Page 7 of 74

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:28 pm
by 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"?

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:44 pm
by 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)

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:04 am
by Alex9
Lal wrote:We are going around in loops without addressing the root issue.
Yes, as you say transliteration appears to be the root issue.
rajitha7 wrote:
Dhammanando wrote: 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,
Wikipedia wrote: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?
Lal wrote: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.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:30 am
by rajitha7
Alex9 wrote: 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.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:23 am
by SarathW
SarathW wrote:
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.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:34 am
by SarathW
Please see Atthana Wagga Sutta.
It is very clear Attan means self.
https://suttacentral.net/an1

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:50 am
by Lal
Alex9 said,
Wikipedia wrote: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.
You are right. The word is written sometimes as අනත්ත and other times as අනත්ථ. There is a slight difference meaning between the two, but essentially the same. අනත්ත describes a more like “helpless” meaning (අල්ල ගන්න අත්තක් නැහැ) whereas අනත්ථ indicates more like “without essence” (අර්ථයක් නැති වැඩ). Both meanings should be taken. And different people get the idea (sanna) better with one or the other meaning. Of course, those words describe a person stuck in the rebirth process due to avijja. When one follows the Path that leads to atta (අත්ත or අත්ථ) or even better naatha (නාථ or නාත). See:
https://puredhamma.net/dhammapada/atta-hi-attano-natho/

SarathW said,
Hi Lal
What is the essence of Anatta Lakhana Sutta?
Anatta is discussed with several suttas in this post, and Anatta Lakhana Sutta is one:
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... ey-suttas/

If I missed anyone else's comment that I need to respond, please let me know.
With metta, Lal

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:25 pm
by SarathW
Thank you, Lal, it is a detailed explanation.
Did Buddha teach not-self or non-self at all?
If yes which Sutta you find it.
Is it important to realise non-self for attaining sotapanna?
Is it important to understand non-self for attaining Nibbana?
What is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:16 pm
by Lal
Bhikkhu Dhammanando and Bhikkhu Pesala have published several comments pointing out problems with the interpretations of Buddha Dhamma given by me at my puredhamma.net website.

I have gone over the specific objections and have written a response:
https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... -scholars/

Hopefully, I have provided enough material to at least think about. I would welcome feedback from all, including the two bhikkhus. Let us have an open discussion. It is all about getting Buddha’s message right.

With metta, Lal

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:23 pm
by rajitha7
SarathW wrote:Please see Atthana Wagga Sutta.
It is very clear Attan means self.
https://suttacentral.net/an1
Can you extract the passage and make a case?

I think it will help you to understand the issue well.

So take out the Pali and other translations, substitute the proposed definition and demonstrate why it does not make any sense please?

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:14 pm
by SarathW
SarathW wrote:Thank you, Lal, it is a detailed explanation.
Did Buddha teach not-self or non-self at all?
If yes which Sutta you find it.
Is it important to realise non-self for attaining sotapanna?
Is it important to understand non-self for attaining Nibbana?
What is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Hi Lal
I am still waiting for an answer for this. Thanks.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:16 pm
by SarathW
SarathW wrote:
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)
Hi Lal
I am waiting for answer for this as well.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:26 pm
by Lal
Hi SarathW,

I did reply to these questions in the other thread. But here are the two answers:

1. Anatta is discussed with several suttas in the following post, and Anatta Lakhana Sutta is one:
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... ey-suttas/

2. SarathW said,
Did Buddha teach not-self or non-self at all?
He said it is neither. In very simple terms, people do exist in the world, so one cannot say there is “no self”. But no person remains the same, so one cannot say there is “self”.
In the Brahmajala sutta, the Buddha explained that both views of “self” and ‘no self” are wrong and they are included in the 62 types of mica ditthi.
Then you have answers to all other questions.

With metta, Lal

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:08 am
by SarathW
Lal wrote:Hi SarathW,

I did reply to these questions in the other thread. But here are the two answers:

1. Anatta is discussed with several suttas in the following post, and Anatta Lakhana Sutta is one:
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... ey-suttas/

2. SarathW said,
Did Buddha teach not-self or non-self at all?
He said it is neither. In very simple terms, people do exist in the world, so one cannot say there is “no self”. But no person remains the same, so one cannot say there is “self”.
In the Brahmajala sutta, the Buddha explained that both views of “self” and ‘no self” are wrong and they are included in the 62 types of mica ditthi.
Then you have answers to all other questions.

With metta, Lal
Thank you, Lal, in your opinion what is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Do you think Anatta is a pre-Buddha's teaching?

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:10 am
by SarathW
In the following video Ven. Abhaya says that Sotapanna can break the five precepts.
This is not in line with the detailed discussion we had in this forum.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 256&hilit=

https://youtu.be/SuyRd1PZhtI?list=PLCwA ... mw&t=10679