[puthujjana]

https://puredhamma.net/three-levels-of-practice/sotapanna-stage-of-nibbana/four-conditions-for-attaining-sotapanna-magga-phala/
a Sōtapanna anugāmi attains the Sōtapanna stage only while listening to a dēsanā by an Ariya

How can a puthujjana know who is an Ariya? As monastic is not allow to reveal their attainment to a lay puthujjana.

[SengKiat]

How can a puthujjana know who is an Ariya?

I have read all the topics in this Pure Dhamma website.

What you need to do is to understand all the dhamma especially the anicca, dukkha and anatta and listen to the desana (at Living Dhamma and Three Marks of Existence) in this website to attain to Sotapanna.

With metta, SengKiat

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “How can a puthujjana know who is an Ariya? As monastic is not allow to reveal their attainment to a lay puthujjana.”

That is not correct. There are several suttas that clearly state one could declare the magga phala attainments. One is the Maha Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16). It is at the end of the following section of this long sutta, specifically regarding the Sotapanna stage:
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn16#14

Also, there was a long discussion on this topic sometime back:
“Four Conditions for Attaining Sōtapanna Magga/Phala“

[puthujjana]

Ok, let me finish read up https://puredhamma.net/forums/topic/four-conditions-for-attaining-sotapanna-magga-phala/ before other questions.

Thanks Lal.

With Metta

[Christian]

Look into those desanas, also I help other people attain Nibbana on the group the way I attained it. We use puredhamma.net as a textbook to explain concepts of Dhamma and apply those things in practical matter with real-life examples. Link is around the forum to the group if you want to join it of course.

[puthujjana]

pācittiya 8
“yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.”

Not to announce to a layman a realisation that has been achieved. If a bhikkhu announces to a layman or to a sāmaṇera, a realisation partaking with a jhāna nature or with a stage of ariyā, and this realisation has genuinely been achieved, he commits a pācittiya.
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/92pa.htm

In DN16, as far as I understand the Dhamma-mirror(from Chinese and English translation of the sutta, “他就能由自己記說自己”, “if he/she so desires, may predict for him or herself”), it is to self-decalre, and not to others.

With Metta

[puthujjana]

Puthujjana wrote:
As monastic is not allow to reveal their attainment to a lay puthujjana.

pācittiya 8:
“yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.”

One of the definition of uttarimanussadhammaṃ – the realization of a [supermundane] fruit. From Ven Analayo: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aur-YjWuHG2AgZkG8P_R-fMMs9Il4A

With Metta

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “pācittiya 8:
“yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.”

Uttarimanussadhamma does mean magga phala or jhana.
Āroceyya means “announced”.

But the key is the word “anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ” which means a bhikkhu who has NOT attained those claimed attainments.
– To declare an attainment falsely is an offense.
– Anupasampannassa comes from “na + upasampannassa” or “not attained”, just like Anāgāmi comes from “na + āgāmi” or “not coming back (to kāma loka)”.

The following verse is in many suttas, including SN 55. 8, SN 55.10, SN 12.42, AN 9.27, ..
For example, in AN 9.27, the last verse is: “Yato kho, gahapati, ariyasāvakassa imāni pañca bhayāni verāni vūpasantāni honti, imehi ca catūhi sotāpattiyaṅgehi samannāgato hoti, so ākaṅkhamāno attanāva attānaṃ byākareyya: ‘khīṇanirayomhi khīṇatiracchānayoni khīṇapettivisayo khīṇāpāyaduggativinipāto; sotāpannohamasmi avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyaṇo’”ti.

ākaṅkhamāno means “if one wishes”
Byākareyya means to “state’ or “say”.
“attanāva attānaṃ” means “one about oneself”. In other words, he/she can declare only about what he/she has attained.

Thus the above verse can be translated: “ when a Noble Disciple has removed the five types of bhaya (dangers) and is endowed with these four factors of stream-entry, then if he wishes he may state about himself: ‘I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of niraya, animal realm, etc and headed for the Arahanthood!’”

However, only a Buddha is able to perceive the specific attainments of others.

