English
a hot iron ball, like a flame of fire, then between that alms-food of the country which he eats, and that iron ball, the iron ball eaten would be better, more excellent, and more refined. For by eating an iron ball, one does not experience suffering in the next world, whose extent is difficult to determine even by the omniscience of the Buddha. But by eating that alms-food of the country obtained in such a way, one experiences the aforementioned suffering in the next world, for this is a supreme form of wrong livelihood. Thus, having shown the danger to those who do not see the danger in evil actions, and having said, “Then the Blessed One, having rebuked the bhikkhus of Vaggumudā-tīra in many ways for their difficulty in being supported, difficulty in being maintained… …should lay down this training rule,” the Buddha, in establishing the fourth pārājika, said, “Whatever bhikkhu, not knowing…” and so on. Thus, after the fourth pārājika was firmly established by way of uprooting, another… also, for the sake of further enactment, a case of overestimation arose. To illustrate its origin, this was said: "Thus, this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the bhikkhus." Description of the Case of Overestimation 196. Therein, "perceiving as seen what is not seen" means, having not seen Arahantship with the eye of wisdom, yet perceiving it as "Arahantship has been seen by us." This method applies to "not attained," etc. But this is the distinction: "not attained" means not attained in the sense of arising in one's own continuum. "Not comprehended" means not comprehended through the development of the path; it also means "not acquired." "Not realized" means not penetrated, or not made manifest through review. "By overestimation" means by the estimation of having attained; it means by the conceit that arises thus: "we have attained," or it means by excessive conceit, by stiff conceit. "They declared otherwise" means they declared Arahantship; they announced to the bhikkhus, "Friends, Arahantship has been attained by us, what was to be done has been done." For them, whose defilements were not abandoned by the path, but merely suppressed by the power of calm and insight, at a later time, when such conditions converged, the mind inclines to lust; it means it inclines for the sake of lust. This method applies to the others. "And indeed, this is not a matter for transaction" means that declaration of theirs is not a matter for transaction; it does not enter into the transaction of enacting an offense; it means it is not an element of an offense. To whom does this overestimation arise, and to whom does it not arise? To a noble disciple, it does not arise. For he, with joy arisen through reviewing the defilements abandoned by the path, fruit, and Nibbāna, and the remaining defilements, is free from doubt in the penetration of noble qualities. Therefore, to stream-enterers and so forth, overestimation does not arise in the sense of "I am a once-returner," etc. To a wicked person, it does not arise, for he is without hope in the attainment of noble qualities. To one who is virtuous but has abandoned his meditation subject, and is devoted to idleness and so forth, it does not arise. But to one of perfectly pure virtue, who is diligent in his meditation subject, who has discriminated mind and matter, and whose doubt is overcome by comprehending conditions, When one applies a characteristic and contemplates formations, for one who has begun insight, it arises. And having arisen, it places one who has attained pure tranquility or one who has attained pure insight in an intermediate state. For such a one, for ten, twenty, or thirty years, not seeing the defilements arise, thinks, "I am a stream-enterer," or "a once-returner," or "a non-returner." But one who has attained both tranquility and insight it places directly in arahantship. For such a one, by the power of concentration, the defilements are suppressed; by the power of insight, the formations are well comprehended. Therefore, for sixty, eighty, or a hundred years, the defilements do not arise. The mind's activity is like that of an Arahant. Not seeing the defilements arise for such a long time, without being in an intermediate state, he thinks, "I am an Arahant." Explanation of the Rule with Analysis 197. "Not knowing" means not knowing. But since this one acts without knowing, it is not arisen in his continuum, and not realized by knowledge, so it is unreal. Therefore, in the word analysis, having said "non-existent, unreal, not found," it is said, "not knowing, not seeing." "Superior human states" means the states of superior humans, of meditators and of noble ones. "Attupanāyikaṃ" means he brings it to himself, or he brings himself to it, thus "attupanāyika." "That attupanāyikaṃ" is connected as "he would act having done this." In the word analysis, however, since superior human states are said to be many states such as