English
these six points should be clarified: "What have you attained? How have you attained it? When have you attained it? Where have you attained it? Which defilements have you abandoned? Of which states are you a recipient?" For if any monk were to declare the attainment of superhuman states, he should not be honored merely on that account. But for the purification of these six points, he should be asked thus: "What have you attained? Is it jhāna, or one of the liberations, etc.?" For the state that has been attained by him, that... To him it is manifest. If he says: "This indeed I have attained," Then he should be asked: "How have you attained it? What did you make your primary focus among the marks of impermanence and so on, or among the thirty-eight objects, or among phenomena divided into material and immaterial, internal and external, and so on? Through what aspect did you penetrate?" For whatever his penetration, that is manifest to him. If he says: "This indeed is my penetration, thus have I attained it," Then he should be asked: "When did you attain it? Was it in the forenoon, or at some other time like midday and so on?" For to everyone, the time of their attainment is manifest. If he says: "At such and such a time I attained it," Then he should be asked: "Where did you attain it? Was it in a day-dwelling place, or in some other place like a night-dwelling place and so on?" For to everyone, the place of their attainment is manifest. If he says: "In such and such a place I attained it," Then he should be asked: "Which defilements have you abandoned? Were they those abandoned by the first path, or those abandoned by the second path and so on?" For to everyone, the defilements abandoned by their attained path are manifest. If he says: "These defilements indeed I have abandoned," Then he should be asked: "Of which states are you a recipient? Of the path of stream-entry, or of some other like the path of once-returning and so on?" For to everyone, their attained state is manifest. If he says: "Of these states indeed I am a recipient," Even then, his words should not be trusted. For learned monks, skilled in grasping and questioning, can verify these six points. But the practice of this monk should be examined. If his practice is not pure, he should be dismissed, saying: "By this practice a supramundane state is not attained." But if his practice is pure, (then he is one who has been) for a long time diligent in the three trainings, devoted to wakefulness, unattached to the four requisites, with a mind like a bird in the sky... it is known that he dwells, the declaration of that monk is consistent with the practice. "Just as the water of the Ganges is consistent and meets with the water of the Yamunā, even so the path to Nibbāna for the disciples has been well taught by that Blessed One; Nibbāna and the path are consistent," it is like what is said. But even with this, honor should not be paid. Why? For some ordinary person, even while being an ordinary person, the practice is similar to that of an Arahant. Therefore, that monk should be frightened by various means. For an Arahant, even when a thunderbolt falls on his head, there is no fear, no terror, no hair-raising; for an ordinary person, it happens with a trifle. Here are these stories: It is said that the Elder Abhaya, the long-reciter, being unable to identify a certain alms-gatherer, gave a sign to a young monk. He, while the alms-gatherer was bathing at the mouth of the Kalyāṇī River, submerged and grabbed his feet. The alms-gatherer, thinking it was a crocodile, made a loud noise. Then they knew him to be an ordinary person. During the time of King Candamukhatissa, the Elder of the Saṅgha in the Great Monastery was an Arahant with weak eyesight, dwelling in the monastery itself. The king, intending to identify the Elder, when the monks had gone for alms, quietly approached and grabbed his feet like a snake. The Elder, motionless like a stone pillar, said, "Who is here?" "It is I, venerable sir, Tissa." "You smell fragrant, Tissa, don't you?" Thus, for an Arahant, there is no such thing as fear. However, some ordinary people are very brave and fearless. They should be identified by an object that excites passion. King Vasabha, while identifying a certain Elder, made him sit in the house and sat near him, crushing a jujube fruit. The Great Elder's saliva flowed. The Elder's state of being an ordinary person became manifest. For an Arahant, the craving for taste is well abandoned; there is no attachment even to divine tastes. Therefore, Having been tested by these means, if fear or terror or craving for taste arises in him, he should be dismissed with "you are not worthy." But if, fearless, unterrified, undaunted, he sits like a lion, and does not generate attachment even to divine objects, this monk is a perfect expounder, and should be known as worthy of the honor sent by kings, great ministers, and others from all sides. Thus, the declaration of superhuman states should be determined. 