The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[Trekmentor]

Concept of "san"? Is that Buddhism?

Of course. ...

... If anyone can point to any inconsistencies with the Tipitaka we can discuss.

An inconsistency does seem to exist. A concept called "san" doesn’t appear to have been taught by Lord Buddha. Just because the word "Buddha" can be seen in Tipitaka, we don’t want to build a concepts called "Bud" and claim that such a concept exists in Buddhism. I haven’t seen even a slightest trace of a concept called "san" in Tipitaka.

Have you seen such a concept named, elaborated in Tipitaka?

[kstan1122]

On the subject of "san" in the dispensation of the website PureDhamma, Ven Dhammanando has already dealt with this serious misconception:

The knowledge of the word "san" helps in understanding many words that has "san" cojoint with it. It is for the wise to use it with wisdom.

Concept of "san"? Is that Buddhism?

Of course. ...

... If anyone can point to any inconsistencies with the Tipitaka we can discuss.

An inconsistency does seem to exist. A concept called "san" doesn’t appear to have been taught by Lord Buddha. Just because the word "Buddha" can be seen in Tipitaka, we don’t want to build a concepts called "Bud" and claim that such a concept exists in Buddhism. I haven’t seen even a slightest trace of a concept called "san" in Tipitaka.

Have you seen such a concept named, elaborated in Tipitaka?

It may appears to you that it is not the Buddha's concept as this "oral" tradition had stopped since the first century current era and no where to be found in the tipitaka.

For those who think otherwise, please refrain from commenting as this will leads to akusala in speech if this "san" is a true concept.

Much metta.

[Trekmentor]

The knowledge of the word "san" helps in understanding many words that has "san" cojoint with it. It is for the wise to use it with wisdom.

Who said so? Lord Buddha? Evidence please.

It may appears to you that it is not the Buddha's concept as this "oral" tradition had stopped since the first century current era and no where to be found in the tipitaka.

How did you figure out that such an "oral" tradition existed and stopped in that time frame?

For those who think otherwise, please refrain from commenting as this will leads to akusala in speech if this "san" is a true concept.

If the "san" concept is a lie, then thinking otherwise leads to akusala. If it is actually a lie, showing that it is a lie leads to kusala. So those who can actually show that it is a lie earn kusala by commenting.

[Lal]

As kstan1122 said, it is better not to comment (or even to read my posts) if someone is truly offended by my explanations. That would at least minimize the damage that one is doing to oneself. There are so many views out there, as in other forums even here. Why bother with this particular explanation (especially if it is so obviously wrong)?

Buddha Dhamma is deep and not everyone can understand it. As I pointed out before, the Buddha wondered how he would be able to explain this deep Dhamma to humans. But of course, there are enough people who can understand, once pointed out.

I am not done with my explanation of “san”. I will come back to it. But I think I have given enough things to think about. Further explanations need more background material and that is what I am focusing on now.

That does not mean one should not ask questions to clear one’s doubts. That is called “vimansā”, or “examination”. However, the difference between vimansā and attempts to put down an explanation just to win an argument can be clearly seen. I any case, I want to address some of the issues to point out some key misconceptions in translating Pali words to English.

Translation of Tipitaka Pāli Words to English

In response to Ven Dhammanando’s rebuttal quoted by Coemgenu, he quoted:
“Khandhānañ’ ca paṭipāṭi, dhātu-āyatanāna ca,
Abbocchinnaṃ vattamānā, saṃsāro’ ti pavuccatī ti.

The process of the aggregates, elements and bases,
Proceeding without interruption is called ‘saṃsāra’.”

There is nothing here that contradicts my explanation. The aggregates, dhatus, and the set of ayatanas will proceed uninterrupted (i.e., the rebirth process will continue) as long as one perceives “san” (attaching to worldly things) is “sāra” or “beneficial”. This was explained in the November 9 post.

By the way, how would you explain the difference between "phassa" and "samphassa"? (explained in the post on November 8).

The analysis of saṅkhyā does not refute my explanation either. It just says there could be other explanations. But my explanation fits too.

He says: “The disparateness of the two can be seen even more starkly in Sanskrit, where their respective cognates are saṅkhāyati and kṣinoti.”.

As I have explained before, Sanskrit should not be used to analyze Pali words.

He says: “There are two traditional etymologies for sandiṭṭhiko, one of which gives rise to the translation “to be seen by oneself” and the other to translations like “self-evident”. But regardless of which of these one prefers, the term is one of the special qualities of the Dhamma, not of any person. And so to speak of somebody “becoming” sandiṭṭhiko at the sotāpanna stage is nonsensical.”

What are the two traditional etymologies for sandiṭṭhiko? Not explained, neither for samma (and therefore, in sammaditthi, etc) too.