absorption, liberation, concentration, attainment, knowledge and vision... and so on... delight in empty dwellings, thus, absorptions and so on. Therefore, showing the state of "attupanāyika" in terms of all of them, it made a plural designation: "or he brings those wholesome states to himself." There, "These states are seen in me," acting thus, he brings them to himself. "I am seen in these," acting thus, he brings himself to them, this should be understood. "Sufficient noble knowledge and vision": Here, mundane and supramundane wisdom is "knowledge" in the sense of knowing, and by the eye... Like this, by realizing the Dhamma, it is called "vision" in the sense of seeing, thus "knowledge and vision." Noble, pure, supreme knowledge and vision is "noble knowledge and vision." Here, noble knowledge and vision is sufficient, complete, capable of destroying defilements. Or, one who has noble knowledge and vision sufficient for superhuman states such as jhānas, is called "one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision." That "one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision" is a superhuman state – thus the connection of the terms should be understood. Therein, by which knowledge and vision he is called "one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision." To show that very thing, "knowledge means the three knowledges, vision means that knowledge which is vision; that vision which is knowledge" – this division of terms is stated under the heading of knowledge. Here, all developed and supramundane wisdom should be understood as "knowledge." "Should declare" means he should announce this superhuman state, of the kind described, making it his own. "To a woman" and so on is an example of the person to whom it should be announced. For when it is announced to these, it is considered announced, not to devas, Māras, or Brahmās, nor to ghosts, yakkhas, or animals. "Thus I know, thus I see" is an example of the manner of declaration. In the division of terms, however, "I know these states, I see these states" indicates the occurrence of knowing and seeing in those states such as jhānas. "And these states exist in me" and so on indicates the state of making it one's own. 198. "Then at a later time" is an indication of the time of confessing the offense. But this one incurs a pārājika offense at the very moment of declaration. However, since one who has incurred an offense confesses, whether questioned by another or not questioned, therefore it is said: "whether being questioned or not being questioned." There, when being questioned: "What have you attained?" is a question about attainment. "Among jhānas, liberations, and so on, or among the path of stream-entry, and so on, what have you attained?" "How have you attained?" is a question about the means. For this is the intention here: "Have you attained by making impermanence the primary characteristic? Or the characteristic of suffering, or non-self?" or one of them? Or having entered by way of concentration, or by way of insight? Likewise, having entered into form, or into formlessness? Or having entered internally, or externally? "When were they attained by you?" is the question of time. It means, "At what time, among morning, noon, etc.?" "Where were they attained by you?" is the question of place. It means, "In what place, whether in a night-abode, a day-abode, at the foot of a tree, in a pavilion, or in what monastery?" "Which defilements have been abandoned by you?" is the question of abandoned defilements. It means, "Your defilements, by which path were they abandoned?" "Of which states are you a recipient?" is the question of attained states. It means, "Of which states, among the first path etc., are you a recipient?" Therefore, even if some monk now declares an attainment of a superhuman state, he should not be honored merely by that. But for the purpose of verification in these six points, he should be addressed – "What have you attained? Is it jhāna, or one of the liberations etc.?" For the state that has been attained by someone, that is clear to him. If he says, "This is what I have attained," then he should be asked, "How did you attain it?" "Making what as the primary focus among the impermanence characteristic etc., or among the thirty-eight objects, or among states divided into form, formless, internal, external etc., by what aspect did you enter?" For the mode of entry that one has, that is clear to him. If he says, "This is my mode of entry, I attained it thus," then he should be asked, "When did you attain it?" "Was it in the forenoon, or at some other time among noon etc.?" For the time of one's own attainment is clear to all. If he says, "I attained it at such and such a time," then he should be asked, "Where did you attain it?" "Was it in a day-abode, or in some other place among night-abodes etc.?" For the place of one's own attainment is clear to all. If he says, "I attained it in such and such a place," he says, then “Which defilements