The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[Lal]

Coemgenu said:

No, you have not answered a simple question.

Why did the Theravāda Pāli masters of the past never reprimand the Sabbatthivāda or Pudgalavāda on the very significant issue of their alleged mistranslation of such a key term that occurs with such frequency?

You seem to have an obsession with this. I have explained this before. We don't have complete historical records to pinpoint when or why the Sabbatthivādins refused to take the Buddha's word not to translate the Pali Tipitaka to Sanskrit. My point was that you guys are refusing to accept it today, even though that Vinaya rule is in the Pali Tipitaka. So, it is amazing to see that you keep bringing up this question. Here is what I said on Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:06 pm:

"Regarding Sabbatthivāda not paying attention to the Vinaya rule on not to translate the Tipitaka to Sanskrit: Isn't it the same situation today? Even though it is in the Theravada Pali Tipitaka (I gave the Sutta Central reference), it is ignored by Theravadins today. Apparently that is what Sabbatthivādins did too."

I remember that you said your main concern is on anatta. So, I ask for the last time from you: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
I will not respond to your questions/comments any more, unless I see you answer this simple question.

[Lal]

Nicolas said, regarding what is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”:

No dhammas are you, no dhammas belong to you, you are not in any dhamma, etc.

Wow. That sounds like a Zen riddle! That is all I can say about that.

Let us try another simple sutta:
Attha Sutta (AN 181; in the Sadhuvagga) anattō (a person who has become helpless) is defined in terms of dasa akusala:

“..katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō? pānātipātō, adinnādānaṃ, kāmesumicchācārō, musāvādō, pisunā vācā, parusā vācā, samphappalāpō, abhijjhā, vyāpādō, micchādiṭṭhi – ayam vuccati, bhikkhave, anattō..”
- Thus one becomes helpless (i.e., one is now an anattō) by engaging in dasa akusala.

In the next and last paragraph of the sutta, attō is defined as the opposite of that: "pānātipātā veramani, adinnādānā veramani, kāmesumicchācārä veramani, musāvādä veramani, pisunā vācā veramani, parusā vācā veramani, samphappalāpā veramani, abhijjhā veramani, vyāpāda veramani, sammāädiṭṭhi – ayam vuccati, bhikkhave, attō. ‘ti."
Thus one becomes an attō (leading to refuge in Nibbana) by engaging in dasa kusala.

One more sutta: The first verse in the Patama Adhamma Sutta (AN 10.113 in the Paccorohanivagga) states it nicely:

“Adhammō ca, bhikkhave, veditabbō anatthō ca; dhammō ca veditabbō atthō ca“
which translates as:
“Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattā (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attā (refuge in Nibbana)”.

How would you interpret those two suttas?

[Nicolas]

The sutta you are referring to (linked here) shows "anattho" and "attho", which are not the same as "anattā" and "attā".

You didn't address my point from the Nakulapita Sutta:

They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am form, form is mine!’
[...]
They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am feeling, feeling is mine!’
[...]
They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am perception, perception is mine!’
[...]
They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am saṅkhārā, saṅkhārā are mine!’
[...]
They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am consciousness, consciousness is mine!’

This clearly indicates that some people identify with the aggregates and imagine a self connected to them.
The quotes are directly following how the puthujjana sees atta connected to the aggregates.

[Coëmgenu]

Coemgenu said:

No, you have not answered a simple question.

Why did the Theravāda Pāli masters of the past never reprimand the Sabbatthivāda or Pudgalavāda on the very significant issue of their alleged mistranslation of such a key term that occurs with such frequency?

You seem to have an obsession with this. I have explained this before. We don't have complete historical records to pinpoint when or why the Sabbatthivādins refused to take the Buddha's word not to translate the Pali Tipitaka to Sanskrit. My point was that you guys are refusing to accept it today, even though that Vinaya rule is in the Pali Tipitaka. So, it is amazing to see that you keep bringing up this question. Here is what I said on Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:06 pm:

"Regarding Sabbatthivāda not paying attention to the Vinaya rule on not to translate the Tipitaka to Sanskrit: Isn't it the same situation today? Even though it is in the Theravada Pali Tipitaka (I gave the Sutta Central reference), it is ignored by Theravadins today. Apparently that is what Sabbatthivādins did too."

I remember that you said your main concern is on anatta. So, I ask for the last time from you: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
I will not respond to your questions/comments any more, unless I see you answer this simple question.

What about the other 16 schools of early Buddhism? No one bothered to talk about it amongst them either?

You are deflecting and pretending to know more about this than you do.

[Coëmgenu]

I already told you where to look. Go look in the Kathāvatthu.

[Lal]

Nicolas said:

The sutta you are referring to (linked here) shows "anattho" and "attho", which are not the same as "anattā" and "attā".

Here is the problem: The sutta begins with: "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?"

That verse is incorrectly translated in the link you provided as :“I will teach you the beneficial and the harmful. … And what is the harmful?"

That is very bad translation of Pali: "anattō" means "one who has got to the anatta state" or one who has become "anatta" or helpless". So, that whole sutta is just stating how one becomes anatta by doing dasa akusala.

What is the connection between the Pali verse "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?" and its translation: “I will teach you the beneficial and the harmful. … And what is the harmful?"
Where did all that come from the simple statement: "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?"

[Coëmgenu]

The Sabbatthivāda are the tip of the iceberg. Read the debates between the Theravāda and the Pudgalavāda.

[Coëmgenu]

Nicolas said:

The sutta you are referring to (linked here) shows "anattho" and "attho", which are not the same as "anattā" and "attā".

