Anantarika-kamma (and a bit about Angulimala): would someone like to explain?

Buddhapada

Would someone like to explain their take on the Great Offenses of Buddhism (Matricide, Patricide, Harming a Buddha/Arahant, specifically?)? I have a few questions:
1. Can it be assumed that killing a child would be a lesser offense than accidentally drawing blood from a Buddha? What is the logic behind this? I recognize the fact a Buddha represents the living form of Dharma, but drawing blood would be corrupting the physical body, or the vessel and not the true essence - in that sense, shouldn't the killing of a child and drawing blood be at least an equal offense? I'm not sure what the logic behind "harming Buddha/killing Arahant>killing others" is, to sum it up. Please explain your viewpoints on this.
2. If those who harm an Arahant will be reincarnated in Hell for several lifetimes, then what did happen to the people who harmed Angulimala after he had become a monk? According to the story, when Angulimala converted to Buddhism and changed his lifestyle, all the fruits of Karma that would have condemned him to Hell were expressed in his current life as Angulimala (according to Buddha) through the people attacking him with sticks and stones while he walked for alms. Weren't these people committing one of the great offenses of Buddhism? Does it make a different that they were lay people or that they were acting out of balance (ex. the fruits of karma appearing in this life rather than resulting in reincarnation in Hell)?
Thanks!
- Buddhapada

BhanteLucky

I asked my monk friend about the insane disproportionate punishments/consequences for doing seemingly little things. He said it was nothing but exaggerated storytelling, to frighten and educate, and make a story memorable... not meant to be taken literally.
For example, 100,000 years screaming in hell, for throwing a tile at an arahant and causing him to bleed just a little bit.
It's just absurd.

And how about this one... this guy being tortured in hell for just being a bad guy. Not assaulting an arahant or anything, just a general bad guy:

http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=164

Parallel and together with the Great Hell is the Hell of Excreta he falls into that. In it there are needle mouthed living things, that pierce the outer skin,.then the inner skin, after that the flesh, the nerves and even the bones and they eat the bone marrow. There he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings, yet he does not die until his demerit comes to an end.....
.....

Then the warders of hell pull him out with a hook and ask him. ‘Good man, what do you desire?’ He says, ‘Sir, I’m hungry.’ The warders of hell open his mouth with hot iron spikes and pour into his mouth burning, flaming iron balls. They burn his lips, mouth, throat, chest, the intestines, the lower intestines and they come out with the insides There he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings, yet he does not die, until his demerit comes to an end.

Then the warders ask him. ‘Good man, what do you desire?’ He says, ‘Sir, I’m thirsty.’ The warders of hell open his mouth with hot iron spikes and pour into his mouth burning, flaming copper molten. They burn his lips, mouth, throat, chest, the intestines, the lower intestines and they come out with the insides. There he experiences sharp piercing unpleasant feelings, yet he does not die, until his demerit comes to an end.

Then the warders of Hell put him back to the Great Hell.

chela

Wow. That is not good nutriment.

footiam

Buddhapada said:

Would someone like to explain their take on the Great Offenses of Buddhism (Matricide, Patricide, Harming a Buddha/Arahant, specifically?)? I have a few questions:
1. Can it be assumed that killing a child would be a lesser offense than accidentally drawing blood from a Buddha? What is the logic behind this? I recognize the fact a Buddha represents the living form of Dharma, but drawing blood would be corrupting the physical body, or the vessel and not the true essence - in that sense, shouldn't the killing of a child and drawing blood be at least an equal offense? I'm not sure what the logic behind "harming Buddha/killing Arahant>killing others" is, to sum it up. Please explain your viewpoints on this.
2. If those who harm an Arahant will be reincarnated in Hell for several lifetimes, then what did happen to the people who harmed Angulimala after he had become a monk? According to the story, when Angulimala converted to Buddhism and changed his lifestyle, all the fruits of Karma that would have condemned him to Hell were expressed in his current life as Angulimala (according to Buddha) through the people attacking him with sticks and stones while he walked for alms. Weren't these people committing one of the great offenses of Buddhism? Does it make a different that they were lay people or that they were acting out of balance (ex. the fruits of karma appearing in this life rather than resulting in reincarnation in Hell)?
Thanks!
- Buddhapada

I remember reading a Buddha's quote about not accepting anything as the truth until one has done some investigation. That include whatever Buddha says,too. Maybe the questions you have in mind needs some investigation and a good start would be the source of the information. Did Buddha say those things or did they appear in some highly regarded sutras or some paperbacks? If someone said Buddha said that, the next step probably is to put on your thinking cap. Is it logical? If not, don't accept it even if you have a DVD that shows Buddha uttering the crap.

pegembara

Kamma is intention.

1. To intentionally harm a Buddha or an arahant means one would have to intentionally harm a pure, perfect and defenseless being. Such a person would surely have a mind that is sick and corrupted in the first place. Such a mind is already hellish.

2. The people who harmed Angulimala would not have known he had become an arahant. To their minds he was still the serial killer. So there was no intention to hurt an arahant. But if they were to try to kill the Buddha knowing who he was these people must have sick minds already.

No need to talk about arahants. Someone who is capable of hurting a defenseless child is mentally sick - this is something we can all agree.

Buddhapada

Thank you everyone for your responses. It has been refreshing to see your individual viewpoints.
@pegembara This was very insightful; it makes sense to me now. I'm surprised I did not think about intention earlier. Thanks for pointing this out.