The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

A forum for Dhamma resources in languages other than English
SarathW
Posts: 10500
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by SarathW » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:10 pm

Do we agree that Visuddhimagga is not a reliable source and should not be quoted?
I created a new topic for this. It is important we discuss this as a separate issue.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32672
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Lal
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:36 pm

SarathW said:
Do we agree that Visuddhimagga is not a reliable source and should not be quoted?

I created a new topic for this. It is important we discuss this as a separate issue.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32672
There is no need to have another discussion. This is what you guys have been doing all these years. There are two basic questions to answer as I pointed out above:

1. Focusing the mind on a one’s breath or on a kasina object can SUPPRESS greedy/hateful/ignorant thoughts and thus provide some cooling down. But that will not lead to a permanent solution in GETTING RID OF the hidden anusaya (that I have explained in recent posts). Can you explain how breath or kasina meditation per Vidusddhimagga can remove anusaya?

2. On pp. 15-16 in his “Nibbana – The Mind Stilled” series, Ven. Nanananda points out that Visuddhimagga and another commentary of Buddhaghosa are inconsistent with the definition of Nibbana: “ragakkhayo Nibbanan, dosakkhayo Nibbanan, mohakkhayo Nibbanan”. How do you respond to that?

SarathW
Posts: 10500
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by SarathW » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:30 am

There is no need to have another discussion.
@Lal
It help us to keep the discussion in more focus way. It also help for future reference.
Your time will be better spent if you can reply to my post.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Lal
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:48 am

I know it is what you guys are used to, discussing again and again without getting anywhere. There is no better "focus way" than to focus on the two questions that I raised above. If you come up with answers to those two questions, please let me know.

Then I will respond.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:53 am

Lal wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:48 am
I know it is what you guys are used to, discussing again and again without getting anywhere. There is no better "focus way" than to focus on the two questions that I raised above. If you come up with answers to those two questions, please let me know.

Then I will respond.
I'd rather you answer as to why 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?
Lal wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:36 pm
2. On pp. 15-16 in his “Nibbana – The Mind Stilled” series, Ven. Nanananda points out that Visuddhimagga and another commentary of Buddhaghosa are inconsistent with the definition of Nibbana: “ragakkhayo Nibbanan, dosakkhayo Nibbanan, mohakkhayo Nibbanan”. How do you respond to that?
In relation to the topic of the very serious alleged mistranslation of anatta, Venerable Ñāṇananda has this to say only 12 pages beyond where our friend may have stopped reading:
Some are in the habit of getting down to a discussion on Nibbāna by putting sakhata on one side and asakhata on the other side. They start by saying that sakhata, or the ‘prepared’, is anicca, or impermanent. If sakhata is anicca, they conclude that asakhata must be nicca, that is the unprepared must be permanent. Following the same line of argument they argue that since sakhata is dukkha, asakhata must be sukha. But when they come to the third step, they get into difficulties. If sakhata is anattā, or not-self, then surely asakhata must be attā, or self. At this point they have to admit that their argument is too facile and so they end up by saying that after all Nibbāna is something to be realized.
(Most Venerable Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda Mahāthera, Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled, 28)

Less than 20 pages further it is even less ambiguous:
But on deeper analysis it reveals its not-self nature. What we have here is simply the conflict between the main stream and a runaway current. It is the outcome of the conflict between two forces and not the work of just one force. It is a case of relatedness of thisto-that, idappaccayatā. As one verse in the Bālavagga of the Dhammapada puts it: Attā hi attano natthi, "even oneself is not one’s own." So even a whirlpool is not its own, there is nothing really automatic about it. This then is the dukkha, the suffering, the conflict, the unsatisfactoriness. What the world holds on to as existence is just a process of otherwise-ness, as the Buddha vividly portrays for us in the following verses of the Nandavagga of the Udāna.
(Ibid. 40)

Anyone is free to read these wonderful sermons here: http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... lled_I.pdf
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

Lal
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:52 am

@Coemgenu:
If I agreed with everything that Ven. Nanananda said in that book we will not be having this discussion. He at least saw through the problems with Visuddhimagga.

Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.

I say that means everything in this world is of no essence, not fruitful; if one does IMMORAL THINGS (dasa akusala) not knowing that truth, one can become truly helpless and be subjected to much suffering in the rebirth process. If one clings to ANYTHING in this world, one will be stuck in the rebirth process.
- Even Buddha Dhamma must be abandoned at the end (to reach the Arahant stage), like one abandons a raft once one crosses over. If one clings to even Buddha Dhamma, one would be stuck at the Anagami stage.

But one gives up these cravings in stages. Highly immoral things done to satisfy cravings are abandoned first. That is how one stops rebirth in the apayas (including the animal realm) and becomes a Sotapanna. Then one becomes an Anagami by losing cravings for sense pleasures. At the end one loses cravings for rupa jhana, arupa jhana, etc. and even Buddha Dhamma, and attains the Arahanthood.

Key words like anicca and anatta CANNOT be simply translated as “impermanence” and “no-self”. Buddha was trying to convey something deep about this world (anicca, dukkha, anatta, asubha nature) and it is a Dhamma that had never been known to world: "pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu..".

So, what do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.

If you say, “all dhammā are no-self”, does that imply “Buddha Dhamma has no "self”"? What would that even mean?
Please don’t quote others. Explain in simple terms as I did.

SarathW
Posts: 10500
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by SarathW » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:35 am

The incorrect teaching of Walasmulle Abhya (a disciple of Ven Ahyaratanalankara) and some other monks have become the hot topic of Vibajjawada group.

“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:00 pm

Lal wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:52 am
@Coemgenu:

[...]

So, what do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.

If you say, “all dhammā are no-self”, does that imply “Buddha Dhamma has no "self”"? What would that even mean?
Please don’t quote others. Explain in simple terms as I did.
Before I explain anything for you, I would like you to account for a large gap, an absence of proof in the historical record. You say that Buddhists began to mistranslate "anatta" as "not-self" and things of the like.

You cannot decide if this first happened amongst Mahāyāna Buddhists, or if this first happened amongst Theravāda Buddhists led astray by Ashokan reforms, or if this was introduced by Westerners in the 1800s. But that is not the most serious discrepancy.

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?

Why is this never discussed at all? This should be, simply put, a huge deal. No one ever mentions it.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Nicolas » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:05 pm

Lal,
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: But if it’s panāniccaṃ, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’?
[...]
So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā.’
"Etaṃ mama", "esohamasmi", "eso me attā" are used successively as synonyms or near-synonyms. Same goes for "netaṃ mama", "nesohamasmi", and "na meso attā". Some things in lists are synonyms or near-synonyms, repeating things in a different manner or through a different lens to emphasize the point. I can pull other examples from the suttas with some research if need be.

"Etaṃ mama" & "netaṃ mama" are translated as: "this is mine" & "this is not mine" (Sujato, Bodhi, Ṭhānissaro)
"Esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" are translated as: "I am this" & "I am not this" (Sujato), "this I am" & "this I am not" (Bodhi), "this is what I am" & "this is not what I am" (Ṭhānissaro)
(I would imagine you have no issue with the above translations.)

"This is mine", "I am this", and "eso me attā" ("this is my attā") are thus all near-synonymous.
"This is not mine", "I am not this", and "na meso attā" ("this is not my attā") are also near-synonymous.
"Attā" thus means "self" (or another synonymous word).
This is in line with the modern translations of "eso me attā" & "na meso attā": "this is my self" & "this is not my self" (Sujato, Bodhi & Ṭhānissaro).

... and since "anattā" is in direct opposition to "attā", it means "no self" or "not-self" (or equivalent synonym).

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:18 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:05 pm
Lal,
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: But if it’s panāniccaṃ, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’?
[...]
So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā.’
"Etaṃ mama", "esohamasmi", "eso me attā" are used successively as synonyms or near-synonyms. Same goes for "netaṃ mama", "nesohamasmi", and "na meso attā". Some things in lists are synonyms or near-synonyms, repeating things in a different manner or through a different lens to emphasize the point. I can pull other examples from the suttas with some research if need be.