Here is the problem: The sutta begins with: "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?"

You are lying. It has katamo ca, bhikkhave, anattho?

[Coëmgenu]

Aspiration matters. You lied and hid the aspiration on anattho, rendering it as anatto, why not lie and hide the aspiration on bhikkhave too? Rendering it as bikkave?

[Nicolas]

Every Pali version of the sutta that I've found lists "attho" and "anattho":

• suttacentral.net (Mahāsangiti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500), which I referenced earlier.
• tipitaka.org (connected to Vipassana Research Institute)
• The Sri Lanka Tripitaka Project (see accesstoinsight.org, what-buddha-said.net & metta.lk): Sri Lanka Buddha Jayanti Tripiṭaka & PTS version.

It is my understanding (from reading tipitaka.org) that no differences are listed on that website for that sutta between the Sri Lanka version, the Thai version, the PTS version, and the Cambodian version of the Tipitaka. They all list "attho" and "anattho".

[Lal]

Nicolas said:

Every Pali version of the sutta that I've found lists "attho" and "anattho":

You are right. I do not remember where I copied the Pali text from; usually I get it from Sutta Central. Anyway, I will try to see where I copied it from. I wrote the post on it last year.

In the mean time, I made a mistake saying "Here is the problem: The sutta begins with: "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?"

That is not how the sutta starts. It starts as: "“Atthañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi anatthañca. Taṃ suṇātha … pe … katamo ca, bhikkhave, anattho?" I had just copied the relevant part from the sutta.

So, the English translation starting with “I will teach you the beneficial and the harmful. … And what is the harmful?" is not bad, even though anattha means more like "without essence" or "untruth"; of course such things will be harmful.

My apologies to the translator on that mistake I made.

[SarathW]

So, I ask for the last time from you: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.

@Lal
There is no agreement on this term as it applies in various sense.
See my post:
viewtopic.php?t=16264

In your website, it explains as follows. I think it is incorrect. You cant support it with Sutta. Please reply to my post.

"But “sabbe dhammā” in “sabbe dhammā anattā” seems to include everything, all phenomena belonging to this world of 31 realms. Nibbāna is not included."

[Lal]

SarathW said:

In your website, it explains as follows. I think it is incorrect. You cant support it with Sutta. Please reply to my post.

"But “sabbe dhammā” in “sabbe dhammā anattā” seems to include everything, all phenomena belonging to this world of 31 realms. Nibbāna is not included."

Could you let me know which post it is? Must be an old post. It should say:
"But “sabbe dhammā” in “sabbe dhammā anattā” includes everything, all phenomena belonging to this world of 31 realms. Nibbāna is not included."

There are four paramatta dhamma: citta, cetasika, rupa, and Nibbana. The first three belong to "this world of 31 realms". Nibbana does not belong to this world.

By definition, Nibbana means stopping the rebirth process, i.e., stopping all types of suffering. Once an Arahant attains Parinibbana, he/she will not be reborn anywhere in this world, i.e., not in any of the 31 realms. But the Buddha said that Nibbana exists, just not in this world.

There are four sutta in the Udana section of the Anguttara Nikaya that explain Nibbāna (Udana 8.1 through 8.4); First one at: "https://legacy.suttacentral.net/pi/ud8.1", which says:
“Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṃ, yattha neva pathavī, na āpo, na tejo, na vāyo, na ākāsānañ­cāyata­naṃ, na viñ­ñā­ṇañ­cāyata­naṃ, na ākiñ­cañ­ñā­yatanaṃ, na neva­saññā­nā­sañ­ñāyata­naṃ, nāyaṃ loko, na paraloko, na ubho candimasūriyā. Tatrāpāhaṃ, bhikkhave, neva āgatiṃ vadāmi, na gatiṃ, na ṭhitiṃ, na cutiṃ, na upapattiṃ; appatiṭṭhaṃ, appavattaṃ, anā­ramma­ṇa­me­vetaṃ. Esevanto dukkhassā”ti.

Note that in the above verse it excludes all 31 realms. Sutta Central translation:
“There is that sphere, monks, where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air, no sphere of infinite space, no sphere of infinite consciousness, no sphere of nothingness, no sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, no this world, no world beyond, neither Moon nor Sun. There, monks, I say there is surely no coming, no going, no persisting, no passing away, no rebirth It is quite without support, unmoving, without an object,—just this is the end of suffering.”

Tadayanata (tath + ayatana"), where “tath” means “perfect” and “āyatana” means “faculties”. Phonetically, the combined word is “tadāyatana” (pronounced “thadaayathana”).

[Coëmgenu]

Nicolas said, regarding what is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”:

No dhammas are you, no dhammas belong to you, you are not in any dhamma, etc.

Wow. That sounds like a Zen riddle! That is all I can say about that.

Sounds like Theravāda Buddhism to me.

In the mean time, I made a mistake saying "Here is the problem: The sutta begins with: "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō?"

That is not how the sutta starts. It starts as: "“Atthañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi anatthañca. Taṃ suṇātha … pe … katamo ca, bhikkhave, anattho?" I had just copied the relevant part from the sutta.

How did you cut and paste that text and still manage to conveniently delete an H to match your line of argumentation?

[Coëmgenu]

Odd... the only place where the text "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō" appears is the PureDhamma website. Users can find this by Googling "katamo ca bhikkhave, anattō" with quotation marks, just like that. Observe the results.

....coincidence?

We should message PureDhamma, so they can correct this unfortunate typo.