SuttaCentral
In the book The Nude Monk’s Burning Robes the author says:
Some bhikkhus intentionally claimed falsely that they have insight knowledges (vipassanāñāṇa), following the commentarial erroneous argument of ‘insight knowledge is not a superior human state.’ (page 7)
But the author did not give us the original pali quotation for this reference.
Can anybody tell me where this quotation comes from? What is the original text for this statement?
Thank you.
Perhaps something along this line?
AN4.170:3.2: Idha, āvuso, bhikkhu samathapubbaṅgamaṃ vipassanaṃ bhāveti.
AN4.170:3.2: Take a mendicant who develops serenity before discernment.
There seems to be no particular emphasis given by the Buddha to any of the various paths:
AN4.170:7.1: All of the monks and nuns who declare in my presence that they have attained perfection, did so by one or other of these four paths.”
I am not sure of the source for the quote. But it is a reference to parajika 4, which makes it an expulsion offence to claim a “superhuman state”. Since the vipassanāñāṇas were not taught by the Buddha, obviously they are not mentioned in the Vinaya and thus do not come under this rule.
Sorry to nit pick, but I don’t believe this is precisely correct. For example, The Buddha never mentioned the English words “Stream Enterer” either, yet clearly those words would fall under this rule, right? Does this rule not cover synonyms for the states mentioned? For example, the Vibhanga notes, “suññāgāre abhirati” also counts as a claim.
So, if someone claims gotrabhūñāṇa, despite this term not explicitly appearing in the Vibhanga, would that not also count, since it is clearly intended as a synonym for stream entry?
But, setting those loftier ñānas aside, I agree with you that the lower ñānas (e.g. A&P) would not count, vis-à-vis this rule, as “superhuman states” (though they may feel that way to some! 
)
Best
The way this attainment is treated in the suttas is sufficiently ambiguous that it cannot, in my view, be clearly equated with any of the vipassanāñāṇas. Remember, for any Vinaya offence, especially Parajika, the onus is to strongly assume innocence and only impute guilt in cases where there is no doubt.
If they mean to claim stream-entry and this is understood as such, then the Parajika applies. But if they mean to claim something that is not mentioned in the Vibhanga, no matter what terms they use, the Parajika cannot apply.
Isn’t it offence only when one claims it falsely?
What is the Pali for “superhuman state”?
There are two ways to interpret that rule [at least based on the translation]:
That its an offence to falsely [ as in: its not a possibility] claim “superhuman state”.
and
That its an offence to falsely [ as in: when one is not speaking truthfully in reference to what hes actual state is ] claim “superhuman state”.
I wasn’t intending to equate suññāgāre abhirati with the vipassanāñānas but merely to highlight that there are synonyms listed in the Vibhanga.
It would be pretty hard to claim that “*ñāṇadassanaṃ maggabhāvanā” doesn’t cover the “maggañāṇa” insight stage, that’s all.
We are in total agreement 
There’s a separate, but more minor, offense for truthfully disclosing such a state:
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pc8/en/brahmali#1.2.27
Thank you!
It also contains insightful listing with elaboration on everything in relation to the uttarimanussadhammo, the confession is also good source of information 
Sure, and this is true insofar as the vipassanāñāṇas overlap with the insight of stream-entry.