Parajika 4: Wrongfully claiming noble attainments

If a monk claims with reference to himself a superhuman state of knowledge and vision that is truly noble, with which he is not in fact acquainted, saying “Thus I know; thus I see;” then, whether or not he is later interrogated about it, fallen and seeking purification, he says “Friends, though not knowing, I said ‘I know’; though not seeing, I said ‘I see’. I boasted vainly and falsely”; unless it was from over-estimation, he is parajika, no longer in communion.

Yo pana bhikkhu anabhijānaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ attūpanāyikaṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ samudācareyya iti jānāmi iti passāmī'ti tato aparena samayena samanuggāhiyamāno vā asamanuggāhiyamāno vā āpanno visuddhāpekkho evaṃ vadeyya ajānam evaṃ āvuso avacaṃ jānāmi apassaṃ passāmi; tucchaṃ musā vilapin'ti. Aññatra adhimānā ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

Story

Monks decided that to survive vassa in an area suffering food shortages, they should lie to lay people that they had attained superhuman states. The laypeople, not realising the deception, were delighted: “What a blessing that such monks are spending the vassa here; indeed, we have never had monks of such quality staying for vassa”. Accordingly, they withheld food from even their own wives and children so they could support the monks. As the famine deepened, the monks became plump with rosy complexions.

The Buddha later told them: “It would have been better, foolish men, that your bellies were slit open with a sharp butcher’s knife, than that you, for the sake of your stomachs, should have deceived laypeople about superhuman states. Why is that? For that reason, foolish men, you would merely die or suffer deadly pain, but you would not, at death, pass to the abyss, hell; but for this reason, foolish men, you would”.

He continued: “Monks, in the universe with its gods, Maras, Brahmas, with its ascetics and brahmans, this is the foremost great thief: he who falsely claims to have attained a superhuman state which he has not attained. Why is that? Because, monks, you have eaten the country’s almsfood by theft".

On a later occasion monks declared final knowledge (aññaṃ vyākariṃsu) from overestimation (adhimānena) thinking they had seen, attained, found and realised what in fact they had not (adiṭṭhe diṭṭhasaññino appatte pattasaññino anadhigate adhigatasaññino asacchikate sacchikatasaññino). But before long, their hearts yielded (namati) to passion, ill-will and delusion. The Buddha said that claims due to overestimation are not subject to the rule (abbohārikanti) (Vin.3.91).

Word analysis

not acquainted (anabhijānanti): he claims to have a good state (atthi me kusalo dhammoti) that does not exist; it is it not found, known or seen (asantaṃ abhūtaṃ asaṃvijjamānaṃ ajānanto apassanto)
superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammo):

jhana (jhānaṃ)
deliverance (vimokkho)
samadhi (samādhi)
attainment (samāpatti)
knowledge and vision (ñāṇadassanaṃ)
development of the path (maggabhāvanā)
realisation of the fruits (phalasacchikiriyā)
abandoning of the imperfections (kilesappahānaṃ)
freedom from the hindrances (vinīvaraṇatā cittassa)
delight in solitude (suññāgāre abhirati)
[These states are individually examined in Appendix 29. For states that could have been added to this list, see Appendices 28 and 30].

knowledge (ñāṇa): the three profound knowledges (tisso vijjā)
vision (dassanaṃ): vision is knowledge; knowledge is vision (yaṃ ñāṇaṃ taṃ dassanaṃ; yaṃ dassanaṃ taṃ ñāṇaṃ). [The term uttarimanussadhammaṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ is an indivisible unitary phrase, and is best considered as such - see Appendix 29].
claims (samudācareyyāti): announces to a man or woman, either a layperson or one gone forth.
thus I know; thus I see (iti jānāmi iti passāmīti): I know these states; I see these states; these states are found in me; I live in conformity to these states (jānāmahaṃ ete dhamme passāmahaṃ ete dhamme atthi ca ete dhammā mayi ahañca etesu dhammesu sandissāmīti)
later (tato aparena samayena): at the moment it [the claim] has occurred, that moment, that second, that fraction of time, it has passed (yasmiṃ khaṇe samudāciṇṇaṃ hoti taṃ khaṇaṃ taṃ layaṃ taṃ muhuttaṃ vītivatte).
interrogated (samanuggāhiyamāno): someone asks “What was attained by you? How was it attained? When was it attained? Where was it attained? Which imperfections have you abandoned (katame te kilesā pahīnā)? Which Dhammas have you gained?”
not interrogated (asamanuggāhiyamāno): no one asks.
fallen (āpannoti): one of evil wishes, covetous, (pāpiccho icchāpakato) who has fallen into a parajika offence.
seeking purification (visuddhāpekkhoti): he wants to be a householder (gihī), a lay-follower (upāsako), a monastery attendant (ārāmiko) or novice (sāmaṇero). [This 'seeking purification' may stem from the Buddha's saying that: “Since you see a transgression as a transgression, and make amends for it in accordance with Dhamma, we acknowledge it for you. For, in the noble discipline, this is growth. For, whoever, seeing a transgression as a transgression, makes amends in accordance with Dhamma, will, in future, restrain himself” (M.1.440). This passage suggests that, after parajika, re-ordination as a novice has always been a possibility].