[puthujjana]

Lal wrote:
But the key is the word “anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ” which means a bhikkhu who has NOT attained those claimed attainments.

pārājika 4: Bhikkhu claiming attainments that which he has NOT attained.
pācittiya 8: Even claim is genuine, Bhikkhu should also not declare to lay people or sāmaṇera.

So, is the translation having problem?

With Metta

[puthujjana]

This “then if he wishes he may state about himself” is same as in DN16, which from my understanding from Chinese/English translation of the sutta, is to self declare, and to not declare to others about it.

With Metta

[y not]

It is a fact that Ariyas declare their attainment in order to teach and spread the correct Dhamma. Otherwise Puredhamma.net would not exist, and we would not be here on this Forum.

This training rule must be referring to those, whatever their attainments be, who do so with selfish intentions, whatever those intentions be.

Then I looked up and found the following:

The training rule on telling truthfully

(I hope I succeeded in forwarding the link)

Apparently not.
What is spoken of at the end is uttarimanussadhammassa (superhuman qualities). The bhikkhus were truthful,they tell the Buddha so, since Bhikkhus and even lay people know full well the very grave consequences of claiming falsely (even of a higher attainment they know they have not reached at that point).

[puthujjana]

The training rule on telling truthfully :
‘If a monk truthfully tells a person who is not fully ordained of a superhuman quality, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
There is no offense: if he truthfully tells one who is fully ordained; if he is the first offender.

Translation by Ajahn Brahmali is wrong?
‘If a monk truthfully tells a person who is not fully ordained of a superhuman quality, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
“Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya bhūtasmiṃ, pācittiyan”ti.

So even truthfully tells to one not fully ordained is an offense, right? I am a bit confuse now. :)

With Metta

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “The training rule on telling truthfully :
‘If a monk truthfully tells a person who is not fully ordained of a superhuman quality, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
There is no offense: if he truthfully tells one who is fully ordained; if he is the first offender.”

That is not my translation. I can only speak for what I wrote.

My comment on y not’s post was to thank him for the reference and to put in the link correctly. That does not mean I agree with that translation.

I can say without any doubt that “anupasampannassa” DOES NOT mean “truthfully”.

[puthujjana]

Thanks Lal.

Does “upasampannassa” related to “upasampada”?

And why would there be two different rules (pārājika 4 and pācittiya 8), if both are belong to false claim?

It will be a real shocking that all these well known scholar and meditation practitioner monks all get the translation wrong in Vinaya and Sutta…. :(

With Metta

[Lal]

Puthujjana asked: “Does “upasampannassa” related to “upasampada”?”

No. They are different. But that could be the confusion in those translations.

“Upasamapadā” is a “higher state” (not a magga phala, but given with seniority and other mundane qualifications) to bhikkhus.
– When one becomes a bhikkhu first level is “Sāmanera”, and then “upasampadā”.

[puthujjana]

Thanks Lal for your prompt reply.

So do you have any comment on why there are 2 rules (which one is much more serious than the other) regarding false declaration of attainment?

And here is another essay by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:
The eighth Confession rule is closely connected with this one of Defeat but there the ‘announcement’ is true – robbery

With Metta

[puthujjana]

I only know English and Chinese, so I just do a check on Chinese translation:

任何比丘(Any Bhikkhu)，對未受具戒者(to those with no full ordination) ，若說有上人法(if announce uttarimanussadhammaṃ )，即使真實 (even if true)，亦波逸提 (commit pācittiya).

With Metta

[Lal]

I am just curious. What is the Chinese translation of the following verse in SN 55. 8, SN 55.10, SN 12.42, AN 9.27, ..
For example, in AN 9.27, the last verse is: “Yato kho, gahapati, ariyasāvakassa imāni pañca bhayāni verāni vūpasantāni honti, imehi ca catūhi sotāpattiyaṅgehi samannāgato hoti, so ākaṅkhamāno attanāva attānaṃ byākareyya: ‘khīṇanirayomhi khīṇatiracchānayoni khīṇapettivisayo khīṇāpāyaduggativinipāto; sotāpannohamasmi avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyaṇo’”ti.

