The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[Lal]

Zom said:

Why are you so sure? Just because theravadins say so?
Have you read this? I recommend.

Could you quote a section or give some page numbers? I don't have time to read the whole text. Thanks.

SarathW said:

You know very well that there is a public discussion about the incorrect teaching of the disciples of Ven. Abhyaratanalankara.
The many monks who object do not speak English. They got their knowledge, not from European scholars.

Of course I know about those videos that you and someone else posted here. And you know that I have responded to that point-by-point. Why don't you state what is wrong with Waharaka interpretations instead of quoting others? I will be happy to respond again.

[SarathW]

instead of quoting others?

Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta will be fully realised only by Arahants.
However there much different incomplete understanding as well.
The way I see it Ven. Abhayaratnalankara's understanding is not complete even though it is not totally wrong.

[Lal]

SarathW said:

The way I see it Ven. Abhayaratnalankara's understanding is not complete even though it is not totally wrong.

Could you please make it "more correct"?
Please make intelligent comments in a discussion forum. Don't just make statements, but clarify and provide evidence.

As I have said many times, most people here just make statements without any substance OR just quote from others who also do not understand the key concepts of Buddha Dhamma. I have tried many times to get someone to explain what is meant by vinnana. No one has been able to. On the other hand, I have explained what is meant by vinnana.

[sentinel]

Greetings ,

Here's the time of translation of the Agama in China . All was much more earlier than translation from the Westerners .

Dīgha-nikāya /《长阿含经》：（ce 413）

Majjhima-nikāya /《中阿含经》：（ce 384）

Saṃyutta-nikāya /《杂阿含经》：（ce 435-443)

Aṇguttara-nikāya /《增一阿含经》：（ce 384）



What we can see is the translation source of Agama is different from Pali canon which is Tāmraśāṭīya /Tambapaṇṇiya .
Instead Agama translation was from various lineages , ie , sarvāsti-vāda /Sabbatthivāda ,
Dharmaguptaka , Mahāsāṃghika .

Therefore , we need to compare the texts translation to verify the contents whether they are compatible .

[Lal]

James Tan said:

What we can see is the translation source of Agama is different from Pali canon which is Tāmraśāṭīya /Tambapaṇṇiya .

How can there be a source earlier than the Pali Tipitaka, which was composed three months after the Parinibbana of the Buddha?
Of course, the Tipitaka was taken to China much later, and was translated to Chinese. Please do a Google search and read about it.

[sentinel]

James Tan said:

What we can see is the translation source of Agama is different from Pali canon which is Tāmraśāṭīya /Tambapaṇṇiya .

How can there be a source earlier than the Pali Tipitaka, which was composed three months after the Parinibbana of the Buddha?
Of course, the Tipitaka was taken to China much later, and was translated to Chinese. Please do a Google search and read about it.

Are you saying the pali tipitaka was composed which is Written down after 3 months Buddha passing away ?

[Lal]

James Tan said:

Are you saying the pali tipitaka was composed which is Written down after 3 months Buddha passing away ?

You can read all about the history of the Tipitaka here:
https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... he-dhamma/
We can discuss if anything is not clear. Please refer to the bullet numbers of quote from it.

[sentinel]

Below is the Agama parallel to nikaya .




https://suttacentral.net/sa220/en/analayo

<< Second Discourse on the Path to Nirvāṇa >>


At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: “There is a path leading to Nirvāṇa. What is the path leading to Nirvāṇa? Contemplate the eye as not-self. Contemplate also forms, eye-consciousness, and feeling arisen in dependence on eye-contact that is experienced within, be it painful, pleasant, or neutral, as being not-self.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


https://suttacentral.net/sa220/lzh/taisho

Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經

<< SA 220 （二二〇） 趣 >>

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「有似趣涅槃道跡。云何為似趣涅槃道跡？觀察眼非我，若色、眼識、眼觸因緣生受，若內覺若苦、若樂、不苦不樂，彼亦觀察無常。耳、鼻、舌、身、意亦復如是，是名似趣涅槃道跡。」


------------------------------------------------------------------------



https://suttacentral.net/sn35.149/en/sujato

Not-Self as Conducive to Extinguishment

Anattanibbānasappāya sutta

“Mendicants, I will teach you a practice that’s conducive to extinguishment. Listen … And what is that practice that’s conducive to extinguishment? It’s when a mendicant sees that the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are not-self. And they see that the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact is also not-self. They see that the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, thoughts, mind-consciousness, and mind contact are not-self. And they see that the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact is also not-self. This is that practice that’s conducive to extinguishment.”

