The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[rajitha7]

So Buddha Dhamma is not Dhamma?

Is the tube light still flickering?

[Dhammanando]

Ok thinks , I see your point, I hope Ven Dhammanando or Ven Pesala might give their thoughts on this.

Between attā (Skt. atmān) and atthaṃ (Skt. arthaṃ) there is neither any historical etymological relationship nor any overlap in meaning.

However, Lal’s error with regard to these two words is of a different kind from those that he makes with regard to the ‘saṃ’ in ‘saṃsāra’. Whereas errors of the latter sort arise from a simple failure to understand what kind of a language Pali is (i.e. his treating it as if it were an agglutinative language when in fact it’s primarily a fusional one), in the the case of attā and atthaṃ the source of error appears to be: (1) the absence of the aspirated consonant [t̪ʰ] in the modern Sinhala phonemic system, which leads Sinhalese to pronounce ‘attā’ and ‘attha’ identically, and (2) Lal’s eccentric belief that how a modern Sinhalese pronounces a Pali word gives us clues as to its deeper hidden meaning.

Like Ven. Pesala I’ll make this my final contribution to this thread. Breaking butterflies on a wheel is boring.

[rajitha7]

in the the case of attā and atthaṃ the source of error appears to be: (1) the absence of the aspirated consonant [t̪ʰ] in the modern Sinhala phonemic system, which leads Sinhalese to pronounce ‘attā’ and ‘attha’ identically

When the Sutta was freshly minted 2000 years ago it appeared as follows. The language is Pali but the script is Sinhala.

"සාධු සාධු, භික්ඛු! සාධු ඛො ත්වං, භික්ඛු, මයා සංඛිත්තෙන භාසිතස්ස විත්ථාරෙන අත්ථං ආජානාසි. රූපං ඛො, භික්ඛු, අනත්තා; තත්‍ර තෙ ඡන්දො පහාතබ්බො . වෙදනා... සඤ්ඤා... සඞ්ඛාරා... විඤ්ඤාණං අනත්තා; තත්‍ර තෙ ඡන්දො පහාතබ්බො. ඉමස්ස ඛො, භික්ඛු, මයා සංඛිත්තෙන භාසිතස්ස එවං විත්ථාරෙන අත්ථො දට්ඨබ්බො"

Do you see an aspirated consonant here? How can there be an aspirated consonant in the Sinhala script? The literal pronunciation of the word is Anatha.

Fast forward 2000 years, someone translates the Pali to the Romanised form as Anattā. The original Pali pronunciation Anatha has been lost to Anattā in Roman form. The correct way to pronounce Pali is given here. So this is the first error. The irony is one of the few sites that correctly spell and pronounce Pali is puredhamma.

Between attā (Skt. atmān) and atthaṃ (Skt. arthaṃ) there is neither any historical etymological relationship nor any overlap in meaning.

The second error occurs when the word is translated to Sinhala using its own script. The Sinhala word Anathma is used taking the Sansrkit meaning Anatman or "not-self". The Sanskrit dictionary below shows the word.

आत्मा , आत्मन् AtmA , Atman m. soul
अनात्मन् anAtman m. not self

Do you see the historical and etymological relationship between the Sinhala Anathma and Sanskrit Anatman? One need to know Sinhala first In order to know the relationship.

"Soul" or Athma is a dirty word as far as the Buddha Dhamma is concerned. It is a Sakkaya-ditti. There is no way the Buddha would use "soul" to define the Anicca-Dukka-Anatta.

The word "no soul" used with "sabbe dhammā anattā" will mean "all phenomena do not have a soul". This is an absurdity. It only makes sense if it said "all living phenomena do not have a soul". Can you see how Sanskritisation has polluted the meaning?

An extensive analysis is given here in relation Khuddaka Nikāya (KN).

http://www.waharaka.com/mp3/Thilakuna-D ... haya-1.mp3
http://www.waharaka.com/mp3/Thilakuna-D ... haya-2.mp3
http://www.waharaka.com/mp3/Thilakuna-D ... haya-3.mp3

The mind boggles to think this has been hidden for so long. Only an authentic Noble Buddha Puthra of Ven Sariputra lineage, such as Ven Waharaka will be able to discover this way. How the incorrect term entered into common use is explained in great detail.

[SarathW]

“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipari­ṇāma­dhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”
ti? “No hetaṃ, bhante”.