No-offence clause

There is no offence

if the claim is from overestimation (adhimānena)
if one is not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyassa)

On the four other terms - ummattakassa, khittacittassa, vedanāṭṭassa, ādikammikassāti - see appendix 16.

Origin of the no-offence clause

The terms of the no-offence clause originate from these sources:

adhimānena: from the rule itself.
anullapanādhippāyassa: from the illustrative stories e.g. cases 15, 16.

Superhuman states in the suttas

Ten superhuman states (uttarimanussadhammo) are listed in the word analysis: jhānaṃ vimokkho samādhi samāpatti ñāṇadassanaṃ maggabhāvanā phalasacchikiriyā kilesappahānaṃ vinīvaraṇatā cittassa suññāgāre abhirati (Vin.3.91-2). For the meaning of these terms, see the appendices:

Illustrative Stories: rule-amending extracts

The Illustrative Stories show how Parajika Four was regarded in actual practice in the Buddha’s day, and therefore show in what ways the rule was effectively amended. These cases express the final form of the rule. For ease of explanation, they are presented in the following order:

Case 10: A monk wrongfully claimed (uttarimanussadhammaṃ ullapati) that “My fetters, friend, are destroyed” (mayhampi āvuso saññojanā pahīnā’ti). Verdict: parajika. [The judgement here is straightforward: the monk, using the personal pronoun, claimed arahantship].
Case 29: A monk wrongfully claimed (uttarimanussadhammaṃ ullapati) to another monk that “For me, friend, the asavas are destroyed” (mayhampi āvuso āsavā pahīnā’ti). Verdict: parajika. [The judgement here is also straightforward: the monk, using the personal pronoun, claimed arahantship].
Case 30: A monk wrongfully claimed to another monk: “In me, friend, these Dhammas are found” (mayhampi āvuso ete dhammā saṃvijjantī’ti). Verdict: parajika. [This case involves the personal pronoun, and a claim to have realised “dhammas”. The monk does not mention any particular superhuman state. However, in context, “dhammas” means “superhuman state”. Therefore, if a monk using the personal pronoun falsely claims to have attained a superhuman state, even by merely alluding to it, it is a parajika offence].
Case 31: A monk wrongfully claimed to another monk: “I live in conformity with those Dhammas” (ahampāvuso tesu dhammesu sandissāmī’ti). Verdict: parajika. [This is similar to Case 30, though the claim is worded more obliquely. It would be more straightforward if the monk had claimed to have “attained” or “realised” those truths. Oblique wording, therefore, makes no difference. This is confirmed by the Word Analysis which says iti jānāmi iti passāmī’ti means ahañca etesu dhammesu sandissāmīti, the very words the monk used in this case. Again, although the claim is to 'dhammas' ('things' or 'states') the context implies that superhuman states was meant].
Case 35: Monks spending vassa together made a pact that whichever of them set out first from the residence, they would know as an arahant. One monk set out wrongfully thinking “May they know me as an arahant.” Verdict: parajika. [This case shows that claims to superhuman states can be made without speech].
Case 5: One monk, wrongfully intending to make a claim (ullapanādhippāyo) told another monk that “all the pupils of our preceptor are of great magical power and glory” (mahiddhikā mahānubhāvā). Verdict: thullaccaya.
