Dear Nina,

> 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.
>
>

So trying to deliberately murder a Samma Sambuddha, and failing only
because the Buddha stopped him, is not considered heinous? Just a petty
crime, a misdemeanor, a mere impediment? In my book, when you have the
intention, have planned it out, carried it out and almost certainly would
have succeeded with that action 99% of the time if not for extraordinary
intervention, the kammic fruit for that is much closer to 99% of full
kammic fruit than 0%.


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