Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
You obviously did not try very hard to find it. It is in the Pātimokkha rules, Pācittiya 8.Buddhist Sacred Texts
8. Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall tell one not received into the higher grade (of the Order) that the (speaker or any other Bhikkhu) has extraordinary spiritual gifts, even when such, is the case--that is a Pācittiya.
i.e. There is no offence in telling another fully ordained bhikkhu, but there is in telling a novice or lay person.
Thank you venerable for pointing out what the "other rule" Jameswang mentioned.
And I admit I didn't do my homework about the Patimokkha. This shows Jameswang knew more about the rules than me, haha
But the point of contention is whether the abbot's "case studies" constitute a breach of either:
1. Parajika 4
(For allegedly "lying" about his meditative attainments)
2. Pācittiya 8
(For allegedly "talking" about his meditative attainments to novices and lay people)
And this is important because DSI, and the now DSI-chaired National Office of Buddhism (NOB) director wish to have WPD's abbot defrocked. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1211789/difficult-to-defrock-phra-dhammajayo
As I've expressed in a previous post, how do we know if the abbot is lying about his meditative attainments?
But what is more interesting to note, is that the abbot didn't explicitly say
that he used his meditative attainments to see people's past or their future. It was implied
. So if the abbot didn't explicitly mention about his meditative attainments, how can he lie?
And because it was implied, does it violate Pacittiya 8? That's because he didn't "report, or talk, or share" about his meditative attainments, only implied it. I'm interested in people's views over this, especially venerables who are well-versed in the Patimokkha. I believe the issue will be deliberated over by the Sangha Council and an appropriate measure will be given
But to be very strict, it's best for a monk not to disclose or even hint
that he has any meditative attainments - to prevent any doubt that one broke the precept. Regardless of this, I find the case studies amusing. Logically and karmically speaking, the case studies don't seem too out of place, and there's nothing that raises any red flags or abnormalities. And I believe the case studies achieve its intended effect, to share about the Law of Karma to those who listen and convince them to (1) Avoid evil, (2) Do good, and (3) Purify their mind. Case studies ---> Intended effect
Rebirth in hell for drinking? ----> Don't drink
Rebirth in heaven because of practicing generosity? ----> Practice generosity
Rebirth in heaven because of habitual meditation? ----> Meditate more
If the case studies are real, then the biggest problem would be a breach of Pacittiya 8.
But if it's false, then it entails expulsion.
But either way, many devotees changed their behavior for the better, not worse.
And in light of this, is WPD still a cult?