- The monk obviously meant “I am of great magical power and glory” yet he was not parajika. There are two possible explanations. Either: (1) The monk was not parajika because he did not mention any particular superhuman state. However, the monks in Cases 30 and 31, the parajika cases mentioned above, also did not claim any particular superhuman state. Or: (2) claims to superhuman states in which the personal pronoun is avoided are thullaccaya offences. In which case, it would be parajika only if the monk had said “I am of great magical power and of great glory”. This seems the right conclusion.
- Great magical power and glory (mahiddhike, mahānubhāve) are qualities of the sun and the moon (S.2.212); and of the lion, which, with its roar, terrifies other animals (S.3.85). According to King Ajatasattu, they are qualities of his enemies, the Vajjians (D.2.72). But in the present context, the meaning of mahiddhikā mahānubhāvā is found in Venerable Moggallana’s ability to shake the Mansion of Migara’s Mother with his toe (S.5.271); in the Buddha’s ability to recall past Buddhas, together with their names and clans; in his ability, at a glance, to heal Suppiya’s wound, so there was skin with hair growing on it. Developing such power can only be achieved by developing and cultivating the four ways to power (catunnaṃ iddhipādānaṃ bhāvitattā bahulīkatattā) (S.5.273). For this reason, 'great magical power and glory' is a superhuman state.
Case 4: A monk, wrongfully intending to make a claim (ullapanādhippāyo) told another monk that “all the pupils of our teacher are arahants” (ye āvuso amhākaṃ upajjhāyassa saddhivihārikā sabbeva arahanto’ti.). Verdict: thullaccaya. [Although the monk obviously meant “I am an arahant”, he avoided the personal pronoun, and therefore was not parajika].
Case 13: A monk, wrongfully intending to make a claim, told a layperson: “Whoever lives in your dwelling is an arahant” (yo āvuso tuyhaṃ vihāre vasati, so bhikkhu arahā’ti). That monk lived in the dwelling. Verdict: thullaccaya. [Although the monk meant “I am an arahant”, he avoided the personal pronoun; therefore, not parajika. A minor point: the expression “your dwelling” means that the dwelling was built by the layperson, and not that it actually belonged to him - see Appendix 15].
Case 14: A monk, wrongfully intending to make a claim, told the layperson who offered him the four requisites: “The monk to whom you offer the four requisites is an arahant”. Verdict: thullaccaya. [Although the monk obviously meant “I am an arahant”, he avoided the personal pronoun, and was therefore not parajika].
Case 23: Monks said to a monk who was ill: “We hope you are bearing up; we hope you are sustaining yourself”. The monk, wrongfully intending to make a claim (ullapanādhippāyo) replied: “An ordinary person could not endure this” (nāvuso sakkā puthujjanena adhivāsetun”ti). Verdict: thullaccaya. [The monk, though an ordinary person (puthujjana), was effectively claiming “I am not an ordinary person”; in other words: “I am one of the eight types of noble persons (ariyas)”. However, because he avoided the personal pronoun, he avoided parajika].