The Incorrect translation

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself'?

The correct translation

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is beneficial'?

Ha Rajitha
Please answer the following question. I need only "yes" or "No" answer like in the Sutta.

"Now, what is permanent, satisfactory, not subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is beneficial?"

[Lal]

Per Rajitha's recent comment, it is important to understand the historical background and to see how key Pali words got incorrect interpretations that are prevalent today, even though the Pali Tipitaka remains accurate:

https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... ackground/

Another key point to realize -- as Rajitha pointed out -- is that Pali words written in Sinhala alphabet can be written in English in different ways (We need to remember that when the Tipiataka was written down 2000 years ago, it was written in Pali, but with Sinhala script): For example, Tilakkhana are stated in the Tipitaka in Sinhala script as අනිච්ච, දුක්ඛ , අනත්ත.
If we just take the word අනත්ත it is written in English as "anatta" or "anattha" depending on who writes. Both represent අනත්ත. Phonetically, it should be written as "anaththa".
But when Rhys Davis and other Europeans started translating Tipitaka, they seemed to have settled on a standard way to minimize the number of letters used in a word.

For those who know Sinhala, the Sinhala word for අනත්ත is අනාත, which literally means helpless, or without refuge, NOT "no-self".
And අනිච්ච is "not නිච්ච" or "not possible to maintain to one's satisfaction" and NOT "impermanent". The Sinhala word for impermanent is "නියත".

With metta, Lal

[SarathW]

Hi Lal
Could you give your opinion on the Pabhassara Citta in the following link? Please do not answer here.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p422008

[rajitha7]

"Now, what is permanent, satisfactory, not subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is beneficial?"

Where did you get this question from? Buddha will not ask such a nonsensical question.

[aflatun]

“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipari­ṇāma­dhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”
ti? “No hetaṃ, bhante”.

The Incorrect translation

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself'?

The correct translation

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is beneficial'?

Ha Rajitha
Please answer the following question. I need only "yes" or "No" answer like in the Sutta.

"Now, what is permanent, satisfactory, not subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is beneficial?"

I'll bite. The question is innappropriate because permanent, satisfactory and not subject to change would imply the absence of the impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change cognitive-affective conditions that make the conceiving "This is mine, etc" possible in the first place.

To paraphrase the sutta I'm thinking of: Where nothing is felt, would the thought "I am" even arise?

The Unconstructed by definition cannot be a self in any meaningful way, anymore so than it can be an object (an unconditioned object is a contradiction) which can be known (knowing is conditioned by definition).

EDIT: Hence we've been told not to engage in such linguistic tomfoolery, as to do so is to proliferate the unproliferated

[SarathW]

So Buddha Dhamma is not Dhamma?

Is the tube light still flickering?

Hi Rajitha and Lal
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you in your definition of Attha and atta.
I have done enough investigation within my capacity, compromising my own reputation.
So we have to agree to dis-agree in this instance.
I do not intend to engage this discussion about Anatta in this topic any more.
I have no doubt that Ven. Abaya is a very learned monk, but some of his views I can't agree with.
His view on radiant consciousness is one of them.
I have listen to 14 of his video's so far and they all seems good except these vital points.
However I will continue to post if another fresh issues come to my attention.

http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions

[Lal]

SarathW said,

Hi Lal
Could you give your opinion on the Pabhassara Citta in the following link? Please do not answer here.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=15567&start=20#p422008

I will try to give my opinion after I have read through the posts in that link in a few days. But I prefer to settle a key issue here before going to other issues, because without resolving this, it is hard to make progress on any other issue.
We need to address and resolve this issue about getting stuck in whether it is “atta”, “attha”, or even “aththa”.

Aflatun said,

Bikkhu Pesala, Lal, et al.

For those of us with no command of Pali, perhaps you could help understand the disagreement

Bhante, are you saying there is a master, source Pali text that says, for example, anattho vs. anattö ? If so, how/why has the transliteration error happened?

SarathW said,

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you in your definition of Attha and atta.

I have re-read most of the posts in this discussion. We are going around in loops without addressing the root issue.
Let me ask the following questions:

1.I think everyone agrees that we need to take the Pali Tipitaka as the basis.

