Thank you, @retrofuturist. This is an explanation I understand and be contend with.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:11 pmWe allow bhikkhus here either to be public about their ordination status or to remain anonymous, as they see fit. The easiest way to make one's ordination status known is via their username, but the signature function would work well too.
We have seen models elsewhere that have put extra requirements on bhikkhus to enable them to be more clearly differentiated, but we are merely thankful for the presence of bhikkhus, so we leave it to their discretion how and if they wish to make themselves known.
I take from it, that I definitely need to be more circumspect in my application of Speech, which is, as @WorldTraveller pointed out, true in any situation and talking to whomever. If the other person is suspected to be a Bikkhu, I shall be especially courteous and careful, for Kammic reasons (thank you, @StormBorn and @Zom).
I take from it additionally, that it is also the responsibility of a Bikkhu who chooses to stay unknown to neither be offended or even shaken in his discipline by ignorance he may encounter (thank you, @rightviewftw).
Bikkhu @DooDot, I value your personal input in this. So let me say, I am very sorry and remorseful, where I brought offense. My -- as I mistakenly thought -- harmless question, how I could discern if Bhante's description of direct experience of the Jhanas is more authoritative than that of a whole Nikaya of highly respected monks, was a mistake born out of not knowing that any answer would break your discipline and make you liable to incur disciplinary action.
You even quoted me back that you would incur a Vinaya offense and while I thought you referred to a Pārājika offense, you then quoted me back that you would at least incur a Pācittiya offense, which describes the offense of a Bikkhu announcing attainments to a layman. I am not clear why Bhante does not understand the resulting confusion.
From Bhante's comment, I can see further, that even this question about 'Anonymous (online) Bikkhus', which I asked declaredly to be answered on a theoretical basis and without the wish of involving personalities and without bringing a name up once, made Bhante still feel treated improperly by this layperson.DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:47 pmpācittiya 8
"yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ."
Not to announce to a layman a realisation that has been achieved. If a bhikkhu announces to a layman or to a sāmaṇera, a realisation partaking with a jhāna nature or with a stage of ariyā, and this realisation has genuinely been achieved, he commits a pācittiya.
I do have noted the new signature, so take it that the description of @rightfiewftw ("that monks might be hesitant to make their views publicly known for that reason because they don't want to become known as "that monk who was shown to be wrong" or just making their interpretations known in general") might be applicable.
I will respect your right to your privacy, Bhante, but I wish you to understand that I can only go by the words Bhante has written and they inform my opinions.
I am unsure how I can help Bhante cast off this feeling of being disrespected, so that this emotional imbalance might be righted properly. I can only ask you to accept my heartfelt apology, Bikkhu @DooDot (or Not-Bikkhu, as you please, I still wish to apologize either way).
To recapitulate: this question was not about Bhante, this question was about specifically me avoiding Kammic repercussions when addressing any monastic naively in the wrong fashion on an online discussion forum. My wish would be that it is indeed taken as such.