The foolish praise those deserving of criticism and vice versa

Textual Scholarship
21

It says Ariyanam - and gives examples .

Ariyānaṃ upavādakāti buddhapaccekabuddhasāvakānaṃ ariyānaṃ antamaso gihisotāpannānampi anatthakāmā hutvā antimavatthunā vā guṇaparidhaṃsanena vā upavādakā akkosakā garahakāti vuttaṃ hoti.

82.Revilers of Noble Ones: being desirous of harm for Noble Ones consisting of Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are stream-enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with denial of their special qualities (see Ud 44 and MN 12); they abuse and upbraid them, is what is meant.

Tattha natthi imesaṃ samaṇadhammo, assamaṇā eteti vadanto antimavatthunā upavadati. 83. Herein, it should be understood that when they say,

They have no asceticism, they are not ascetics,” they revile them with the worst accusation;

Natthi imesaṃ jhānaṃ vā vimokkho vā maggo vā phalaṃ vātiādīni vadanto guṇaparidhaṃsanavasena upavadatīti veditabbo

and when they say, “They have no jhāna or liberation or path of fruition, etc.,” they revile them with denial of their special qualities

1 Like
22

Yes, but in the definition of ariyanam, does it not include non-enlightened bhikkhu/bhikkhuni (regardless of if they have the first maggaphala) as well as enlightened laypeople (starting from the first maggaphala) by defining ariyanam as "Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are stream-enterers"?

1 Like
23

its rather confusing since he is defining noble one for us. But it seems his definition here isnt the same as noble one as those who have attained at least the first maggaphala. Unless “disciple” here doesnt mean any monastic as i originally thought, and actually means enlightened disciples specifically. But it seems kinda weird he would specify enlightened laypeople but not monastics.

1 Like
24

No, the savaka (disciples) referred to are specifically called ariya. So, those who have attained.

1 Like
25

got it. I stand corrected then.

2 Likes
26

It is quite logical… I “raised an eyebrow” when I read this. Basically if it were not ariyas, it would say so after as another different category. It is going through the list in order. It is very clear. If it was different, it would specifically say so. Usually, or maybe all cases, when saṅgha is mention, especially with things they cannot do or where they will end up (how many more lives), or what you cannot do to them, it is referring to ariya saṅgha.

1 Like