The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[Lal]

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.

If you like, we can discuss DO, i.e., how suffering originates. What do you understand by “avijja paccaya sankhara”?

And, how does that lead to suffering (jara, marana, soka, parideva, dukkha, domanassa…)?

Please use your own words. If we understand a concept, we should be able to express it in our own words.

[Lal]

Here is a post where I explained paticca samuppada:

In addition to viññāna being “corrupt consciousness”, it is also important to realize that ALL the terms in the akusala-mula paticca samuppada (Dependent Origination) are corrupt or bad. That is why one ends up with suffering. This akusala-mula PS, starts with avijja (ignorance) and ends up in dukkha, domanassa, etc (suffering).

Viññāna means “without ñāna ” or without wisdom: in very simple terms, not knowing the consequences of doing dasa akusala.

Let us go through the PS process involved in person X making plans to kill Y to marry his wife. Person X’s goal is to marry Y’s wife and live a happy life with her. And X does not understand that it will lead to bad consequences for him in the future, i.e., bring a birth in the apayas (one of the four lowest reals, most likely the lowest realm, niraya).

Therefore, X thinks, speaks, and acts unwisely (doing mano, vaci, and kaya sankhara, which are actually abhisankhara). That is the “avijja paccaya sankhara” step.

That leads to the defiled consciousness, where X constantly thinks about his goal, which leads to a defiled state of mind, i.e., “sankhara paccaya viññāna”.

Concurrently, X is visualizing not only how he will live a happy life with that lady, but also how he will carry out the plan to kill Y. These visualizations are the namarupa that X generates in his mind. This is the “viññāna paccaya namarupa” step.
Here, X will be constantly making abhisankhara too. So, these three steps go back and forth numerous times, making more abhisankhara and namarupa, thus strengthening viññāna.

For example, in addition to “viññāna paccaya namarupa” step, there will be “namarupa paccaya viññāna” step and the same for others.

This leads to the arising of a potent kamma bija via javana citta that run constantly through X’s mind. That is what brings a bad birth in the future. Now, suppose X kills Y. Now the kamma or the “bad deed” is complete (which is called a kamma patha), and a potent kamma bija (kammic energy) or a “seed” has been created which can last many aeons waiting for an opportunity to bring a bad birth for X.

So, the rest of the PS cycle starts when a new bhava is about to be grasped by X, which could be at the end of this human bhava or even millions of years later.

Anyway, when that happens, the PS cycle will go through the second half starting with “viññāna paccaya namarupa” step. That kamma bija which was created some time back, will now come to his mind and will flash a namarupa (or a nimitta or a sign) compatible with the new bhava.

That nimitta will come through one of the six sense faculties (salayatana), which is the next step in PS: “namarupa paccaya salayatana”.
Now, X’s mind will make contact with that nimitta: “salayatana paccaya phasso”, which will lead to “phassa paccaya vedana”, i.e., X will experience that nimitta or namarupa of the new bhava that he is about to grasp.
For example, it could be a scene from the niraya (hell) that X is going to be born in. This is why some people either cry of in fear or show that fear in their eyes at the moment of death.

Then his mind will grasp it, “vedana paccaya tanha”, and will embrace it: “tanha paccaya upadana”, which means X has now grasped that new bhava: “upadana paccaya bhavo”.
Then, X will be born in that bhava (existence), which in this case is an existence in the niraya, and instantaneously be born in that bhava: “bhava paccaya jati”.

That is how the suffering in that next existence starts, and X will now undergo suffering until that kammic energy (or the bhava energy) is exhausted. At the end of that, X will again come to a cuti-patisandhi moment and will grasp a new bhava that will be based on another good or bad kamma bija that was created in the past. This is how the rebirth process continues.

That is a highly condensed version of a PS cycle, which is called uppatti PS, because that is responsible for leading to a birth in a new bhava (existence).

I would be happy to discuss details, if any of the above is not clear. If one can go back and read my earlier posts in this thread and other thread on “The Teachings of Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero”, that could also be helpful to fill in gaps.

Some people think “namarupa” means what one sees, hears, etc. But that process of seeing or hearing happens in a billionth of a second in a single citta vithi with 17 thought moments. It should be noted that “namarupa formation” is a very deep subject. It is the viññāna that combines nama and rupa and gives rise to namarupa. This understanding is called “namarupa paricceda ñāna”.

By the way, “viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ” means “Viññāna is unseen, infinite, and leads to the rebirth process for all”. This is discussed in detail at, “https://puredhamma.net/living-dhamma/na ... lly-means/".

[SarathW]

By the way, “viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ” means “Viññāna is unseen, infinite, and leads to the rebirth process for all”.

Agree.
Vinnana means Patisandi (rebirth making) Vinnana.

[Lal]

I am glad to hear that. But vinnana can take many different forms.

Patisandhi vinnana is only one special type of vinnana. That is what the Buddha said “descends to a womb” at the moment of conception of a human baby.