Illustrative stories: 60 cases

A monk, through overestimation, declared final knowledge (adhimānena aññaṃ vyākāsi). Verdict: no offence [The rule makes it clear that claims from overestimation are not subject to the rule, which the Buddha called abbohārikan'ti: Vin.3.91].
A monk lived in the wilderness (araññe) with a wish that people would respect him for it (paṇidhāya evaṃ maṃ jano sambhāvessatī’ti). When people respected him, he worriedly consulted the Buddha. Verdict: not a false claim, so not parajika. But one should not live in the wilderness with [such] a wish. If doing so, dukkata.
A monk went on almsround with a wish that people would respect him for it. When people respected him, he worriedly consulted the Buddha. Verdict: not a false claim, so not parajika. But one should not go on almsround with a [such] wish. If doing so, dukkata.
Mentioned above.
Mentioned above.
A monk practised walking meditation (caṅkamati) with a wish that people would respect him for it. When people respected him, he worriedly consulted the Buddha. Verdict: not a false claim, so not parajika. But one should not practise walking meditation with such a wish. If doing so, dukkata.
... one should not practise standing meditation (tiṭṭhati) with such a wish. If doing so, dukkata.
... one should not practise sitting meditation (nisīdati) with such a wish. If doing so, dukkata.
... one should not practise lying meditation (seyyaṃ kappeti) with such a wish. If doing so, dukkata.
Mentioned above
A certain monk, being in private (rahogato) falsely claimed a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ ullapati). Another monk, somehow knowing about the claim, and knowing the actual state of that monk’s mind, rebuked him: “Do not talk like that; that state is not yours”. Verdict: dukkata [to make a false claim in private].
A certain monk, being in private, claimed a superhuman state. A devata rebuked him “ Do not talk like that; that state is not yours “. Verdict: dukkata.
Mentioned above.
Mentioned above.
Monks said to a monk who was ill: “The venerable has a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammo)”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), he replied “Friends, it is not difficult to declare final knowledge” (nāvuso dukkaraṃ aññaṃ byākātun’ti). He reflected that only the Buddha’s disciples (bhagavato sāvakā) should say such a thing, and that he was not such a disciple. Verdict: no offence. [Sāvakā is an abbreviation for ariyasāvako, which includes the arahant and the Path-attainer (sekha) (M.1.234-5). To this monk, however, sāvakā seemed to mean ‘arahant’].
Monks said to a monk who was ill: “The venerable has a superhuman state”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), he replied “Dhamma is to be attained by strenuous effort” (ārādhanīyo kho āvuso dhammo āraddhaviriyenā’ti). Verdict: no offence. [Viriyabalaṃ is one of the five powers of a Path-attainer (sekhabalāni). It is to be seen in a noble disciple of strenuous effort (ariyasāvako āraddhaviriyo) in his abandoning of unskilful mental qualities and arousing skilful mental qualities (A.3.2). The term āraddhaviriyo is thus closely related to ariyasāvako and sekhabalāni. So it is a superhuman state. But no offence here, because there was no wrongful claim,].
Monks told a monk who was ill “Do not be afraid”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), the monk replied “I do not fear death” (nāhaṃ āvuso maccuno bhāyāmī’ti). Verdict: no offence. [The Buddha said “For the dependent there is trembling (nissitassa calitaṃ); for the not dependent there is no trembling (anissitassa calitaṃ natthi) (Ud 81). Thus, fearlessness in the face of death is a sign of arahantship (S.4.40). But it is also associated with stream-entry. For instance, Anathapindika, a stream-enterer, near death, exclaimed “I am not afraid, Venerable Ananda. Why should I be afraid? For I possess unwavering faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha” (S.5.386)].
Monks told a monk who was ill “Do not be afraid”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), the monk replied “He with regrets (vippaṭisāri) should be fearful (so bhāyeyyā’ti)”. Verdict: no offence. [Regret at the time of death is associated with remorse over moral lapses (S.3.120; S.4.320) or over having not practised diligently when one had the opportunity (S.5.157). The monk must have thought that keeping precepts or practising diligently were superhuman states].
Monks said to a monk who was ill: “The venerable has a superhuman state”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo) the monk replied: “Dhamma is to be attained by one with right application” (ārādhanīyo kho āvuso dhammo sammāpayuttenā’ti). Verdict: no offence. [Payutta occurs in: “Those who, with firm minds, are well-applied to Gotama’s teachings (ye suppayuttā manasā daḷhena) ... this outstanding jewel. too, is in the Sangha (idampi saṅghe ratanaṃ paṇītaṃ)” (Sn verse 228). ‘Right application’ (sammāpayuttenā) thus hints at the practice of a Path-attainer (sekha). But no claim, no offence].