2. Tipitaka was transmitted orally until 29 BCE when it was written down in Sri Lanka at the fourth Council (Sangayana). Pali does not have its own alphabet. It was written with Sinhala script.
- For example, Tilakkhana (Three characteristics of nature) were written in the original Tipitaka as අනිච්ච, දුක්ඛ, අනත්ත. It was not written down in English or Sanskrit, or any other language. So, it is not relevant to the discussion to try find the etymology in English or Sanskrit.
- Let us take just one of them: අනත්ත. It was NOT written down first as “anatta”, “anattha”, or even “anaththa” in English OR as “anathma” in Sanskrit.
- The first English translations were first made by Rhys Davis and other Europeans in the late 1600’s, see: https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... -dhamma-2/
- This is the key to many of the problems that we keep encountering in this and other discussion forums.

3. So, Aflatun and SrathW, do you see my point?
Depending on who writes අනත්ත in English, it could be written as “anatta”, “anattha”, or even “anaththa”. It could also be written as “anatto” to rhyme in a Pali verse. Those are not grammatical variations most of the time.
The key is not to get hang up on how it is written, but WHAT IS MEANT by that word.
So, there are two issues here:

First, a given Pali word is written in English. For example, අනත්ත could be written as “anatta”, “anattha”, or even “anaththa”. It would be nice to settle down on a standard way to write it, but that is not the critical issue.

Second, it is TRANSLATED into English too. This is the more critical step. Did the correct meaning come through with the commonly used word, “impermanence”?

When Rhys Davis and others started doing those translations, they were heavily influenced by Sanskrit Mahayana sutras, as well by Vedic literature (Think about it: when the Europeans first started discovering all these different Pali and Sanskrit documents, it was not easy for them to distinguish between Hinduism and Buddhism). They ASSUMED that “anatta” was the same as “anaathma” which is a Sanskrit word, with a totally different meaning.
The worst is that even Sinhala scholars like Malasekara (who was a doctoral student of Rhys Davis), “learned” Buddhism from the Europeans, and thus started using wrong interpretations. Other Sinhala scholars like Kalupahana and Jayathilake also learned “Buddhism” at universities in United Kingdom. But if one is interested in experiencing the “cooling down”, one needs to learn Buddha Dhamma from either a Buddha or a true disciple of the Buddha, i.e., one with at least the Sotapanna stage of Nibbana (one who has already experienced the “cooling down”), see: https://puredhamma.net/seeking-nibbana/ ... aggaphala/

4.The Tipitaka was never translated, even to Sinhala, for 1500 years until it started to be translated to English in the late 1600’s as mentioned above. When it was first translated to Sinhala in 2005, incorrect meanings were used for most key words.
- Pali suttas are not meant to be translated word-to-word as I explained in the previous post. Please read my earlier posts and the links given. One problem here is that I don’t think people read the links that I give. Of course, it is up to each person to read or not, but without being exposed to that information, one will be unaware of some critical information. And it is not possible for me to write everything down in a comment like this (it is still going to be long).

5. Since most suttas are in condensed form, those key Pali words were explained in detail in commentaries that were composed from the time the Buddha. Most old commentaries have been lost, but luckily there are three commentaries composed in the time of the Buddha that are still in the Tipitaka: Patisambhidamagga, Petakopadesa, and Nettippakarana
My late teacher, Waharaka Thero, was the first to really go through those three commentaries and he found the correct interpretations of many key words including anicca, dukkha, anatta.
There is a separate section on the historical background: https://puredhamma.net/historical-background/
But, at least read the most recent post:
https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... ackground/

6.I think this should be a key discussion to try get to the root of the problem. Otherwise, we will be going around in circles forever, jumping from one issue to another without resolving any issue and thus without much benefit.
I have also added a section to my key post anicca, dukkha, anatta to discuss how these words could have been mistranslated starting with the works of Rhys Davis, Eugene Burnouf, Olcott, and others:
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... ha-anatta/

I hope those who are interested will take time to go through this material.

Please feel free to criticize/comment. I am open to an honest, open discussion based on facts, not statements on how one feels about a given issue. Buddha Dhamma is unique and different; it takes an effort to grasp the key concepts. A Buddha comes to this world to explain these hard-to-grasp concepts that are hidden from normal human minds.

With metta, Lal

[freedom]

Look at how we view the world...

That is my beloved son.

