[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Author]

Posts