Same as Case 16: no offence.
Monks said to a monk who was ill: “The venerable has a superhuman state”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), he replied “Dhamma is to be attained through earnest endeavour (yuttayogenā)” Verdict: no offence. [Similar to Case 16].
Monks said to a monk who was ill: “We hope you are bearing up; we hope you are sustaining yourself”. Not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyo), he replied: “Not just any person could endure this” (nāvuso sakkā yena vā tena vā adhivāsetun’ti). Verdict: no offence. [Similar to Case 23, but in this case, no wrong intention].
Mentioned above.
The monks were concerned when a brahman invited them, saying “May the arahants come”. The Buddha said it is no offence in [accepting an exaggerated invitation made by] someone who speaks from inspiration (anāpatti bhikkhave pasādabhaññeti).
The monks were concerned when a brahman invited them, saying “May the arahants sit”...
The monks were concerned when a brahman invited them, saying “May the arahants eat”...
The monks were concerned when a brahman invited them, saying “May the arahants be satiated”...
The monks were concerned when a brahman invited them, saying “May the arahants leave”...
Mentioned above.
Mentioned above.
Mentioned above.
When a monk’s relatives invited him to live a settled laylife (agāraṃ ajjhāvasāti), not intending to make a claim (anullapanādhippāyassāti), he said “One like me could not live a settled laylife”. Verdict: no offence. [Arahants are said to be incapable of returning to laylife, to enjoy sense pleasure as they formally did (abhabbo hināyāvattitvā kāme paribhuñjituṃ seyyathāpi pubbe agārikabhuto) (Vin.1.16; D.3.133). Hence, the anxiety in this case, and the next].
When a monk’s relatives invited him to “come and enjoy sense pleasures”, not intending to make a claim, he told them “Sense pleasures have been sealed off by me” (āvaṭā me āvuso kāmā’ti). Verdict: no offence.
When a monk’s relatives invited him to enjoy himself, not intending to make a claim he told them he was “enjoying the greatest enjoyment” (abhirato ahaṃ āvuso paramāya abhiratiyā’ti). Verdict: no offence. [The usual word for blissful superhuman states, including Nibbana, is phāsuvihārāti, not abhirati (e.g. A.3.119). Maybe the monk felt his statement was close to saying ‘enjoying solitude’ (suññāgāre abhirati), discussed above, which would imply attainment of samadhi].
Mentioned above.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a skeleton flying through the air, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. Monks accused him of falsely claiming a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ āyasmā mahāmoggallāno ullapatī’ti). The Buddha told the monks that “there are disciples who have become vision, become knowledge (cakkhubhūtā viharanti ñāṇabhūtā viharanti) in that they can know and see such a sight”. He said that he too had seen this being (and all the other beings in the following cases) but he had not told anyone, because they may not have believed him, which would have been to their sorrow for a long time. The Buddha said that this being had previously been a butcher in Rajagaha. Having suffered in hell, he was now suffering the residual result of that same evil kamma. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a lump of flesh flying through the air, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. Monks accused him of claiming a superhuman state. The Buddha said that this too had been a butcher in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen another lump of flesh flying through the air, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said that this had been a fowler in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a flayed man (nicchaviṃ purisaṃ) flying through the air, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said this had been a sheep butcher in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man, flying through the air, crying in distress, with body-hair of knives (asilomaṃ purisaṃ), which kept swinging round and stabbing him. The Buddha said this had been a pig butcher in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man, flying through the air, crying in distress, with body-hair of spears (sattilomaṃ purisaṃ), which kept swinging round and stabbing him. The Buddha said this had been a deer hunter in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man, flying through the air, crying in distress, with body-hair of arrows (usulomaṃ purisaṃ) which kept swinging round and stabbing him. The Buddha said this had been an arrow maker in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man, flying through the air, crying in distress, with body-hair of needles (sūcilomaṃ purisaṃ), which kept swinging round and stabbing him. The Buddha said this had been a horse trainer (sārathiko) in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man, flying through the air, crying