Parajika

[Meezer77]

Hello,

I was wondering if there is a reason that falsely claiming to have supernatural powers or attainments is a parajika in the vinaya rules.The reason I ask is because slander is considered a lesser offence, but to my reasoning it would be just as immoral. I'm not intending to come across as argumentative, just curious

[Dhammanando]

The Vinaya's background story can be read here:

https://suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj4

"But in this world with its gods, its lords of death, and its supreme beings, in this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans, this is the greatest gangster: he who untruthfully and groundlessly boasts about a super-human quality. Why is that? Monks, you’ve eaten the country’s almsfood by theft."

Whoever should declare himself
to be other than he truly is,
Has eaten this by theft,
like a cheater who has deceived.

Many ocher-necks of bad qualities,
uncontrolled and wicked—
By their wicked deeds,
they are reborn in hell.

It is better to eat an iron ball,
heated, like a burning flame,
Than for the immoral and uncontrolled
to eat the country’s alms.

[Meezer77]

Thanks Bhante, I'm guessing that during the Buddha's time that there were some charlatans profiteering from claiming to have special powers and taking advantage of people? Would that be a fair interpretation?

[Dhammanando]

Thanks Bhante, I'm guessing that during the Buddha's time that there were some charlatans profiteering from claiming to have special powers and taking advantage of people? Would that be a fair interpretation?

I don't know if there's any mention of this being done in the early texts, but it wouldn't be at all surprising. If shameless bhikkhus resorted to it, then it seems likely that shameless wanderers and ascetics of other persuasions would have done so too.

[Meezer77]

It's interesting he uses the word gangster eh? Fitting I guess

[Dhammanando]

It's interesting he uses the word gangster eh? Fitting I guess

The Pali has mahācora, lit. "great thief", and I.B. Horner rendered it so. But the version of the English Vinaya at Sutta Central has been greatly revised, in part to correct Horner's errors, but also to present the whole work in a much more modernised and demotic idiom.

While the corrections are certainly welcome, the modernising and vulgarising of the translation are not always well-conceived. For example, neither Horner's literal rendering "great thief" nor Sutta Central's free and vulgar rendering "gangster" are good translations of mahācora — a term that denotes a master thief, as opposed to a thief's apprentice. "Great thief" fails to convey this, while "gangster" is simply misleading, for a mahācora is not necessarily a member of any gang.

[Meezer77]

Perhaps some of these revisions are subjective in that they come from the individual's sensibilities and culture. I quite like the term "gangster" but that's probably because I'm a bit uncouth and vulgar myself

[Meezer77]

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why the Buddha thought that claiming to be something your not is worse than malicious gossip or slander. But maybe morality is subjective?

[Brick In The Wall]

Hi everyone! I would like to know if there are any theravadian monks here on the forum who are quite educated in Vinaya or have access to such kind of educated teachers. Want to ask them some important questions about Parajika. Thank you!

[SDC]

Hi everyone! I would like to know if there are any theravadian monks here on the forum who are quite educated in Vinaya or have access to such kind of educated teachers. Want to ask them some important questions about Parajika. Thank you!

Hi there,

There are several monks who post on the forum and who read threads regularly. If you have a specific question about Parajika you can post it in this section and you should get a response. If you prefer a private discussion, hang around the forum for a bit and you'll see the good Venerables popping up here and there, at which point you can reach out via PM.

Welcome to the forum!

[salayatananirodha]

The Pali has mahācora, lit. "great thief", and I.B. Horner rendered it so. But the version of the English Vinaya at Sutta Central has been greatly revised, in part to correct Horner's errors, but also to present the whole work in a much more modernised and demotic idiom.

While the corrections are certainly welcome, the modernising and vulgarising of the translation are not always well-conceived. For example, neither Horner's literal rendering "great thief" nor Sutta Central's free and vulgar rendering "gangster" are good translations of mahācora — a term that denotes a master thief, as opposed to a thief's apprentice. "Great thief" fails to convey this, while "gangster" is simply misleading, for a mahācora is not necessarily a member of any gang.

Bhante or anyone, i'm interested in reading more about IB Horner's proposed errors, as I'm relying on her translation of the majjhima nikāya and comparing it here or there to lord chalmers' and others'

[Dhammanando]

Bhante or anyone, i'm interested in reading more about IB Horner's proposed errors, as I'm relying on her translation of the majjhima nikāya and comparing it here or there to lord chalmers' and others'

I'm afraid I can't really tell you much about the errors in Horner's MN translation because I read it when I was 16 and hadn't yet learned any Pali and so was in no position to evaluate it. In the four decades since then I've never re-read it and it's only on rare occasions that I've even consulted it.

Assuming, however, that the errors in her MLS are similar in character to those in her Vinaya, most often they'll arise from the fact that she's aiming to translate according to the commentarial glosses but at a period in her life when her grasp of commentarial Pali was rather shaky. So not infrequently she simply misunderstands what the commentary is saying. Probably the easiest way to avoid (or at least to minimize) falling into error when reading the MLS would be to compare it with the Ñāṇamoli/Bodhi translation. Where the two differ the rendering in the latter will most often be the better one.