[puthujjana]

AN9.27 Chinese – Pali

It is the same translation as in Dhamma mirror in DN16: 他(he)就能(can)以自己(self)記說(declare to)自己(self)

I am thinking why is it call the Dhamma Mirror, it is like a mirror which one can look into and reflect own quality, if one process this, this, this … quality, then one can be sure that one is a sotapanna, without the need from other to tell you your attainment.

With Metta

[Lal]

Thanks for the reference, y not.
Your linking did not work, though. So, I put in the link.

Here is the way to add a link: (from: “How to Reply to a Forum Question“):

3. In particular, it is good to use the “link” button to provide a link to another post or even external links. In order to describe the procedure, let us assume that you want to provide a link to the “Abhidhamma – Introduction” post at the website.

– Open that post in a separate window.
– Copy the title of the post (Abhidhamma – Introduction) and paste in the text you are writing.
– Select that text with the title (Abhidhamma – Introduction) and click the “link” button. It will open a new window to put in the web address.
– Go to that other open window with the “Abhidhamma – Introduction” post and copy the web address from that web page (which in this case is https://puredhamma.net/abhidhamma/abhidhamma-introduction/”).
– Come back and paste that to provide the link at the URL input.
– You can also check the little box “Open link in a new tab”, so that when someone clicks on the link, it will be opened in a new window.

4. Follow the same procedure to provide an external link.

[Lal]

Since this is an important issue regarding a Vinaya rule, I thought of taking a closer look at the issue.

Most Vinaya rules were setup to handle particular situations where one or more bhikkhus had done things that were not appropriate. The link given by y not provides the background for the Vinaya rule in question here.

The training rule on telling truthfully
– I am reproducing that below so that we can discuss it.

At one time the Buddha was staying at Vesālī in the hall with the peaked roof in the Great Wood. At that time a number of monks who were friends had entered the rains on the banks of the river Vaggumudā. Just then Vajjī was short of food and afflicted with hunger, with crops blighted and turned to straw, and it was not easy to get by on almsfood.

The monks considered the difficult circumstances, and they thought, “How can we remain united and in harmony, have a comfortable rains, and get almsfood without problems?”
Some said, “We could do work for the lay people, and they’ll give something in return. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood.”

Some said, “There’s no need to do work for the lay people. Let’s instead take messages for them, and they’ll give something in return. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood.”

Some said, “There’s no need to do work for the lay people, nor to take messages for them. Let’s instead praise one another’s superhuman qualities to the lay people, ‘Such a monk has the first absorption, such a monk the second absorption, such a monk the third, such a monk the fourth; such a monk is a stream-enterer, such a monk a once-returner, such a non-returner, such a perfected one; such a monk has the three true insights, and such the six direct knowledges.’ Then they’ll give to us. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood. Indeed, this is the better way, that we praise one another’s superhuman qualities to the lay people.”

Then they praised each other’s superhuman qualities to the lay people, “Such a monk has the first absorption … such a monk has the six direct knowledges.” And those people thought, “We’re fortunate that such monks have come to us for the rains. Such monks as these, who are virtuous and of good character, have never before entered the rains with us.” And they gave such food and drink to those monks that they did not even eat and drink themselves, or give to their parents, to their wives and children, to their slaves, servants, and workers, to their friends and companions, or to their relatives. In this way those monks became handsome, with rounded features, bright faces, and clear skin.

Now it was the custom for monks who had finished keeping the rains to go and see the Master. So when the rainy-season residence was completed and the three months had elapsed, those monks put their dwellings in order, took their bowls and robes, and departed for Vesālī. When they eventually arrived at Vesālī, they went to the hall with the peaked roof in the Great Wood. There they approached the Master, bowed down to him, and sat down to one side.
At that time the monks who had completed the rainy-season residence in that region were thin, haggard and pale, their veins protruding all over their limbs. But the monks from the banks of the Vaggumudā were handsome, with rounded features, bright faces, and clear skin.

It is the custom for Buddhas to greet newly arrived monks, and so the Master said to them, “I hope you’re keeping well, monks, I hope you’re comfortable; I hope you spent the rains at ease, in concord and harmony, without dispute, and that you had no trouble getting almsfood?”
“We’re keeping well, Master, we’re comfortable; we spent the rains at ease, in concord and harmony, without dispute, and we had no trouble getting almsfood.”