in distress, with body-hair of needles (sūcilomaṃ purisaṃ). These pierced right through his body. This had been a slanderer (sūcako) in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man flying through the air with testicles the size of waterpots, carried on his shoulders. He was crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. This had been a fraudulent magistrate (gāmakūṭako) in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man immersed in a cesspit, head and all. This had been an adulterer in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a man immersed in a cesspit, eating faeces with both hands. This had been a wicked brahman who, in the time of Buddha Kassapa, invited monks to a meal. Having filled a trough with dung, he invited the monks to eat their fill, and take away the rest. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a flayed woman, crying in distress, flying through the air, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said this had been an adulteress in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a woman with a foul odour and complexion, crying in distress, flying through the air, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said this had been an fortune-teller in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a scorched pariah woman flying through the air, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said this had been the chief consort of a king, and, overcome by envy, made her rival consort pariah by scattering burning coal over her. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a headless trunk flying through the air, its eyes and mouth upon its chest, crying in distress, being attacked by hawks and crows. The Buddha said this had been an executioner in Rajagaha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a monk flying through the air, crying in distress, with robes, bowl, belt and body ablaze. The Buddha said this had been a wicked monk (pāpabhikkhu) in the time of Kassapa Buddha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a nun flying through the air, crying in distress, with robes, bowl, belt and body ablaze. The Buddha said this had been a wicked nun (pāpabhikkhunī) in the time of Kassapa Buddha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a female trainee flying through the air, crying in distress, with robes, bowl, belt and body ablaze. The Buddha said this had been a wicked female trainee (pāpasikkhamānā) in the time of Kassapa Buddha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a novice flying through the air, crying in distress, with robes, bowl, belt and body ablaze. The Buddha said this had been a wicked novice (pāpasāmaṇero) in the time of Kassapa Buddha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana said he had seen a female novice flying through the air, crying in distress, with robes, bowl, belt and body ablaze. The Buddha said this had been a wicked female novice (pāpasāmaṇerī) in the time of Kassapa Buddha. Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
Venerable Mahamoggallana told the monks that although Tapoda Lake was cool and charming, yet the stream that flowed from it was boiling. Monks were incensed by this unlikely statement and accused Venerable Mahamoggallana of falsely claiming a superhuman state. The Buddha explained that what Venerable Mahamoggallana had said was correct: the stream passed between two hells (dvinnaṃ mahānirayānaṃ antarikāya āgacchati). Verdict: no offence for Venerable Mahamoggallana.
King Bimbisara was beaten in battle by the Licchavis, then gathered his forces, and defeated the Licchavis. The drum of victory was beaten, proclaiming the king’s triumph. However, Venerable Mahamoggallana told the monks “The king was beaten by the Licchavis”. Monks complained about this, saying that it contradicted the public proclamation, and accused Venerable Mahamoggallana of falsely claiming a superhuman state. The Buddha explained that the king had suffered defeat before achieving victory, and that Venerable Mahamoggallana had spoken correctly; there was no offence for him.
Venerable Mahamoggallana told the monks he had attained a state of steadfast samadhi (āneñjaṃ samādhiṃ) beside the river Sappinika in which he heard the sound of elephants plunging into water and trumpeting. Monks accused him of claiming a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ āyasmā mahāmoggallāno ullapatī’ti.). The Buddha said it had indeed been samadhi, but Venerable Mahamoggallana was not wholly purified (so ca kho aparisuddho). What he had said was true; there was no offence for him. [Āneñjaṃ usually means fourth jhana, in which the mental state is usually said to be purified (citte parisuddhe)].
Venerable Sobhita told the monks that he could remember five hundred kalpas. Monks accused him of falsely claiming a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ āyasmā sobhito ullapatī’ti). The Buddha told the monks that Venerable Sobhita had spoken truthfully. Verdict: no offence.