He says: “The nicca in anicca has nothing to do with the adjective iccha (wishing) or the noun icchā (a wish) or the verb icchati (to wish).
The colloquial Sinhala pronunciation of it is actually a mispronunciation when judged by the phonetic descriptions in the ancient Pali grammars. When Sri Lankans pronounce Pali words their commonest mistake is to make aspirated consonants into non-aspirates and non-aspirated consonants into aspirates. This can be seen in the unorthodox romanization system used at the Pure Dhamma site:
gathi instead of gati
hethu-pala instead of hetu-phala.
micca-ditthi instead of micchā-diṭṭhi
satipattana instead of satipaṭṭhāna
Etc., etc.”

As I have pointed out, Pali does not have its own alphabet. Tipitaka was written with Sinhala alphabet. When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, they had to come to an agreement on how to write certain words with the English alphabet. They decided to make, for example, “th” sound with just “t” just to keep the length of words shorter.

For example, the words “gathi” and “gati” are pronounced in Sinhala as, “ගති” and “ගටි”. In the Tipitaka, it is written in Sinhala as “ගති”. That is why I had written it as “gathi” in some of my posts. When I realized that it has been written as “gati” in many English translations, now I write it as “gati”, to be consistent with existing English literature.

It seems that the early European scholars made a decision to write the “th” sound just with “t”. In the same way, they decided to write the “ch” sound just with “c”. I can understand that, since otherwise the English words would become very long. For example, to make it sound the same, “cattāri” (චත්තාරි is the way it is written in the Tipitaka) needs to be written as “chaththāri”. So, I can understand the reasons for their convention, and I have tried to stick to that convention after I became aware of this usage.

So, one needs to have a good understanding of Sinhala (not in Sanskrit) to really make sure to have the correct “explanations”.
In the Tipitaka, both miccā-ditthi and micchā-diṭṭhi have been used. The latter is used to emphasize the importance, as in “very wrong views”. Same with anicca and aniccha.

Satipatthāna should really be that way. It is likely that I made a mistake in writing it as satipattāna in that particular instance.

By the way, has anyone bothered to think why the Tipitaka was never written in Sanskrit? It has been translated to Chinese, Burmese, etc, and NEVER to Sanskrit. That is because the Buddha prohibited it. Only the Mahayana texts (sutrās, not suttās), that were written hundreds of years later, are in Sanskrit. There are too many words (and roots) that appear to be related, but are really not. So, it is really a bad idea to try to find meanings of Pali words using Sanskrit roots.

[Coëmgenu]

When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, they had to come to an agreement on how to write certain words with the English alphabet. They decided to make, for example, “th” sound with just “t” just to keep the length of words shorter.

your linguistics isn't on point, but boy are you at least funny.

[Sam Vara]

When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, they had to come to an agreement on how to write certain words with the English alphabet. They decided to make, for example, “th” sound with just “t” just to keep the length of words shorter.

That looks like "fake news" to me. Can you point us to some document or scholarly article where this agreement is reached? And can you explain why they haven't realised their mistake and haven't subsequently rectified it?

[Trekmentor]

Why bother with this particular explanation (especially if it is so obviously wrong)?

To stop misunderstandings being spread as Buddhism that can twist and/or hide the correct meanings of Dhamma.

I am not done with my explanation of “san”. I will come back to it. But I think I have given enough things to think about.

No slightest evidence from Tipitaka has been provided so far to claim that such a concept called "san" had been taught by Lord Buddha.

So here we have an imagined concept called "san", claimed to be for the wise to use with wisdom, but with no evidence to prove that at least a single wise had used it or said a word about it.

That does not mean one should not ask questions to clear one’s doubts. That is called “vimansā”, or “examination”. However, the difference between vimansā and attempts to put down an explanation just to win an argument can be clearly seen.

Evidence is needed to prove the claims. One's blunt imagination put forward with no supporting evidence shouldn't be called Buddhism. When blunt imagination is put forward as Buddhism, such doesn't withstand the examination.

When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, they had to come to an agreement on how to write certain words with the English alphabet. They decided to make, for example, “th” sound with just “t” just to keep the length of words shorter.

Just to keep the length of words shorter? You are making yourself a source of laughter.

[WorldTraveller]

I will start on a different topic today, and will come back to the concept of "san" in future posts.

Concept of "san"? Is that Buddhism?

This is something I heard:
When the former President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakshe competed in the 2005 (?) election, he utilised the ideology of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism to the extreme. After he came to power the gov. radio had this particular set of stanzas broadcasted in every morning claiming those were found carved to a wooden beam in the temple of tooth relic in Kandy, Sri Lanka. These stanzas said to be very auspicious for the President Mahinda and the country. Broadcasting these stanzas became very popular and followed by other radio channels too.

