Do you know of any passages in the Canon & commentaries that discuss the (im)possibility of insanity for noble ones and those who have attained jhāna?
The commentary to Pacittiya 8 says it’s impossible for nobles, and for those currently in jhāna. It says this is the reason that madness is not mentioned as an exemption to that rule. The strange thing though is that the rule covers monks who say they attained jhāna in the past. So if an insane monk who did once get jhāna when sane tells a layperson that fact there’s no exemption there to cover him. Any idea why?
I seem to recall a Commentarial passage stating that noble ones can act in very strange ways when affected by severe illness. Do you know of this?
Is any distinction made between dementia and insanity in the texts?
There’s apparently no English translation of the Samantā yet so first here is Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s Buddhist monastic code where he discusses the Commentarial position:
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.
Tells:
if a monk says to a person who is not fully ordained, “I attained the first absorption,” he commits an offense entailing confession.
Tells:
if a monk says to a person who is not fully ordained, “I’m attaining the first absorption,” he commits an offense entailing confession.
"ummattakassā"ti idaṃ pana idha na vuttaṃ. kasmā? diṭṭhisampannānaṃ ummādassa vā cittakkhepassa vā abhāvāti. mahāpaccariyampi hi vicāritaṃ "jhānalābhī pana parihīne jhāne ummattako bhaveyya, tassapi bhūtārocanapaccayā anāpatti na vattabbā, bhūtasseva abhāvato"ti
My translation:
"‘[No offence] for a madman’ isn’t said here. Why? Because of the non-existence of insanity or mental derangement for those consummate in view. Hence the issue has been considered in the Mahāpaccari (as follows), “One who attains jhāna, however, may become mad when the jhāna falls away. Even for him it shouldn’t be said that there’s no offence on account of announcing what is factual, due to the non-existence of what is factual.”
I’m pretty sure we discussed this in our vinaya class as before. Here is a quote from our vinaya book.
Under instances of non-offences; the sentences related to ummattaka, khittacitta and
vedanatta were not declared because insanity and a bewildered state of mind cannot occur among ariya beings. If puthujjana jhānalabhīs happen to develop such mind-sets, their jhāna will immediately vanish.
Can monks reveal their attainments and show superpowers to ascetics from other sects and mahayana monks? I think they would count as fully ordained. In my opinion, the ones who would not count as fully ordained would be people who haven’t fully renounced the household life such as lay people and novices or their equivalent from other sects.
Can novices reveal their superpowers to lay people?
Thank you bhante. What’s the Vinaya book you’re referring to? Is it possible to obtain a copy? Are there any monks who are Vinaya experts that you know of who can be easily contacted?
So, given the lack of anāpatti for insanity here, is it your understanding that a monk who previously attained jhāna and subsequently reports this fact while insane to a layperson does in fact incur an offence? If so it would seem to be the only rule in the whole Vinaya where an insane monk can actually technically incur an āpatti.
What to make of the fact that the Commentary admits to a form of insanity based on a disturbance of bile/pitta? (Pittummattaka/pittummādo. VinA: ummattakoti yakkhummattako vā pittummattako vā) Do we know why it wouldn’t be possible for a stream-enterer’s bile to be thus afflicted? Or is it that their minds wouldn’t be afflicted by the upset in the bodily elements, hence not resulting in madness?
anupasampanno nāma bhikkhuñca bhikkhuniñca ṭhapetvā, avaseso anupasampanno nāma.
“‘Unordained’ means everyone other than bhikkhū and bhikkhunī”
So no, not to those from other sects, and safest not to mahāyānins etc. due to the dubious nature of their ordination.
Novices have only ten precepts, none of which would forbid them from displaying psychic powers, but they’d do well to consider how dim a view the Lord Buddha took of the habit, evidenced in the severity with which he denounced an arahant for displaying his powers ‘like a prostitute would her private parts.’
yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.
anupasampannassa=one not fully ordained in the Theravāda tradition according to specification. Mahayana would not qualify. It only qualifies with modern non-sectarian monks such as those who follow Sutta Central’s leader which also believes that mahayana can comfortably mix and create Theravāda bhikkhunis and even make new Theravāda monks… as there is no such thing as Theravāda in their eyes. If you were to specify what makes a Theravāda monk in Sutta Central, you will get flagged as sectarian and warned and booted. (We do the opposite here and boot non-sectarians, who go on opposite rants opposed to Classical Theravāda.).
Nevertheless… in the proper school of Theravāda which is still the vast majority of Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia.
SuttaCentral followers might only have a 100 or so non-sectarian monk followers, that fully believe this. Okay…if I’m wrong…triple that number…you can 10x that number…it is still insignificant.
Sorry, it is still work in progress. I think it will be released some time later. I’m allowed a special copy (it is actually many booklets since it is given as each section is finished.)
Try not to overthink the rules. Just follow it. If you make a mistake… then look into the details more widely. Generally… one who doesn’t have the attainment, either thinks he does or he knows he does not. Then it is dealt with that way. There is no offence for falsely believing you have an attainment and telling another monk. If you falsely believe you have something and tell to a lay person, it is probably a dukkaṭa although don’t quote me on it. I’m just thinking out loud… I don’t have time to look up these details.
Thank you bhante. I’m actually mainly trying to understand the issue of insanity as it relates to noble ones etc. as mentioned above.
I’m also curious as to why the commentary says a monk revealing his past attainment of jhāna wouldn’t be covered by this rule, when the Vibhaṅga says he would.