Rule Elaboration: a discussion

The ten superhuman states listed in the word analysis are each defined in the rule elaboration. But the rule elaboration's definitions are not all in accordance with the suttas. How the suttas presents these terms is fully explained in Appendix 28, 29 and 30. In the section below I will summarise the discrepancies between the rule elaboration and the suttas.

jhana (jhānaṃ): the four jhanas (paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ... catutthaṃ jhānaṃ). [The suttas say likewise].
deliverance (vimokkho): (suññato vimokkho, animitto vimokkho, appaṇihito vimokkho). [The dominant meaning of ‘deliverance’ in the suttas is the eight deliverances].
samadhi (samādhi): (suññato samādhi, animitto samādhi, appaṇihito samādhi). [If 'samadhi' is defined by lists, then four samadhis should also be mentioned: chandasamādhi, viriyasamādhi, cittasamādhi and vīmaṃsāsamādhi].
attainment (samāpatti): (suññatā samāpatti, animittā samāpatti, appaṇihitā samāpatti). [In the suttas, the dominant meaning of 'attainment' is the nine step-by-step dwelling-attainments and the attainment of the eight deliverances]
knowledge and vision (ñāṇadassanaṃ): three profound knowledges (tisso vijjā). ['Knowledge and vision' in the present context is part of the phrase 'superhuman state of knowledge and vision that is truly noble', which is an indivisible unit].
development of the path (maggabhāvanā): four bases of mindfulness, four right efforts, four ways to power, five faculties, five powers, seven limbs of awakening, eightfold path (cattāro satipaṭṭhānā, cattāro sammappadhānā, cattāro iddhipādā, pañcindriyāni, pañca balāni, satta bojjhaṅgā, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo). ['Development of the path' is a superhuman state only if it means 'entering the path'. Some of the powers and faculties, are seen in ordinary people. They are not all superhuman states].
realisation of the fruits (phalasacchikiriyā): realisation of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, arahantship (sotāpattiphalassa sacchikiriyā, sakadāgāmiphalassa sacchikiriyā, anāgāmiphalassa sacchikiriyā, arahattassa sacchikiriyā). [The suttas say likewise].
abandoning of the imperfections (kilesappahānaṃ): abandoning of greed, hatred and delusion (rāgassa pahānaṃ dosassa pahānaṃ mohassa pahānaṃ). [This definition is narrower than that suggested at Sn.347 - see appendix 29 - where ‘kilesa’ can be broadly defined as ‘creator/s of spiritual darkness’].
freedom from the hindrances (vinīvaraṇatā cittassa): freedom from greed, hatred and delusion (rāgā cittaṃ vinīvaraṇatā, dosā cittaṃ vinīvaraṇatā, mohā cittaṃ vinīvaraṇatā). [In the suttas, 'freedom from hindrances' usually means 'the five hindrances'].
enjoying solitude (suññāgāre abhirati): four jhanas (paṭhamena jhānena suññāgāre abhirati... catutthena jhānena suññāgāre abhirati). [This definition excludes types of samadhi that are either more concentrated, or less concentrated, than jhana].

It can be seen in this list that ‘deliverance’, ‘samadhi’ and ‘attainment’ are all defined in terms of three esoteric meditations: suññato, animitto, appaṇihito. These meditations, though important, are not much spoken of in the suttas. It is surprising that the rule elaboration promotes them to the extent it does, and therefore fails to mention the dominant meanings of the terms in the suttas.

Cycle of permutations

The cycle of permutations lists all combinations of lies possible in relation to all superhuman states. For each state, it repeats that a lie involves knowing before, during and after the lie, that it is a lie; and that intrinsic to each lie is the disguising of one’s real opinion, attitude, feelings and position (diṭṭhiṃ, khantiṃ, ruciṃ, bhāvaṃ) towards one’s actual attainments. For each superhuman state, one can lie about the future, present or past; and claim to be “possessed of”, or to be “master of” the state, or to have “realised” it. For example, in relation to first jhana, the combination of lies are as follows:

I will attain the first jhana (paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajjin’ti) [samāpajjiṃ: the future participle denotes that the agent is about to perform the action: Duroiselle para.621. Whether one can be parajika by lying about a state in the future, even the near future, is debatable]
I am attaining first jhana (tīhākārehi paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajjāmī’ti)
I did attain first jhana (tīhākārehi paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpanno’ti)
I am possessed of first jhana (tīhākārehi paṭhamassa jhānassa lābhī’mhī’ti)
I am master of first jhana (tīhākārehi paṭhamassa jhānassa vasīmhī’ti)
First jhana realised by me (tīhākārehi paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ sacchikataṃ mayā’ti).

Each lie is also possessed of different combinations of these factors:

before lying he knows he will lie.
while lying, he knows he is lying.
having lied, he knows he lied.
disguising his real opinion (vinidhāya diṭṭhiṃ)
disguising his real attitude (vinidhāya khantiṃ)
disguising his real feelings (vinidhāya ruciṃ)
disguising his real position (vinidhāya bhāvaṃ)

After dealing with single factors, the cycle of permutations then deals in combinations of two factors. For example:

first and second jhana
first and third jhana
first jhana and three-fold profound knowledge etc

The length of the work is extraordinary. Whereas in the PTS translation the word analysis is two pages long, and the rule elaboration, one page; the cycle of permutations, in an elided form with reduced-size fonts, is nine pages. The repetitiveness is suggestive of a mental exercise to train reciters: having to negotiate the permutations would take considerable mindfulness. Its light-hearted tone suggests it was never intended to be included in the canon, alongside the words of the Buddha. It is reminiscent of Abhidhamma-style lists, and may have been composed in the same era. It was considered so successful that it was to be repeated, almost word for word, in Pacittiya Eight.

