Dear Frank,
Op 11-feb-2013, om 17:19 heeft Frank K het volgende geschreven:

> The problem is the Buddha guaranteed his cousin Nanda
> celestial nymphs if he didn't disrobe and remained in the order. If
> the
> Buddha had made the guarantee in a not so ironclad way, I wouldn't
> have a
> problem with that either. For example, if he said, "Nanda, if you
> don't
> disrobe, I will show you how to develop samatha to the point where you
> could easily attain celestial nymphs." Then the Buddha would be
> stating a
> truth, and not making ironclad guarantees that seem to be not
> something an
> enlightened being would say.

-----
N: I find the commentary quite clear. The Buddha knew what was best
for a particular person and he had vaca sacca, always speaking the
truth.
------

>
> F:In the case of Angulimala, is there any other precedent in the
> Canon where
> someone can commit such heinous crimes as Angulimala and still attain
> arahantship or even stream entry in that safe lifetime?

-----
N: He had killed, but not committed a heinous crime like killing
parents or the Buddha. A heinous crime is an impediment. There was
not such an imediment.
Nina.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]