234. However, one desiring skill in all Vinaya determinations should know the fourfold Vinaya. Indeed, the fourfold Vinaya, the great elders, mighty ones; having extracted it, proclaimed it, the compilers of the Dhamma of old. What is the fourfold? Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda, Attanomati. In reference to which it was said: "Indeed, O great king, by the direct word, by the essence, by the lineage of teachers, by the intention." Here, "direct word" means Sutta. "Essence" means Suttānuloma. "Lineage of teachers" means Ācariyavāda. "Intention" means Attanomati. Therein, Sutta means the Pāli text in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Suttānuloma means the four Great Authorities. Which were thus spoken by the Blessed One – "Monks, that which I have not forbidden, saying 'this is not allowable,' if it conforms to the unallowable and rejects the allowable, that is not allowable for you. Monks, that which I have not forbidden, saying 'this is not allowable,' if it conforms to the allowable and rejects the unallowable, that is allowable for you. Monks, that which I have not permitted, saying 'this is allowable,' if it conforms to the unallowable and rejects the allowable, that is not allowable for you. Monks, that which I have not permitted, saying 'this is allowable,' if it conforms to the allowable and rejects the unallowable, that is allowable for you." Ācariyavāda means the tradition of commentaries established by five hundred Arahants, the compilers of the Dhamma, which is distinct from the Pāli text and contains determinations that have come down. Attanomati "Mati" is the declaration of a presented form, grasped by one's own understanding through inference, having abandoned the Sutta, Suttānuloma, and Acariyavāda. Furthermore, all the Theravāda found in the commentaries on the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya is called "attanomati." But one who speaks, taking that attanomati, should not speak with a firm grasp. Having considered the reason, the Pāḷi should be compared with the meaning, and the meaning with the Pāḷi, and then spoken. Attanomati should be introduced into the Acariyavāda. If it enters there and accords, it should be taken. If it neither enters nor accords, it should not be taken. For this attanomati is the weakest of all. The Acariyavāda is stronger than attanomati. The Acariyavāda too should be introduced into the Suttānuloma. What enters there and accords should indeed be taken. The other should not be taken. For the Suttānuloma is stronger than the Acariyavāda. The Suttānuloma too should be introduced into the Sutta. What enters there and accords should indeed be taken. The other should not be taken. For the Sutta itself is stronger than the Suttānuloma. For the Sutta is unchangeable, like the assembly of doers, like the time when the Buddhas stood. Therefore, when two bhikkhus discuss: if one speaker takes the Sutta and speaks, and the other speaker takes the Suttānuloma. By them, without making mutual disparagement or blame, the Suttānuloma should be introduced into the Sutta. If it enters and accords, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand firm in the Sutta itself. Now if this one takes the Sutta and speaks, and the other takes the Acariyavāda. By them too, without making mutual disparagement or blame, the Acariyavāda should be introduced into the Sutta. If it enters and accords, it should be taken. What does not enter and does not accord, that blameworthy Acariyavāda should not be taken. One should stand firm in the Sutta itself. Now if this one takes the Sutta and speaks, and the other takes attanomati. By them too, without making mutual disparagement or blame, attanomati should be introduced into the Sutta. If it enters and accords, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand firm in the Sutta itself. Now if this one su- He speaks, taking Sutta-conformity. The other (speaks) a Sutta. It should be brought into Sutta-conformity. If it fits, if it accords, if it is known to be Pāli, recited at the three councils, it should be accepted. If it is not so known, if it does not fit, does not accord, it is an external Sutta, or a verse, or some other blameworthy Sutta, brought from a hidden Vessantara, or hidden Vinaya, or Vedalla, or any other such source. It should not be accepted. One should stand by Sutta-conformity alone. Now this one speaks, taking Sutta-conformity. The other (speaks) a teacher's doctrine. The teacher's doctrine should be brought into Sutta-conformity. If it fits, if it accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by Sutta-conformity alone. Now this one speaks, taking Sutta-conformity. The other (speaks) his own opinion. His own opinion should be brought into Sutta-conformity. If it fits, if it accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by Sutta-conformity alone.