False claims not understood

The offence lies in the actual making of a claim - the speaking of false words to another person (not just claiming privately to oneself). The word analysis says it occurs immediately one speaks the words - that very moment. So it is hard to see why the cycle of permutations says that for it to be a full offence the claim must be also understood by another person - because understanding is less than immediate. It says that if full claims are not understood (na paṭivijānantassa) it is a thullaccaya offence (paṭivijānantassa āpatti pārājikassa; na paṭivijānantassa āpatti thullaccayassa).

In fact, neither the rule, the word analysis nor the illustrative stories mention this factor of understanding of claims. The Buddha never asks "Do you think the person understood?" Rather, he would ask what the monk's intention had been when he made the claim (kiṃcitto tvaṃ, bhikkhū'ti?). From the answer to that one question the Buddha could give his verdict.

Falsely claiming the nine (ignoble) magical powers: not parajika

The nine magical powers (anekavihitaṃ iddhividhaṃ) are these:

multiplying one’s form
then un-multiplying it
appearing and vanishing
going unimpeded through walls and mountains as if through space
diving into the earth as if into water
walking on water as if on land
flying cross-legged through the air
stroking the sun and moon with one’s hand
exercising mastery over the body as far as the Brahma-world (D.1.77-9)

These nine powers are bound up with the asavas and attachment and are called 'ignoble' (iddhi yā sāsavā saupadhikā no ariyā’ti vuccati) (D.3.112-3). They are not therefore 'superhuman states of knowledge and vision that are truly noble'. Therefore wrongfully claiming to be in possession of them would be an offence under Pacittiya One, for deliberate lying, not Parajika Four, for wrongfully claiming a noble superhuman state. Several other factors support this argument:

The nine magical powers are not included in the ten noble superhuman states listed in the word analysis. Nor are they mentioned in the illustrative stories. Of course, Case 5 says it is a parajika offence to wrongfully claim to be of 'great magical power and glory'. But 'great magical power and glory' implies not just the nine magical powers, but also, for instance, the Buddha’s ability to recall past Buddhas, together with their names and clans.
Pacittiya Eight says “If a monk announces to an unordained person a superhuman state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ) that he has in fact attained, it is an offence of pacittiya”. Although 'superhuman state' seems different from 'superhuman state of knowledge and vision that is truly noble' (uttarimanussadhammaṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ), 'superhuman state' is defined in the word analysis to Pacittiya Eight in the same terms as 'superhuman state of knowledge and vision that is truly noble' as in Parajika Four. Therefore the terms are synonymous. Therefore Pacittiya Eight, like Parajika Four, applies to superhuman states that are truly noble. It does not apply to states that are ignoble.
In the ‘wooden bowl incident’, Venerable Pindola rose up, took hold of a bowl suspended high above the ground, and circled Rajagaha three times, to the delight of many laypeople. So the Buddha laid down the rule, that exhibiting marvellous displays of superhuman magical power for householders is a dukkata offence (na bhikkhave gihīnaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ dassetabbaṃ yo dasseyya āpatti dukkaṭassa) (Vin.2.112). “Marvellous display of (superhuman) magical power" (iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ) is defined at D.1.12-3 as the nine (ignoble) magical powers. If these magical powers were considered noble, to display them to householders would amount to a pacittiya offence under Pacitta 8: announcing a superhuman state to an unordained person.

Points for discussion

A monk lies that he has attained jhana, then immediately withdraws the claim. Is he parajika?
A monk lies that he had a blissful retreat in the forest. Is he parajika?
Laypeople ask a monk whether he has experienced jhana. Having never done so, he nonetheless replies “Jhana is easy”. Is this parajika?
A monk lies “I have no more lust”. If he had worriedly asked the Buddha about this claim, what would the Buddha’s first question have been?
A monk claims that, though frequently experiencing jhana, he is not attached to it. What, then, is he claiming? Is it parajika?
What is ‘undue estimate of oneself?
A monk says that he can walk through walls. If he is lying, is he parajika?
A monk lies that he once saw a ghost. Is this parajika?
A monk lies that he is free of all doubt. Is this parajika?
A monk thinks he is a stream-enterer. He tells his mother. Is this an offence?