I saw that you asked the question “what is a thought?” under another topic.
- Vinnana is associated with each and every thought as well.
- Any given thought has vedana, sanna, and sankhara associated with it. That is the overall "sense experience" and that is also vinnana.

You obviously know about cakkhu, sota, ghana, jivha, kaya, and mano vinnana. We experience the external world with those six types of vinnana; they are thoughts in our minds. For example, we see with cakkhu vinnana. But we do not just “see” something, we may get attached to it immediately upon seeing it. That is why vinnana is called “defiled”.
- But an Arahant just “sees” the object as it is, and does not get attached. So, his vinnana is purified.

[justindesilva]

By the way, “viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ” means “Viññāna is unseen, infinite, and leads to the rebirth process for all”.

Agree.
Vinnana means Patisandi (rebirth making) Vinnana.

Vinnana does not vary from one part of the body to the other . It is an elemant ( energy) present with mind (nama). The signals which enter our body through eye, ear , nose, tongue or say skin ( tactlle) reaches this common vingnana within us , but cognites in quick succession. We see and call them cakku vinnana, sota vinnana, gana vinnana, etc. and define it with the part of the body , where it contacts. But the vinnana is just a common stream for all such rupa or parts of the body. After the cognition with body elements sankara , cetana( volition) and rest of citta elements ( from citta vidi ) and beyond takes place to form kamma vipaka. Hence we must realise that vinnana is a common source for all elements.
An analogy of a petrol engine can explain this. Petrol is present in a six stroke engine. The sparking of plugs takes place in succession but ignites with the petrol present in common. Our vingnana can be compared to the petrol in common distributed in the engine.
Paticandi vinnana cognites when all the other body parts do not function, but when vinnana is present with bavanga citta.

[SamD]

Are these teachings popular in Sri Lanka? Is there a particular sect or a group that is guided by the teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero?

No his teachings are not popular. However his sect has a good media unit which tries to make it look like they have a huge following

[Lal]

No his teachings are not popular. However his sect has a good media unit which tries to make it look like they have a huge following

Can you point out a single thing that is wrong with that teaching (interpretations)?

For example, you can go through all my posts and point out anything that is not consistent with the Tipitaka. It is not productive to make useless statements without facts.

The "media unit" is good only because it has the facts behind it.

[robertk]

No his teachings are not popular. However his sect has a good media unit which tries to make it look like they have a huge following

Can you point out a single thing that is wrong with that teaching (interpretations)?

For example, you can go through all my posts and point out anything that is not consistent with the Tipitaka. It is not productive to make useless statements without facts.

The "media unit" is good only because it has the facts behind it.

It would possibly be easier if we were to try to find which of your posts that are consistent with the Tipitaka.
as ven Dhammando wrote earlier on this thread:

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

[Lal]

It would possibly be easier if we were to try to find which of your posts that are consistent with the Tipitaka.
as ven Dhammando wrote earlier on this thread:

All of my posts are consistent with the Tipitaka. It should be easy to pick a single statement and point out what is wrong with it.
Why don't you do that?

On the other hand, I have explained at great length why many of the current English translations are not correct. I have done my part. Just go back and read this thread. It is up to those who defend wrong interpretations to provide their explanations.

Bowing out of a discussion is done only because one does not have the facts on one's side. That is also not any different from what you are doing.

Can you or they explain what "anidassana vinnana" or just what "vinnana" is, for example? I have.

[robertk]

It would possibly be easier if we were to try to find which of your posts that are consistent with the Tipitaka.
as ven Dhammando wrote earlier on this thread:

Bowing out of a discussion is done only because one does not have the facts on one's side. That is also not any different from what you are doing.

Can you or they explain what "anidassana vinnana" or just what "vinnana" is, for example? I have.

check if your posts are in agreement with the orthodox teaching:
From an old post by ven. Dhammanando:

In the Mahāvihāra's understanding viññāṇaṃ does not mean consciousness in this context. Instead, it is defined as viññātabbaṃ, a verbal derivative that can be taken as a noun ('that which must be cognized') or an adjective ('to be cognized', 'must be cognized'). If we take it as a noun, then the famous line viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ will be translated, "the thing that must be cognized, that is unseeable, without end, all-illuminating." Taking it as an adjective qualifying anidassana (well-attested in the Suttas as a synonym of nibbāna), we get, "The Unseeable that must be cognized, that is without end, that is all-illuminating".

Either way, there seems to be no reason to doubt that the four terms in this passage are being used exactly as they are used elsewhere in the Suttas, i.e., as designations for nibbāna. The unlikelihood of the viññāṇaṃ in viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ referring to consciousness is evident from the last two lines of the same verse:

ettha nāmañca rūpañca, asesaṃ uparujjhati
viññāṇassa nirodhena, etthetaṃ uparujjhatī ti

Here (in nibbana), name and matter cease without remainder;
Through the cessation of consciousness, these [name and matter] cease here.