"Etaṃ mama" & "netaṃ mama" are translated as: "this is mine" & "this is not mine" (Sujato, Bodhi, Ṭhānissaro)
"Esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" are translated as: "I am this" & "I am not this" (Sujato), "this I am" & "this I am not" (Bodhi), "this is what I am" & "this is not what I am" (Ṭhānissaro)
(I would imagine you have no issue with the above translations.)

"This is mine", "I am this", and "eso me attā" ("this is my attā") are thus all near-synonymous.
"This is not mine", "I am not this", and "na meso attā" ("this is not my attā") are also near-synonymous.
"Attā" thus means "self" (or another synonymous word).
This is in line with the modern translations of "eso me attā" & "na meso attā": "this is my self" & "this is not my self" (Sujato, Bodhi & Ṭhānissaro).

... and since "anattā" is in direct opposition to "attā", it means "no self" or "not-self" (or equivalent synonym).
Their sect thinks that Venerable Bodhi, Thānissaro, et al, are heretics, so they won't accept those translations.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Nicolas » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:18 pm
Their sect thinks that Venerable Bodhi, Thānissaro, et al, are heretics, so they won't accept those translations.
I was hoping that Lal would accept their translations of "etaṃ mama", "netaṃ mama", "esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" as non-controversial. I don't use their translations of "attā" and "anattā" as basis for my argument, but only deduce the meaning of those words from the non-controversial translations I mentioned along with the hypothesis that the list of successive items indicates all the items in the list are close in meaning.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:33 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:18 pm
Their sect thinks that Venerable Bodhi, Thānissaro, et al, are heretics, so they won't accept those translations.
I was hoping that Lal would accept their translations of "etaṃ mama", "netaṃ mama", "esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" as non-controversial. I don't use their translations of "attā" and "anattā" as basis for my argument, but only deduce the meaning of those words from the non-controversial translations I mentioned along with the hypothesis that the list of successive items indicates all the items in the list are close in meaning.
The sentence "attā hi attano natthi" popped up and they didn't even notice. Because that sentence is particularly problematic for their innovative reading.

When a Pāli grammarian in-the-know has called out their interpretations in the past, their usual response thus far has been a wide-ranging wall-of-text approach featuring substantial amounts of untranslated Pāli. Almost as if they know that few people will be able to understand where they introduce their innovations if they keep their text unreadable to most people.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

Lal
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm

Nicolas said:
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote:
Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
But you have not read the rest of the sutta (https://legacy.suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59):

Vedanā anattā...
Saññā anattā ..
Viññāṇaṃ anattā.

Where is a "self" in feelings, perceptions, and defiled consciousness?

Also, none of you have answered my simple question: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:20 pm

Lal wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm
Nicolas said:
Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote:
Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
But you have not read the rest of the sutta (https://legacy.suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59):

Vedanā anattā...
Saññā anattā ..
Viññāṇaṃ anattā.

Where is a "self" in feelings, perceptions, and defiled consciousness?

Also, none of you have answered my simple question: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
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?

Why is this never discussed at all? This should be, simply put, a huge deal. No one ever mentions it.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Nicolas » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:39 pm

Lal wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm
[...]
Where is a "self" in feelings, perceptions, and defiled consciousness?
There is no self to be found in form, feelings, perceptions, saṅkhāras, or consciousness, they are without self, empty of self. None of them are myself, nor is my self in them, etc.
See the following sutta:
Nakulapitu Sutta (SN 22.1) wrote: And how is a person ailing in body and ailing in mind? It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. (rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.) They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am form, form is mine!’ (‘Ahaṃ rūpaṃ, mama rūpan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti.) But that form of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Same goes with the other aggregates.

Lal wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm
Also, none of you have answered my simple question: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
No dhammas are you, no dhammas belong to you, you are not in any dhamma, etc.
"dhamma" here has the meaning of "phenomenon" (or similar meaning).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests