by that method does he contribute to their good. If Devadatta, O king, had not entered the Order, then as a layman he would have laid up much Karma leading to states of woe, and so passing for hundreds of thousands of Kalpas from torment to misery, and from one state of perdition to another, he would have suffered constant pain. It was knowing that, that in his mercy, the Blessed One admitted Devadatta to the Order. It was at the thought that by renouncing the world according to His doctrine Devadatta’s sorrow would become finite that, in his mercy, he adopted that means of making his heavy sorrow light.
‘As a man of influence, O king, by the power of his wealth or reputation or prosperity or birth, when a grievous penalty has been imposed by, the king on some friend or relative of his, would get it made light by the ability arising from the trust reposed in him; just so did the Blessed One, by admitting him to the Order, and by the efficacy of the influence of righteousness and meditation and wisdom and emancipation of heart, make light the heavy sorrow of Devadatta, who would have had to suffer many hundreds of thousands of Kalpas. As a clever physician and surgeon, O king, would make a grievous sickness light by the aid of a powerful medicinal drug, just so did the Blessed One, in his knowledge of the right means to an end, admit Devadatta to the Order and thus make his grievous pain light by the aid of the medicine of the Dhamma, strong by the power of mercy. Was then, O king, The Blessed One guilty of any wrong in that he turned Devadatta from being a man of much sorrow into being a man of less sorrow?’
‘No indeed, Sir. He committed no wrong, not even in the smallest degree.’
‘Then accept this, great king, to the full as the reason for which the Blessed One admitted Devadatta to the Order.’
‘Hear another and further reason, O king, for the Blessed One’s having admitted Devadatta. Suppose men were to seize and hurry before the king some wicked robber, saying: “This is the wicked robber, your Majesty. Inflict upon him such punishment as you think fit!” And thereupon the king were to say to them: “Take this robber then, my men, outside the town, and there on the place of execution cut off his head.” And they in obedience to his orders were to take that man accordingly towards the place of execution. And some man who was high in office near the king, and of great reputation and wealth and property, whose word was held of weight, and whose influence was great, should see him. And he were to have pity on him, and were to say to those men: “Stay, good fellows. What good will cutting off his head do to you? Save him alive, and cut off only a hand or a foot. I will speak on his behalf to the king.” And they at the word of that influential person were to do so. Now would the officer who had acted so towards him have been a benefactor to that robber?’
‘He would have saved his life, Sir. And having done that, what would he not have done?’
‘But would he have done no wrong on account of the pain the man suffered when his hand or foot was cut off?’
‘The pain the thief suffered, Sir, was his own fault. But the man who saved his life did him no harm.’
‘Just so, great king, was it in his mercy that the Blessed One admitted Devadatta, with the knowledge that by that his sorrow would be mitigated.’
‘And Devadatta’s sorrow, O king, was mitigated. For Devadatta at the moment of his death took refuge in Him for the rest of his existences when he said:

“In him, who of the best is far the best,
The god of gods, the guide of gods and men,
Who see’th all, and bears the hundred marks
Of goodness—’Tis in him I refuge take
Through all the lives that I may have to live.”

‘If you divide this Kalpa, O king, into six parts, it was at the end of the first part that Devadatta created schism in the Order. After he has suffered the other five in purgatory he will be released, and will become a Pacceka-Buddha under the name of Aṭṭhissara.’
‘Great is the gift bestowed, Nāgasena, by the Blessed One on Devadatta. In that the Tathāgata has caused him to attain to the state of a Pacceka-Buddha, what has he not done for him?’
‘But inasmuch as Devadatta, O king, having made a schism in the Order, suffers pain in purgatory, has not therefore the Blessed One done him wrong?’
‘No, Sir. That is Devadatta’s own fault; and the Blessed One who mitigated his suffering has done him no harm.’
‘Then accept this, O king, to the full as the reason for the Blessed One admitting Devadatta to the Order.
‘Hear another and further reason, O king, for his having done so. Suppose in treating a wound full of matter and blood, in whose grievous hollow the weapon which caused it remained, which stank of putrid flesh, and was made worse by the pain that varied with constantly changing symptoms, by variations in temperature, and by the union of the three humours—windy, bilious, and phlegmatic—an able physician and surgeon were to anoint it with a rough, sharp, bitter, stinging ointment, to the end that the inflammation should be allayed. And when the inflammation had gone down, and the wound had become sweet, suppose he were then to cut into it with a lancet, and burn it with caustic. And when he had cauterised it, suppose he were to prescribe an alkaline wash, and anoint it with some drug to the end that the wound might heal up, and the sick man recover his health—now tell me, O king, would it be out of cruelty that the surgeon thus smeared with ointment, and cut with the lancet, and cauterised with the stick of caustic, and administered a salty wash?’
‘Certainly not, Sir; it would be with kindness in his heart, and intent on the man’s weal, that he would do all those things.’
‘And the feelings of pain produced by his efforts to heal—would not the surgeon be guilty of any wrong in respect of them?’
‘How so? Acting with kind intent and for the man’s weal, how could he therein incur a wrong? It is of heavenly bliss rather that that kindly surgeon would be worthy.’
‘Just so, great king, was it in his mercy that the Blessed One admitted Devadatta, to the end to release him from pain.’
‘Hear another and further reason, O king, why the Blessed One did so. Suppose a man had been pierced by a thorn. And another man with kindly intent and for his good were to cut round the place with another sharp thorn or with a lancet, and the blood flowing the while, were to extract that thorn. Now would it be out of cruelty that he acted so?’
‘Certainly not, Sir. For he acted with kindly intent, and for the man’s good. And if he had not done so the man might have died, or might have suffered such pain that he would have been nigh to death.’
‘Just even so, great king, was it of his mercy that the Tathāgata admitted Devadatta, to the end to release him of his pain. If he had not done so Devadatta would have suffered torment in purgatory through a succession of existences, through hundreds of thousands of Kalpas.’
‘Yes, Nāgasena, the Tathāgata turned Devadatta, who was being carried down with the flood, with his head against the stream; he again pointed out the road to Devadatta when he was lost in the jungle; he gave a firm foothold to Devadatta when he was falling down the precipice: he restored Devadatta to peace when he was swallowed up of desolation. But the reason and the meaning of these things could no one have pointed out, Nāgasena, unless he were wise as you!’
Here ends the dilemma about Devadatta.