Nyom
Danilo ,
What Atma thinks: That the holding on views "this is right, nothing else", is something one easy get trapped into. Being so one feels even disappointed about the Sublime Buddha, seeing more and more "contratictions". Things "aren't" but have causes and effects.
How many Suttas would one be able to count where, taken things out of context taken, generalizing them, the Buddha would appeare as someone not of integrity (behaviour). One may even think on the many occations where the Buddha used public disregard for one to come to mind. Think on the story where the Buddha encouraged an old abounded father to heavily blame their sons in the assembling of the whole public. Engouragement to disintegrity?
One point, for sure, required to consider, is that a Asekha does not act on defilements.
Forcing, or giving food into one of the three kinds of conceit, also such is required to direct someone on more subtile ground, as the opposite can be required.
Would your mother, father, teacher who could really cut foolish off, ever look as having acted righteous?
An importand point, not to forget, is that the Sublime Buddha "never" (actually he did in regard of Sangha business) required anybody to act in ways which easy could lead to worldly lose, of which includes honor.
Maybe the topic
Der Erhabene Buddha als der größte Angeber, und das Fehlen von Eifersucht helps.
Yet there are those who, of course take one the opposite view, saying the Buddha wanted others to speak out, advocating the other extreme, view.
Silas, as a means of controll and avoid missconduct and Kamma (mind) aren't the same, or at leadt not easy to seen and one who has not arrived at the source, and knowing their mind.
Is Nyom
Danilo able to "grasp" the point here?
A broadly not beloved physic teacher of my person, "rude", "dominant", "heartless", loved to say "
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi to justify certain things, yet it's not a matter of right but a matter of having arrived at a real unselfishvand compassioned point or not.
So my person likes to leave this Sutta for consideration behind here:
Suta Sutta: On What is Heard , of which might be good to apply for high meritorious deeds like to share ones merits ("one who thinks that it has the object to pose: should blame: his demerits") or if out of compassion correct ones views.
"I do not say, brahman, that everything that has been seen should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been seen should not be spoken about. I do not say that everything that has been heard... everything that has been sensed... everything that has been cognized should be spoken about. Nor do I say that everything that has been cognized should not be spoken about.
"When, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease [not to speak of being motivated by such!], then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been seen, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about.
"When, for one who speaks of what has been heard... what has been sensed... what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities increase and skillful mental qualities decrease, then that sort of thing should not be spoken about. But when, for one who speaks of what has been cognized, unskillful mental qualities decrease and skillful mental qualities increase, then that sort of thing should be spoken about."
Or should Atma better have told: "Don't ask me that?", leaving one a beloved stand?