[Lal]

James Tan said:

Below is the Agama parallel to nikaya...

Let us get the timing sequence right first, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is fruitless to compare with later versions, no matter how many one can quote from.

Otherwise, we will be going around in circles, which is what happens in many discussions here. People just blindly quote from other sources, which are wrong to begin with. I have provided many examples; see, for example the discussion on "anidassana vinnana".

Again, the key point is that the Pali Tipitaka is self-consistent. If someone can point out any inconsistencies, then we can discuss those too.

[Zom]

Could you quote a section or give some page numbers? I don't have time to read the whole text. Thanks.

It is fruitless to compare with later versions, no matter how many one can quote from.

As you have no time to read, I have no time to search. But the thing is - there are no facts to assert that Pali Tipitaka is "older" and Agamas are "later". Both stem from one ancient source, which is neither Pali Tipitaka, nor Agamas. You can believe in that, but that is, well, just a belief.

[sentinel]

James Tan said:

Below is the Agama parallel to nikaya...

Let us get the timing sequence right first, as I pointed out in my previous post. It is fruitless to compare with later versions, no matter how many one can quote from.

Otherwise, we will be going around in circles, which is what happens in many discussions here. People just blindly quote from other sources, which are wrong to begin with. I have provided many examples; see, for example the discussion on "anidassana vinnana".

Again, the key point is that the Pali Tipitaka is self-consistent. If someone can point out any inconsistencies, then we can discuss those too.

Anicca – Inability to Maintain Anything
Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things

Dukkha -- suffering
Anatta -- helplessness


https://suttacentral.net/sn23.17/en/sujato

Not-Self

At Sāvatthī. Seated to one side, Venerable Rādha said to the Buddha: “Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘not-self’. What is not-self?” “Rādha, form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”



PS . “Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘Helplessness’. What is Helplessness ?” “Rādha, form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are Helplessness .”


Can anyone come up with the meaning ?
Does it make sense ?

By the way ,
repeated arising and destruction
IS IMPERMANENT which is Anicca .

[Lal]

Zom said:

But the thing is - there are no facts to assert that Pali Tipitaka is "older" and Agamas are "later". Both stem from one ancient source, which is neither Pali Tipitaka, nor Agamas.

What is that ancient source?

[Zom]

Pre-Canon, if you like. Common source upon which all early buddhist schools based their teachings, theravada included. In the end, theravada ended up with its Canon, other schools had their own. This is why it is a mistake to say "Pali Canon was the first, all other Canons came later". More than that, it is precisely because of existence of all these non-Pali canons (or their parts) we can say that Pali Canon is not a fake (made during, lets say, Buddhaghosa times, 1000 years after historical Buddha) but an authentic one. Not 100% authenic, of course, but still. Read the book, it is enlightening

[SarathW]

Hi Jame
Where did you find the following definitions?
They sound like Lal's definitions.

Anicca – Inability to Maintain Anything
Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things

Dukkha -- suffering
Anatta -- helplessness

[2600htz]

Hello Lal:

1) You are getting into several different discussions in this topic, so i was hesitated to ask another question, but because you are well versed its fun
to get your responses, so i ask.

2) You previously stated (Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:53 am) "It is true that Buddha Dhamma is Dependent Origination (DO), or Paticca Samuppada. But that is not separate from Tilakkhana (Characteristics of Nature: anicca, dukkha, anatta). Understanding one automatically leads to the understanding of the other."

3) What you said raises interesting questions ( the statement that understanding one automatically leads to the understanding of the other, that is, understanding dependent origination leads to understanding the characteristics of nature: anicca, dukkha, anatta. And in reverse, understanding the characteristics of nature: anicca, dukkha, anatta. leads to understanding dependent origination.

4)While they are obviously connected, i don´t know if its true that understanding the characteristics of nature leads to fully understanding dependent origination ( i do believe understanding dependent origination leads to fully understanding the characteristics of nature, but not the other way around).

5)If that where true, why teach dependent origination?. If that where true, why people need meditation to get into the anagami or arahant stage?.
Does a person experiencing the cessation of perception and feeling gets his taints destroyed by seeing the characteristics of nature or dependent origination?.

6)If you can come up with a better analogy its welcome, but my take is like an aeroplane pilot: His knowledge of aerodinamics is equivalent to the knowledge of the characteristics of nature, but his knowledge of how to drive the plane is equivalent to the knowledge of dependent origination.

Would like to know your thoughts,

Regards.