One is of course at liberty to discard the Mahāvihārins' interpretation and substitute one's own pet theory, as numerous other modern scholars have done with this much remarked phrase. However, given the extreme rarity of the phrase, and the fact that it occurs only in verse (where it's normal for there to be more flexibility, liberality and ambiguity in the use of language), it would be rash to claim that it offers strong evidence that early Buddhism held nibbāna to be some kind of consciousness. One would need to consider first whether such a view would accord with the Buddha's general teaching on consciousness as attested in many hundreds of prose Suttas.

for more about this see here:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31737

[Lal]

check if your posts are in agreement with the orthodox teaching:
From an old post by ven. Dhammanando:

OK. Let us see what he concluded:

"In the Mahāvihāra's understanding viññāṇaṃ does not mean consciousness in this context."
Really? If vinnana is not (defiled) consciousness, what is represented by vinnannakkhandha in the pancakkhandha (rupa, vedana, sanna,sankhara, vinnana)?

Later on he translates, "viññāṇassa nirodhena, etthetaṃ uparujjhatī ti" as "Through the cessation of consciousness, these [name and matter] cease here."
That is not really bad, but it should really be, "Through the cessation of defiled consciousness, these [name and matter] cease here."

Now, how can he (or you) not see the inconsistency in his own two above statements?

And, more importantly, that the second statement is consistent with what I explained in a previous post: "that one attains Nibbana (Arahanthood) when the defiled vinnana becomes purified?
I gave a detailed explanation on Aug. 5 in this thread. Please read that and the following posts, if you really want to understand vinnana. Of course, I would be happy to discuss any of that.

By the way, this habit of just quoting others blindly is why these discussions do not get anywhere here or at the Sutta Central. When one understands a given concept, one should be able to explain it with one's own words, with references from the Tipitaka. Otherwise, people just keep quoting others -- as if that is the ultimate truth -- only to find that person does not have the answer either.

[robertk]

check if your posts are in agreement with the orthodox teaching:
From an old post by ven. Dhammanando:

OK. Let us see what he concluded:

DHAMMANANDO:"In the Mahāvihāra's understanding viññāṇaṃ does not mean consciousness in this context."

Really? If vinnana is not (defiled) consciousness, what is represented by vinnannakkhandha in the pancakkhandha (rupa, vedana, sanna,sankhara, vinnana)?

.

The operative phrase is " in this context:.

As pointed out by Dhammanando and others, this use is rare and is clearly explained by the ancients.

[Lal]

The operative phrase is " in this context:.

As pointed out by Dhammanando and others, this use is rare and is clearly explained by the ancients.

OK. So, there is no resolution? He does not have an answer to what vinnana is ?

[Lal]

Since many people seem to be reading this thread, I thought about making a summary that would make it easier to find discussions on different topics.

My first post on June 23, 2016 on p. #1. On the same day, I discussed the difference between bhava and jati.

On p. #3, a discussion started on gandhabba on March 27, 2017.

A lengthy discussion on atta/anatta started on April 2, 2017, which goes on up to p. #9.
On April 16, 2017, I referred to a post at puredhamma.net which provides a lengthy response to criticisms by bhikkhu Dhammanando and bhikkhu Pesala. That has been moved to here: "https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... -scholars/".

A discussion on Anapanasati started on May 29, 2017 by SarathW (page 8).

On page 9, on May 19, 2018, I wrote on bhava, jati, and paticca samuppada (Dependent Origination).

On Dec 23, 2018, hsandeepani posted a couple of videos in Sinhala language criticizing Waharaka Thero's interpretations by some Sri Lankan bhikkhus. I provided a point-by-point response on June 26, 2018 and June 28, 2018 (page 10).

On June 28, 2018, [name redacted by admin] started a discussion on anidassana vinnana on p. 11, which goes on for few pages, also discussing what vinnana is.

A discussion on Dependent Origination started on top of page 14.

On page 16, discussions on vinnana and "anidassana vinnana".

A separate discussion on anidassana vinnana at: "viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5618".
I provided my input starting on July 27, 2018 on page 2, and the discussion continued until last week.

Up to date, no one has provided any evidence to refute the explanations that I have given. I would be happy to answer any further questions. But please provide the Tipitaka reference and explain in your own words, without quoting others. As I have said many times, these discussions go on for years without shedding any light, because the same material is repeated blindly. If one understands a concept one should be able to explain it in simple terms and with references to Tipitaka. Furthermore, I can show that ALL suttas in the Tipitaka are inter-consistent, if one uses correct fundamentals. Again, one can go through all the material above (or any at puredhamma.net) and point out any inconsistencies. I would be happy to answer.

Inter-consistency is how modern science uses as gauging the validity of any concept. Buddha was the greatest scientist and his Buddha Dhamma per Tipitaka is self-consistent. Problems arise when one uses incorrect sources like commentaries by Buddhaghosa.

[SarathW]

Thank you Lal
My biggest concern about your understanding about is the teaching of Anicca.
The way I understand Anicca now is the impermanence of subject-object and consciousness. (three ways)
When Buddha talk about Anicca he was not talking about the objects but the consciousness.
ie. Eye, ear etc.
Do you still object to this?