SuttaCentral

MN86 Angulimala Sutta

In MN86 Angulimala Sutta, the story happened in this order after Angulimala became a monk:

  1. Angulimala became an arahant.
  2. He got hit and stoned.
  3. Buddha asked him to bear with it.

But if Angulimala was already an arahant, he didn’t need Buddha to ask him to bear with it. So I am thinking that the order is wrong, shouldn’t it be like this?

  1. Angulimala got hit and stoned
  2. Buddha asked him to bear with it.
  3. Angulimala became an arahant.

What do you think? Is my understanding of arahant wrong?

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5.11-Angulimala-S-m86-piya.pdf
Piya Tan notes two significant references:

45 – Comy explains that these objects were thrown at marauding crows, dogs and pigs but hit the elder (MA 3:338)

46 – Comy explains that any karma is capable of bringing three kinds of result: a result to be experienced here and now, i.e .in the same life as it was committed; a result to be experienced in the next existence; and a result to be experienced in any subsequent to the next one, as long as one continues in this cyclic life. As an arhat, Angulimala freed himself from the latter two types of karmic result but the first remains, since even arhats may experience the present results of deeds done before attaining arhathood. (MA 3:339 f). See Sañcetanika S (A 10.206/5:292-297) = SD 3.9.

Thanks. But what I meant was, if Angulimala was already an arahant, he could bear with anything, Buddha didn’t need to comfort him by asking him to bear with it.

As far as I can tell, it’s solely a pedagogical maneuver vis-a-vis possible kamma-vipaka for a living arahant. He might bear with anything, but not have the Divine Eye to see certain whys & wherefores of ongoing unpleasant feeling at the senses.

Perhaps the Buddha called out ‘for the record’? :wink: Or maybe this is some later sort of story, an extended metaphor?

Yeah, maybe I am overreacting :slight_smile: