Puthujjana wrote: “At least it is not a stretch to translate “upasampannassa” and “Anupasampannassa” to “ordained” and “not ordained”. And those translation from the well known monks are indeed fine.”
That is not correct.
– “upasampannassa” means one with “upasampada”.
– “Anupasampannassa” means a “samanera”.
Both are ordained, i.e., both are bhikkhus. One could say that an “upasampannassa” has “higher ordination”.
Puthujjana wrote: “Lal wrote:
I have given sutta references for that on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.
As from the translation from English and Chinese, these sutta from my understanding, is self declare..,”
That is not correct either. What is the point/meaning of “declaring to oneself”?
Puthujjana wrote:
“So, I assume my previous conclusion still stand.
So in conclusion, a Bhikkhu who claim attainment to lay people is breaking precept, whether truthfully ((pācittiya 8) or falsely claim (pārājika 4).”
No. It does not. I have explained above that there is huge difference between pārājika 4 and pācittiya 8. Furthermore, even pācittiya 8 depends on the circumstances.
– By the way, none of those rules apply to lay people.
– However, declaring non-existent attainments cannot be good for lay people either. It is just that the outcomes are not stated as for bhikkhus.
In any case, if you are happy with your conclusions that is fine.
P.S. I am glad that we had this discussion. I learnt a few things. I had not looked at the Vinaya Piṭaka except for a couple of occasions.
– More than the Vinaya rules, those background stories are informative for the lay people.
– Many details about Buddha’s life are found only in the Vinaya Piṭaka; see, “‘The Life of the Buddha’ by Bhikkhu Nānamoli“.