Buddhas sometimes ask knowing, and knowing sometimes do not ask; they ask knowing the right time to ask, and they ask knowing the right time not to ask. Buddhas ask when it is beneficial, not when it is unbeneficial; in regard to what is unbeneficial, the Buddhas have destroyed the bridge. Buddhas question the monks for two reasons: to give a teaching or to lay down a training rule.

And the Master said to those monks, “In what way, monks, did you spend the rains at ease, without having any trouble getting almsfood?”
And they told the Master what had happened.
“But had you really achieved those superhuman qualities?”
“Yes, Master.”
The Buddha rebuked them, “Monks, how can you for the sake of your stomachs praise one another’s superhuman qualities to lay people? This will not give rise to confidence in those without it … And, monks, this training rule should be recited thus:
Final ruling
‘If a monk truthfully tells a person who is not fully ordained of a superhuman quality, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”

That is exactly how it appears at that website.
I have highlighted the incorrect translation of a segment of the “story behind the rule”, as well as the reported “Final Ruling”.

In the Pali version, this is how that particular section is: “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti? “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.”
The first part “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ” does mean “And they (bhikkhus) told the Master what had happened”.

However, the correct translation of the rest “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti?” “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti SHOULD BE:
“Bhikkhus, was that a lie? (meaning the attainments that they claimed)”. And the bhikkhus replied that indeed they had lied (“Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.).

Here, both English and Chinese translators (per account of Puthujjana) had incorrectly translated the question by the Buddha and the answer by the bhikkhus.

Bhuta means something that does not have real existence, and here it means a lie.
– Even today, the Sinhala word for ghost is “a bhuta”, since most people do not believe in the existence of ghosts.
– Patavi, apo, tejo, vayo are called “cattari maha bhutani” because their origins are the non-matter, i.e., gati and are really mind-created; see, “The Origin of Matter – Suddhātthaka ”. They all are going to be destroyed at the end of the Maha Kappa.

However, this real meaning of the bhuta in this context is not appreciated by most people today. Thus the wrong translation.

One can see that the real explanation based on the story makes more sense, and thus the Vinaya rule should be (and is per correct translation of “Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya bhūtasmiṃ, pācittiyan”ti.
– The key is “anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ” which means a bhikkhu who has NOT attained those claimed attainments (uttarimanussadhamma).
– Anupasampannassa comes from “na + upasampannassa” or “not attained”, just like Anāgāmi comes from “na + āgāmi” or “not coming back (to kāma loka)”.

Those bhikkhus falsely declared attainments in order to be treated well.
– A related key point is that one with such attainments would not have made such declarations with the intention of getting a better treatment (even if they had attainments). They knew that people offered the best they had to them (because of the declared attainments) even without feeding their families properly.

The correct rule is: “‘If a bhikkhu untruthfully declares a high-achievement (i.e., magga phala or jhana), he commits an offense’”

[y not]

Lal,

-‘If a bhikkhu untruthfully declares a high-achievement (i.e., magga phala or jhana), he commits an offense’-

That makes sense.

You will appreciate that I, and many others, cannot go into the original Pali to extract the true meaning in this way. So where the English translation seems at odds with established fundamental concepts in Buddhadhamma, I tend to go (until the matter is eventually resolved, like here) by whether it would follow from those established concepts or not.

In the case cited by puthujjana, it is all too easy to accept that the bhikkhus did not lie to those lay people, i,e.that they indeed had those supranormal powers, and that their wrongdoing consisted only of having declared them for selfish ends, because surely Bhikkhus should be aware of the consequences of lying about their attainments even when no Vinaya rule is in place. Which brings up another point:

Does the fact that they lied mean that those Bhikkhus had not attained any magga phala? Or, conversely, are Ariyas incapable even of such a thing? …worse, of claiming, for instance, a higher magga phala than they know to have actually attained? Are they prevented in the same definitive way as are Sotapannas, for example, prevented from committing papa kamma leading to the apayas? On the surface it is just a lie, but the claimant is thereby getting additional undeserved respect, a subtle kind of theft to add to the inflated sense of ego.