• • He is definitely my son. He was my son, he is my son and he will be forever my son. Nothing can change that fact! -> Permanent.
  • He is my life, he is everything that I have, he is my hope, he is my joy -> happiness.
  • He is mine, he is my son and nothing can change that! -> self.

Look at how we are suffering...

• • My beloved son is dead! -> I am suffering because that is My son.
  • That boy is dead -> I am NOT suffering because he is NOT my beloved son.
  
  • My house is burnt out in the fire -> I am suffering because that is My house.
  • That house is burnt out in the fire -> I am NOT suffering because that is NOT my house.
  
  • My arm is hurt -> I am suffering because that is my arm.
  • His arm is hurt -> I am NOT suffering because that is NOT my arm.

This is what we need to see ...

That is my beloved son.

• • He is subject to change -> Impermanent.
  • He is where the troubles will come to me -> Suffering.
  • He is not my possession; he is not in my control -> Not self.

When there is "I", there is "my" (or mine). When there is "my", there is "I". The "I" is the "self".
Without "my", there is no "I". Without "I", there is no "my, mine".

To end the "I", we need to end the "my" and vice versa.
Without the "I, my", we do not suffer. Do we need that "I, my"?

[SarathW]

We need to address and resolve this issue about getting stuck in whether it is “atta”, “attha”, or even “aththa”.

Hi Lal
What is the essence of Anatta Lakhana Sutta?
Is it about what is profitable?
What is the most important thing realised by the world (earth) first Sotapanna?(Kondanna)

[Alex9]

We are going around in loops without addressing the root issue.

Yes, as you say transliteration appears to be the root issue.

in the the case of attā and atthaṃ the source of error appears to be: (1) the absence of the aspirated consonant [t̪ʰ] in the modern Sinhala phonemic system, which leads Sinhalese to pronounce ‘attā’ and ‘attha’ identically

When the Sutta was freshly minted 2000 years ago it appeared as follows. The language is Pali but the script is Sinhala...

Do you see an aspirated consonant here? How can there be an aspirated consonant in the Sinhala script?

I am ingorant of Pali and Sinhalese. According to Wikipedia, however,

Sinhalese is often considered two alphabets, or an alphabet within an alphabet, due to the presence of two sets of letters. The core set, known as the śuddha siṃhala (pure Sinhalese, ශුද්ධ සිංහලimg) or eḷu hōḍiya (Eḷu alphabet එළු හෝඩිය img), can represent all native phonemes. In order to render Sanskrit and Pali words, an extended set, the miśra siṃhala (mixed Sinhalese, මිශ්‍ර සිංහලimg), is available....

All native phonemes of the Sinhala spoken today can be represented in śuddha, while in order to render special Sanskrit and Pali sounds, one can fall back on miśra siṃhala. This is most notably necessary for the graphemes for the Middle Indic phonemes that the Sinhalese language lost during its history, such as aspirates.

It gives ථ as the miśra letter for the aspirate [t̪a]. Is this wrong?

We need to remember that when the Tipiataka was written down 2000 years ago, it was written in Pali, but with Sinhala script): For example, Tilakkhana are stated in the Tipitaka in Sinhala script as අනිච්ච, දුක්ඛ , අනත්ත.
If we just take the word අනත්ත it is written in English as "anatta" or "anattha" depending on who writes. Both represent අනත්ත.

It seems instead to be the difference between අනත්ත "anatta" and අනත්ථ "anattha," right? As covered earlier in the thread, the comment on අත්ථ: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 40#p421449

The argument against this could maybe be that the original manuscripts do not use miśra letters, or particular suttas have been typed wrong? I guess that could be proven by showing the digitized manuscripts. This is my very uninformed understanding of the issue under discussion anyway.

[rajitha7]

It gives ථ as the miśra letter for the aspirate [t̪a]. Is this wrong?

The Buddha Jayanthi Edition of Tripitaka is found here. The alphabet used is given in the front page of any PDF.

http://www.sjp.ac.lk/news/download-theravada-tripitaka/

It uses consonants and conjunct-consonants. The Sinhala alphabet used does not have aspirated consonants.

[SarathW]

We need to address and resolve this issue about getting stuck in whether it is “atta”, “attha”, or even “aththa”.

Hi Lal
What is the essence of Anatta Lakhana Sutta?
Is it about what is profitable?
What is the most important thing realised by the world (earth) first Sotapanna?(Kondanna)

I am still awaiting answer for this post.