| english - Thanissaro bhikkhu |
русский - raudex |
Комментарии |
|
8. Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state, when it is factual, to an unordained person, it is to be confessed.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
The factors for the full offense here are two:
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
1) Effort: One reports one's actual attainment of a superior human state
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
2) Object: to an unordained person, i. e. , any human being who is not a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī.
|
|
|
|
The commentaries add an extra factor here — result — but this is based on the same misunderstanding that led them to add the same factor to Pr 4. See the explanation under "Understanding," below.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Effort is the only factor requiring explanation here.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
The meaning of superior human state is discussed at length under Pr 4. In brief, it covers (a) jhāna, (b) the cognitive powers that can arise as its result, and (c) the transcendent attainments.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Factual is not explained in the texts, but probably means factual from the bhikkhu's own point of view.
|
|
|
|
In other words, regardless of whether he has actually attained a superior human state, if he thinks he has and reports it to an unordained person, he commits an offense all the same.
|
|
|
|
If he actually has attained such a state, e. g. , jhāna, but thinks he hasn't, and yet claims that he has — in other words, he is telling what he thinks to be a lie — he incurs a pārājika.
|
|
|
|
To report, says the Vibhaṅga, means to speak directly of one's own attainments, as explained under Pr 4 — i. e. , to claim that the state is present in oneself or that one is present in the state.
|
|
|
|
To speak indirectly of one's own attainments — e. g. , "The bhikkhu who lives in this dwelling enters jhāna at will" — entails a dukkaṭa.
|
|
|
|
According to the Commentary, gestures fall under this rule as well.
|
|
|
|
Thus, if a bhikkhu who has attained stream-entry nods when asked by a lay person if he has any noble attainments, his nod would fulfill the factor of effort here.
|
|
|
|
As under Pr 4, the use of idioms to express a superior human attainment would fulfill the factor of effort as well.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
The origin story to this rule deals with bhikkhus who, as a tactic for getting almsfood in a time of scarcity, had agreed to speak of one another's superior human states to householders.
|
|
|
|
This would seem to suggest that to speak of another bhikkhu's actual attainment of superior human states with such motives in mind — e. g. , hoping to get a share of the increased gains he might receive — should entail a penalty too, but none of the texts mention this point, so it is not an offense.
|
|
|
|
Still, any bhikkhu who plans to act in such a way, on the grounds that whatever is not an offense is perfectly all right, should remember that the Buddha criticized the bhikkhus in the origin story in very strong terms.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Understanding.
|
|
|
|
The Vibhaṅga contains a series of situations in which understanding is a factor, paralleling a similar series given under Pr 4. In each of the situations, a bhikkhu means to claim one superior human state but ends up claiming another.
|
|
|
|
None of the texts mention this point, but apparently both the state intended and the state mentioned are actually present within him.
|
|
|
|
At any rate, if he realizes his slip of the tongue, he incurs a pācittiya; if not, a dukkaṭa.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Unlike Pr 4, the bhikkhu's understanding when he makes an indirect claim to a superior human state here is not an issue.
|
|
|
|
He incurs a dukkaṭa whether he understands the implications of his statement or not.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Intention is not a factor under this rule.
|
|
|
|
Thus, whether one has a skillful or an unskillful motive for mentioning one's factual superior human attainments to an unordained person is irrelevant to the offense.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Non-offenses.
|
|
|
|
The Vibhaṅga lists only two non-offense clauses: There is no offense in reporting one's own superior human attainments to another bhikkhu or to a bhikkhunī, and there is no offense for the original instigators of the rule.
|
|
|
|
The Commentary, noting the absence of the usual exemption for one who is insane, explains it as follows: A person who has attained any of the noble attainments can never become insane; a person who has attained jhāna can become insane only after his/her ability to attain jhāna has been lost.
|
|
|
|
A bhikkhu in the latter category has no right to claim jhāna as a state "present in himself" and therefore does not deserve an exemption under this rule.
|
|
|
|
This last point, however, conflicts with the Vibhaṅga, which includes claims stated in the past tense — for example, "I have attained the first jhāna" — as examples of legitimate claims. A more likely explanation for the lack of the blanket exemptions under this rule is that they are already exempted under Pr 4.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
As for the first exemption, allowing a bhikkhus to claim his factual attainments to another bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, a series of stories in the Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4 raises some points to bear in mind in such situations.
|
|
|
|
A typical example — the stories differ only in minor details — is this:
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
"Then Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, as he was descending Vulture Peak Mountain, smiled at a certain place.
|
|
|
|
Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to him, 'Friend Moggallāna, what is the reason, what is the cause for your smile? '
|
|
|
|
"'This is not the time, friend Lakkhaṇa, to answer this question.
|
|
|
|
Ask me in the presence of the Blessed One.'
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
"So Ven. Lakkhaṇa and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna... went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.
|
|
|
|
As they were sitting there, Ven. Lakkhaṇa said to Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, 'Just now, friend Moggallāna... you smiled.
|
|
|
|
What was the reason, what was the cause for your smile? '
|
|
|
|
"'Just now, my friend... I saw a man immersed head and all in a pit of excrement, feeding on excrement with both hands.
|
|
|
|
The thought occurred to me, "Isn't it amazing, isn't it astounding, that there is a being even like this..."'
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
"Bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, 'Ven. Moggallāna is boasting of a superior human state!'
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
"Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus, 'Actually, bhikkhus, there are disciples of vision and knowledge who will know or see or bear witness like this.
|
|
|
|
Once I myself saw that being but I didn't disclose it.
|
|
|
|
Had I disclosed it, others would not have believed me... and that would have been to their long-term pain and detriment.
|
|
|
|
That being, bhikkhus, was once a corrupted brahman right in this very same Rājagaha.
|
|
|
|
He, in the time of the Buddha Kassapa, having invited a Community of bhikkhus to a meal, having filled a trough with excrement and announcing the time, said, "Venerable sirs, eat from this and take with you as much as you like."
|
|
|
|
Having been boiled in hell as a result of that action for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, many hundreds of thousands of years, he is now — through the remainder of the result of that very same action — experiencing existence as an individual like this.
|
|
|
|
Moggallāna spoke truly, bhikkhus.
|
|
|
|
There is no offense for him.'"
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Ven. Moggallāna's conduct here — waiting until he is in the presence of his teacher before relating his vision — has become a model for conduct among meditators, for as the bhikkhus' reaction and the Buddha's comments make clear, there are situations where the act of relating one's visions, etc., even when allowed, will serve no positive purpose.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Displaying psychic powers.
|
|
|
|
A related rule at Cv. V. 8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa.
|
|
|
|
In the origin story leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an act: "Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden māsaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable wooden bowl."
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
To display psychic powers to anyone who is not a lay person, though, is no offense.
|
|
|
|
Thus, given the way these two rules are framed, one may not tell a novice of one's powers but may levitate before his very eyes.
¶ |
¶ |
|
|
Summary: To tell an unordained person of one's actual superior human attainments is a pācittiya offense.
¶ |
¶ |
|