The stanzas said to be compiled by ancient Arahants, yet not found anywhere in the Canon, commentaries, sub-c, sub-sub c...etc.

If I remember clearly, these stanzas had many "san" prefixes. That's why Waharaka Cult created a so-called "san" concept by using the popularity of those stanzas.

When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, they had to come to an agreement on how to write certain words with the English alphabet. They decided to make, for example, “th” sound with just “t” just to keep the length of words shorter.

Just to keep the length of words shorter? You are making yourself a source of laughter.

Please move this Whaharaka thread to "Joke Forum"

In Pali t, th, ṭ, ṭh represent four different letters. Only an ignorant person will say that the scholars removed "h" just to keep the length of words shorter!
t/th = thunder
ṭ/ṭh = tunnel
th & ṭh spoken with a slight heaviness by Sri Lankans and Indians as they represent different chars (hardly understood by foreigners when listening).

[Coëmgenu]

In Pali t, th, ṭ, ṭh represent four different letters. Only an ignorant person will say that the scholars removed "h" just to keep the length of words shorter!
t/th = thunder
ṭ/ṭh = tunnel
th & ṭh spoken with a slight heaviness by Sri Lankans and Indians as they represent different chars (hardly understood by foreigners when listening).

I think you have mistaken retroflexitivity for aspiration.

th = thunder
t = tunnel

English does not have retroflex consonants (i.e. 'ṭ', 'ṭṭ', 'ṭh', or 'ṭṭh'), so English speakers often have a lot of difficulty properly pronouncing them. Englishmen will often pronounce a word like mahāṭṭhakathā as something like "mahathakhatha".

[mikenz66]

As I have pointed out, Pali does not have its own alphabet. Tipitaka was written with Sinhala alphabet. When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, ...

Even if this analysis were correct, I struggle to see how a few English scholars, or the Sinhala language, would have had any impact on Theravada in Myanmar, Thailand, etc...


Mike

[Coëmgenu]

As I have pointed out, Pali does not have its own alphabet. Tipitaka was written with Sinhala alphabet. When the European scholars started translating the Tipitaka, ...

Even if this analysis were correct, I struggle to see how a few English scholars, or the Sinhala language, would have had any impact on Theravada in Myanmar, Thailand, etc...


Mike

Obviously it's a huge conspiratorial cover-up, Mike, haven't you been reading?

We're busting this wide open, don't you know?

[kstan1122]

If the "san" concept is a lie, then thinking otherwise leads to akusala. If it is actually a lie, showing that it is a lie leads to kusala. So those who can actually show that it is a lie earn kusala by commenting.

If the "san" concept is not true, you only earn a kusala by commenting, but if the "san" concept is true, your loses will be large; you will get a akusala for speech and lost the wisdom to use the "san" concept.

Below is the wisdom on "san" concept:

Take for example the word "sammā ditthi" which usually means "right view".
sammā = san + mā where mā means removal thus sammā means removal of san.
san means the good and bad things we acquired.

sammā ditthi means the view for the removal of san which is much more meaningful than the word "right view". The view for the removal of san has immediate wisdom and provide you with the right action to take while "right view" is rather passive.

Much metta.

[Coëmgenu]

If the "san" concept is a lie, then thinking otherwise leads to akusala. If it is actually a lie, showing that it is a lie leads to kusala. So those who can actually show that it is a lie earn kusala by commenting.

If the "san" concept is not true, you only earn a kusala by commenting, but if the "san" concept is true, your loses will be large; you will get a akusala for speech and lost the wisdom to use the "san" concept.

Threats of karmic retribution are contrarian to this forum's TOS.

[Sam Vara]

If the "san" concept is a lie, then thinking otherwise leads to akusala. If it is actually a lie, showing that it is a lie leads to kusala. So those who can actually show that it is a lie earn kusala by commenting.

If the "san" concept is not true, you only earn a kusala by commenting, but if the "san" concept is true, your loses will be large; you will get a akusala for speech and lost the wisdom to use the "san" concept.

Threats of karmic retribution are contrarian to this forum's TOS.

Indeed. Members are requested to steer clear of this line of thinking, as it does nothing to advance debate. Thanks.

[rightviewftw]

If the "san" concept is not true, you only earn a kusala by commenting, but if the "san" concept is true, your loses will be large; you will get a akusala for speech and lost the wisdom to use the "san" concept.

As with all points of controversy people would ideally only criticize it if they are certain that it is wrong. It goes both ways tho and one should also not promote or defend something as Dhamma unless one is certain beyond faith, otherwise one's loses will be large if one is wrong.