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?
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! )
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.