Dhammadhatu wrote in the question: Citing Bhikkhu Bodhi and Joy Manné, Bhikkhu Thanissaro writes:
Thats not right: Wondering why Bhante Thanissaro may cite housholders to deprive people from faith: it is not the case that Bhante Thanissaro cited, but possible Upasaka John Bulitt (Ati creator).
Sujato, some call him Devadata, is know to use all means to attract housholders and donors to either finance or join his "Robinhood" undertakings, to maintain his household and is used to oppose the elders and the Sangha, thief from the Juwels. What worth is it to deprive people from refuges which leading to liberation? For what sake?
One can be nevertheless sure to gain much more by giving into the heritage of the elders then to give into householders domain, for is would not bring others then pain, here and now and afterwards.
That's the "tragic" of associating, having debts toward fools. Lost in doubts they are swept away. Here you are, of cause, not without cause having given into it.
Is there any evidence in the suttas showing the Buddha was "flexible" in his teaching of Dhamma?
He was not a little flexible when one spoke A-dhamma but did not limit the Tataghata to his speech at the same time, as the only that should be taken as that of the Tataghata.
Once the Budddha rebuked some who told that another does teach something the Buddha did not say by "What ever Dhamma a Noble one speaks, it is the Dhamma of the Tatagatha". One may google it ... or ask a monk for details if able to leave house. It was, btw, on the teaching one gave, that one should seriously reflect one's own attainments and that of others, periodical!
[off (ordinary) cause: this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or Buddh-ism and other binding purposes for the world but dedicated for refuge toward liberation]