It may be that you have touched upon this point in a post or in a reply to a question somewhere already. I am not sure.

As ever, with infinite Gratitude

[Lal]

y not wrote: “Does the fact that they lied mean that those Bhikkhus had not attained any magga phala? Or, conversely, are Ariya incapable even of such a thing?”
AND “It may be that you have touched upon this point in a post or in a reply to a question somewhere already. I am not sure.”

Yes. I did mention that at the end of my post. If it is not clear there, yes, that is an important point.
– Furthermore, they themselves admitted to the Buddha that they did not have magga phala/jhana.

[puthujjana]

First of all, thanks all for having some rational discussion here!

The keyword that is being ambiguous is Anupasampannassa.

Lal wrote:
– Anupasampannassa comes from “na + upasampannassa” or “not attained”, just like Anāgāmi comes from “na + āgāmi” or “not coming back (to kāma loka)”.

Indeed, after some research, it is true that upasampannassa actually did mean attained, processed of. However, it also have another meaning base on 3 Pali dictionary, which is ordained. Thus, Anupasampannassa can also means NOT ordained, which can be a layman or a sāmaṇera. Check out meaning of upasampannassa from 3 Pali dictionary.

Here are the list of Anupasampannassa and upasampannassa used in the Vinaya/Sutta which we can see their meaning in different context.

Ok, now back to the Vinaya rule.

pācittiya 8 explanied by Lal:
In the Pali version, this is how that particular section is: “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti? “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.”
The first part “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ” does mean “And they (bhikkhus) told the Master what had happened”.

However, the correct translation of the rest “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti?” “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti SHOULD BE:
“Bhikkhus, was that a lie? (meaning the attainments that they claimed)”. And the bhikkhus replied that indeed they had lied (“Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.).

Interestingly, let us look at pārājika 4.

And the Master said to those monks,
Atha kho bhagavā vaggu­mudā­tīriye bhikkhū etadavoca—
“In what way, monks, did you spend the rains at ease, without having any trouble getting almsfood?”
“yathā kathaṃ pana tumhe, bhikkhave, samaggā sammodamānā avivadamānā phāsukaṃ vassaṃ vasittha na ca piṇḍakena kilamitthā”ti?

Then those monks told the Master.
Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ.

“But had you really achieved those superhuman qualities?”
“Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti?

“No, Master.”
“Abhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.

It seem to have a similar story, but instead of “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti., the Bhikkhu replied “Abhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti. So, base on Lal explaination, it will be “Bhikkhus, was that a lie? (meaning the attainments that they claimed)”. And the bhikkhus replied that indeed they had NOT lied (“Abhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.).

Question:
1. Bhikkhu who had not lied regarding their attainment committed pārājika and expel from the community and Bhikkhu who lied regarding their attainment committed only pācittiya?
2. Meaning of bhūta indeed included ghost, but is has other meaning as well, why we should choose ghost in this context and not just “existed” ?

With Metta

[y not]

Sorry,Lal – I had bypassed the last para altogether.

Yes it is not clear- there ‘attainments’are mentioned, not magga phala specifically.

‘Furthermore, they themselves admitted to the Buddha that they did not have magga phala/jhana.’
I have not come across this in the sutta. Have I now missed even that? !!

But that will do.

Thank you.

[Lal]

Regarding puthujjana’s questions:

“Indeed, after some research, it is true that upasampannassa actually did mean attained, processed of. However, it also have another meaning base on 3 Pali dictionary, which is ordained.”

I guess it could be used that way. But that would be a stretch.
– However, it is really bad to translate “anupasampannassa” as “truthfully”.

But your comments at the end do make sense.
“Question:
1. Bhikkhu who had not lied regarding their attainment committed pārājika and expel from the community and Bhikkhu who lied regarding their attainment committed only pācittiya?
2. Meaning of bhūta indeed included ghost, but is has other meaning as well, why we should choose ghost in this context and not just “existed” ?”

