Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16020Re: The Twin Miracle, Yamaka Patihara

Expand Messages
  • stefan_karpik
    Mar 21, 2013
      What Nina says is somewhat supported by Richard Gombrich in 'How Buddhism Began'. He argues that Angulimala was a Kali devotee and his murders were part of his devotions. With that information, one can begin to see Angulimala as a very religious person practising misguided rites and rituals until the Buddha opened his eyes. Angulimala still puzzles me, but this makes him a little more understandable.

      --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
      > Dear Frank,
      > Op 12-feb-2013, om 17:23 heeft Frank K het volgende geschreven:
      > > 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.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > F: So trying to deliberately murder a Samma Sambuddha, and failing
      > > only
      > > because the Buddha stopped him, is not considered heinous?
      > ------
      > N: Conditions, conditions. We cannot understand all conditions
      > thoroughly.
      > We have to consider which factors make akusala kamma a heinous crime,
      > and thus a hindrance to enlightenment.
      > -------
      > > F: 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%.
      > -------
      > N: I understand your point of view, you are reasoning, you have a
      > logical view about things.
      > But kamma and vipaaka is most intricate and only Buddhas can
      > thoroughly understand it.
      > What is our understanding compared to the Buddha's omniscience?
      > The Buddha also knew the kusala and understanding Angulima had
      > accumulated in former lives. This was never lost and could bear
      > fruit. When considering kamma and result so many factors also
      > stemming from past lives have to be taken into consideration. We do
      > not have the Buddha's wisdom.
      > I understand that at first sight you find things incomprehensible.
      > But let us consider things more deeply, not just by logic.
      > We can never judge the deeds of someone else, who knows his past
      > accumulations? We also may have killed in former lives, but now: here
      > we are studying Dhamma. This sutta is also an encouragement that
      > kusala is never lost, somehow it will bear fruit, inspite of all the
      > tribulations one may experience.
      > Angulima was aware and developed understanding of whatever dhamma
      > appeared at the present moment, even akusala dhamma; he saw that as
      > just a conditioned reality. Only in that way he could attain
      > arahatship. So, let us never forget the dhamma appearing right now.
      > The only way.
      > Nina.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic