Lzh Mg Bu Vb Pc 7Truthfully Announcing Superhuman Attainments

– MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

– PĀCITTIYA OFFENSES

– EXPLAINING THE SECOND SECTION OF THE NINETY-TWO SINGLE OFFENSES

7. PRECEPT: TRUTHFULLY STATING THAT ONE HAS ATTAINED THE PATH.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Śrāvastī, as explained in detail above, and as the causes and circumstances of the matter were clearly set forth in the fourth precept on false speech, the difference here is that in this case one speaks truthfully. It came to the point where the Buddha said to the bhikkhus: "This is a bad thing. It is like a courtesan who sells her beauty to sustain herself.

You are the same—using the sublime and true Dharma to speak to others is no different from a courtesan who, for the sake of food and drink, sells her beauty to maintain her life." Thereupon the Buddha commanded all the bhikkhus dwelling in Śrāvastī to assemble together, and for the sake of ten benefits he established this precept for the bhikkhus; even those who have heard it before must hear it again:

"If a bhikkhu proclaims of himself that he has attained a superhuman state, saying: 'I know thus, I see thus'—even if this is spoken truthfully—he commits a Pācittiya offense."

Explanation:

—Proclaiming that one has attained a superhuman state: The superhuman states are as explained before. If one says: "Have I attained the knowledge of the Dharma?"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection. If one says: "I have attained the knowledge of the Dharma"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense. If one says: "I have realized and attained the knowledge of the Dharma"—this incurs a Pācittiya offense. Sentence by sentence, as explained above, up to and including a truthful statement regarding the ten dharmas of one beyond training—this incurs a Pācittiya offense.

—If a bhikkhu says to a woman: "The bhikkhus who observed the rains-retreat at such-and-such a place are none of them ordinary persons"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection. If she asks: "Does the Venerable One also reside among them?" and he replies: "I also reside among them"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense. If an upāsikā asks: "Has the Venerable One also attained that Dharma?" and he replies: "I have"—then even if this is spoken truthfully, it incurs a Pācittiya offense.

If a bhikkhu says to an upāsikā: "The bhikkhus who performed the Pravāraṇā at such-and-such a place are not ordinary persons; they are all arhats"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection. If the upāsikā asks: "Did the Venerable One also perform the Pravāraṇā there?" and he replies: "Indeed so"—this incurs a Vyatikrama offense. If she further asks: "Has the Venerable One also attained the fruit of arhatship?" and he replies: "I have"—then even if this is spoken truthfully, it incurs a Pācittiya offense.

If a bhikkhu says: "The bhikkhu Sheng-li in such-and-such a place regularly goes to the houses of kings, the houses of great ministers, the houses of elders, the houses of householders, your house, and the houses of your relatives to teach the scriptures; that teacher walks, stands, lies down, and sits in such a manner, eats such food (and has attained the fruit of arhatship)"—the same applies (that is, it incurs a Pācittiya offense).

If one uses the speech of the central country to speak to someone of the frontier regions, or uses the speech of the frontier regions to speak to someone of the central country, or uses the speech of the central country to speak to someone of the central country, or uses the speech of the frontier regions to speak to someone of the frontier regions—if one speaks the explicit meaning but not the implied meaning, a Vyatikrama offense is incurred.

If one speaks the implied meaning but not the explicit meaning, a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection is incurred. If one speaks both the explicit meaning and the implied meaning, a Pācittiya offense is incurred. If one speaks neither the explicit meaning nor the implied meaning, there is no offense.

If one writes it out in characters, makes a hand gesture, or indicates the explicit meaning without indicating the implied meaning, a Vyatikrama offense is incurred. If one indicates the implied meaning without indicating the explicit meaning, a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection is incurred. If one indicates both the explicit meaning and the implied meaning, a Sthūlātyaya offense is incurred.

If one indicates neither the explicit meaning nor the implied meaning, there is no offense. Finally, even displaying the signs of an arhat incurs a Vyatikrama offense to be confessed through mental recollection. Therefore it is said (as above).

MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

End of the Thirteenth Fascicle.

Vietnamese translation: Thích Phước Sơn. MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

Chinese translation: TRIPIṬAKA BUDDHĀBHADRA OF INDIA

TOGETHER WITH ŚRAMAṆA FAXIAN, TRANSLATED DURING THE EASTERN JIN DYNASTY

DOCTRINAL VERIFICATION: THÍCH ĐỖNG MINH