Just based on the fact that pārājika is the worst offense, it appears that the bhikkhus in the second case (pārājika) the ones who admitted to falsely claiming the attainments.

Since there were just words “bhutam” and “abhutam” there in the two cases, “bhutam” seems to mean “correct” in the sense that “it did materialize”, and “abhutam” means “did not”. As I mentioned earlier, “bhuta” means to “come into existence” (However, as I said there, those bhuta are not stable).
– It would have been helpful if clear-cut words like taccha/ataccha were used to indicate true/false.

We may be able to get more clarity by looking at the use of the words bhutam/abhutam in other situations.

Here is one such example:
Tatiyanibbānapaṭisaṃyutta Sutta (Udāna 8.3):
“Evaṃ me sutaṃ— ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anātha¬piṇḍi¬kassa ārāme. Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā bhikkhū nib¬bā¬na¬paṭi¬saṃ¬yuttāya dhammiyā kathāya sandasseti samādapeti samuttejeti sampahaṃseti. Tedha bhikkhū aṭṭhiṃ katvā, manasi katvā, sabbaṃ cetaso samannāharitvā, ohitasotā dhammaṃ suṇanti.
Atha kho bhagavā etamatthaṃ viditvā tāyaṃ velāyaṃ imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi:
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī”ti.

(It is to be noted that translations to other languages are available by clicking on the “hamburger icon” at top left on the menu bar there; but I have seen several incorrect translations like on this topic for the Vinaya rules).

In the above case “abhutam” is used in the “good sense” since it is a description of Nibbana. Here it actually means that Nibbana is not reached via the “formation” of something.
– As we know, patavi, apo,tejo, vayo and anything in “this world” arises via gati (mental energy) as the root cause, and thus are not stable (but Nibbana is).

[puthujjana]

Lal wrote:
– However, it is really bad to translate “anupasampannassa” as “truthfully”.

“anupasampannassa” is not translated as “truthfully”, but as “not ordained”.

Actually there are some translation does not use the word “truthfully”, like this one, which directly translate pācittiya 8 as: “Not to announce to a layman a realisation that has been achieved.”

With Metta

[Lal]

y not wrote: “Yes it is not clear- there ‘attainments’are mentioned, not magga phala specifically.”

Yes. I did: “Uttarimanussadhamma does mean magga phala or jhana.” on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.

I cannot keep repeating the same stuff in each every post. You should go back read my eralier responses before commenting.

[y not]

Yes,

Sorry about that.

[puthujjana]

Hi Lal, thanks once again for your reply.

So in conclusion, a Bhikkhu who claim attainment to lay people is breaking precept, whether truthfully (pācittiya 8) or falsely claim (pārājika 4).

With Metta

[Lal]

Let me look into this a bit more to make sure.

[puthujjana]

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu!

At the end of pācittiya 8:

There is no offense:
Anāpatti—
if he truthfully tells one who is fully ordained;
upasampannassa, bhūtaṃ āroceti,

From what I see, it is quite obvious that upasampannassa and anupasampannassa used in defining this rule actually mean ordained and not ordained.

ps: SuttaCentral has great tools for learning/understanding Pali. See the image below of how to setup and also how to search Pali word meaning and usage in Vinaya/Sutta.

With Metta

[puthujjana]

Also, look at pācittiya 9:

‘If a monk tells a person who is not fully ordained about another monk’s serious offense, except if the monks have agreed, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
“Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa duṭṭhullaṃ āpattiṃ anupasampannassa āroceyya, aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā, pācittiyan”ti.

Anupasampannassa here, is unlikely to render as “not attained”, but “not ordained” fit well, right?

With Metta

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “Anupasampannassa here, is unlikely to render as “not attained”, but “not ordained” fit well, right?”

Here is what I found so far: “sāmaṇera” is one who is just ordained, i.e., became a bhikkhu.
“upasampadā” is a higher level which is attained with seniority and other qualifications.

It seems “upasampannassa” is used to indicate one who has attained upasampadā.
“Anupasampannassa” is still a sāmaṇera.

But any bhikkhu commits a parajika offense (which is one of 4 most serious offenses) by declaring a supermundane attainment like jhana or magga phala (Uttarimanussadhamma) knowing that he does not have jhana or magga phala.

Here is the definition from 1. Pārājikakaṇḍa:
“Asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapanto kati āpattiyo āpajjati? Asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapanto tisso āpattiyo āpajjati. Pāpiccho icchāpakato asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapati, āpatti pārājikassa..”

Now, for the minor offense of pācittiya seems to involve who tells whom, and seems to be bit complicated.
– It also involves speaking of attainments by others (which no one would know except for a Buddha).
– However, a pācittiya offense can be overcome by confessing it to an assembly of bhikkhus.

But a pārājika offense cannot be overcome; one who committed a pārājika offense stops being a bhikkhu. He has to give up robes. Even if he does not give up robes he would not be a bhikkhu in the Buddha Sasana.

That is my understanding so far. I do not want to get into those pācittiya offenses. They seem to be complicated and are not beneficial to us for this discussion.

So, the bottom line is that any bhikkhu (or a lay person) can declare an attainment if desired. But if it is done without really having such attainments that is a pārājika offense.
– I have given sutta references for that on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.
– I must note that there many instances of declaring such attainments in the Tipitaka. For example, the first three Buddhist Councils (Sangayana) involved only Arahants. Without declaring Arahanthood by oneself, how would others know?

P.S. Thanks for posting the Sutta Central guide.
But unfortunately they translate anicca and anatta as “impermanence” and “no-self”. There are more as I have pointed out.
That is why I always give the link to the Pali version. One can get a translation (sometimes to several languages) by clicking on the “hamburger menu”) on top left. So, yes, they are good resource, but one needs to be careful.

[puthujjana]

Thanks Lal.

Lal wrote:
It seems “upasampannassa” is used to indicate one who has attained upasampadā.
“Anupasampannassa” is still a sāmaṇera.

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.

And here is definition for upasampadā: https://suttacentral.net/define/upasampad%C4%81

—————-

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, just like a mirror for yourself to see and check your own attainment, I think that’s why it is called Dhamma Mirror.

—————-

Lal wrote:
For example, the first three Buddhist Councils (Sangayana) involved only Arahants. Without declaring Arahanthood by oneself, how would others know?

It is OK for Arahant to declare to Arahant. :)

There is no offense
Anāpatti—
if he truthfully tells one who is fully ordained;
upasampannassa, bhūtaṃ āroceti,

——————-

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).

PS: Noted regarding your concern on SC.

With Metta

[y not]

Puthujjhana,

How can the part of the conclusion ‘..whether truthfully’ still stand?

It is no offence for an Ariya layman to declare to lay people, how is it an offence for an Ariya Bhikkhu?

(It is of course understood that the ground of the declaration has to be one of compassion and total altruism while teaching Dhamma, with not a trace of selfish concern as to perceived respectability and so on.)

with Metta

[Christian]

From what I see the meaning behind is like that:

1) “Hey look at me I attained Nibbana, worship me!” – Breaking precepts
2) “I attained Nibbana, let me help you be free of suffering” – Okay to do

Buddha mentioned that using superpowers to coax other people to practice Dhamma is not really right way to do because they would have wrong views about it but at the same time I remember story of Buddha who takes one person who was attached to his girlfriend/wife and could not leave her for a 5 minutes, Buddha showed him other great nymphs in higher realms so he considered that his wife is no more than monkey compared to them, Buddha coaxing him if he follows Noble Path he would be reborn in that realm with all those women so he ordained but at the same time in the process he attained Nibbana, other monks laughed his off as his intention was “impure” but Buddha “scolded” those monks as he already attained Arahantship.

Every situation needs a certain stage of wisdom – we can not act like robots and Buddha never expected that when he states Vinaya, some rules are straightforward but some rules seems to have open space for wisdom of a person and for him to decide and be responsible for his actions.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[y not]

Hello Christian,

– 1) “Hey look at me I attained Nibbana, worship me!” – Breaking precepts
2) “I attained Nibbana, let me help you be free of suffering” – Okay to do –

Exactly what I meant.

Metta

–

[Lal]

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“.

[Author]

Posts