The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

A forum for Dhamma resources in languages other than English
Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:30 pm

auto wrote:
is alcoholic who understand he is alcoholic, doing bad things under the influence of alcohol, after getting sober he knows he did wrong feeling shame etc, does he qualify for being streamentry?
Of course not.
He would only get rid of his problem with alcohol.
Of course, now one would be able to understand Dhamma that is needed to become a Sotapanna.

To become a Sotapanna, one must comprehend what is meant by "dukkha". That suffering (not only in this life, but in future lives) arises due to one's own cravings. which are manifested via one's own mano, vaci, and kaya sankhara (thoughts, speech, and actions), which in turn leads to defiled vinnana. That basic picture must be understood to begin with.

This cannot be explained in a single post. Anyone interested in finding out the details should read the posts that I have posted here over the past several months.

2600htz
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by 2600htz » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:55 pm

Hello Lal:

What do you mean by "defiled consciousness" (sorry if you explained your point, but couldn´t find it).
If consciousness cognizes, it cognizes sweet, bitter, forms, etc. A defiled consciousness would be cognizing the sweet as unpleasant, the bitter as troublesome?.

Regards.

Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:33 pm

Hi, 2600htz. You wrote:
What do you mean by "defiled consciousness" (sorry if you explained your point, but couldn´t find it).
It is explained in the following posts. It is a good idea to read in that sequences:

Vinnana – Consciousness Together With Future Expectations Dec 21, 2018 (p. 55).
Paticca Samuppāda and Viññāna Dec 23, 2018 (p. 57).
Pali to English Translations – Problems With Current Translations   Dec 26, 2018 (p. 57).
Connection Between Sankhāra and Viññāna Dec 29, 2018 (p. 57).
Vinnana and Sankhara – Connection to Paticca Samuppada Jan 01, 2019 (P. 57).
Four Noble Truths – Suffering and Its Elimination Jan 05, 2019, p. 58.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:27 pm

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:05 pm
Buddha Dhamma needs to be explained by the Buddha himself or a disciple who has grasped the essence of his teachings: What is the "dukkha" that he taught? What is in the First Noble Truth? Without that understanding, one can be going around in circles.
- If one learns a wrong version, of course one will have no chance of grasping the key ideas.
Well, the Buddha himself is apparently offering no further private audiences, so we can only have recourse to disciples who have grasped his teachings. The unresolved problem here, though, is that you are claiming that you have "grasped the essence of his teachings", and that other people who disagree with you have not; whereas those same people claim that they have grasped the essence of his teachings, and that you are the one in error. Just asserting that one has understood does little, on the internet at least, to convince others.
Just because it is taught by a scholar or a bhikkhu does not mean it is the true Dhamma. Academic degrees don't matter here. What matters is whether one can describe a given concept in one's own words, so that another can truly understand
That sounds like a step forward, in that it is a suggested criterion for "true Dhamma". But if you merely mean that one can explain one's understanding such that another can come to a similar understanding, then it applies to many different understandings. (For example, one could explain that they understand viññāṇa to mean "consciousness" rather than "defiled consciousness"; and according to the criterion, that would have to be accepted as "true Dhamma"). If, however, your claim depends upon another truly understanding, then you need to explain what that "truly" means. If you just asserted that it means what you mean, then your argument would be another example of petitio principii , and we move no further forward.
For example, the word sankhara is normally translated as "formations", which does not convey any idea about what it really means. If one knows what is meant by "san" and "khara", the meaning is embedded in the word itself
Many people would explain that the term conveys exactly what it means. They would point to "sam" meaning something like "together", and "khara" meaning something like "making", and be perfectly able to explain the meaning, as they understand it. Introductory articles about Buddhism are full of this sort of thing. The issue here is you claiming that they are wrong, and that you are right. When confronted with a Pali scholar's assertion that "sam" means something like "com" in Latin, you need to have a good reason for asserting otherwise. If you don't, you will, I think, be endlessly challenged here by people who by inclination or training are dismissive of mere appeal to authority.

Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:50 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
The unresolved problem here, though, is that you are claiming that you have "grasped the essence of his teachings", and that other people who disagree with you have not; whereas those same people claim that they have grasped the essence of his teachings, and that you are the one in error. Just asserting that one has understood does little, on the internet at least, to convince others.
Each person needs to decide which version makes more sense.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:02 pm

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:50 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
The unresolved problem here, though, is that you are claiming that you have "grasped the essence of his teachings", and that other people who disagree with you have not; whereas those same people claim that they have grasped the essence of his teachings, and that you are the one in error. Just asserting that one has understood does little, on the internet at least, to convince others.
Each person needs to decide which version makes more sense.
That seems to be very much at odds with some of your earlier statements on this thread, but is nevertheless very welcome. :anjali:

Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:30 pm

That seems to be very much at odds with some of your earlier statements on this thread, but is nevertheless very welcome. :anjali:
Where is the inconsistency?
I have pointed out many problems with current interpretations by many, in particular in widely-available English translations.
An obvious problem is with equating "dukkha nirodha" (attaining the Arahanthood) to "loss of consciousness" in plain English.

It is always up to each person to look at the facts and decide for oneself.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:06 pm

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:30 pm
That seems to be very much at odds with some of your earlier statements on this thread, but is nevertheless very welcome. :anjali:
Where is the inconsistency?
I have pointed out many problems with current interpretations by many, in particular in widely-available English translations.
An obvious problem is with equating "dukkha nirodha" (attaining the Arahanthood) to "loss of consciousness" in plain English.

It is always up to each person to look at the facts and decide for oneself.
The inconsistency is in your frequent claim that your version of "the truth" is superior to others. For example,
Those of us who have understood that vinnana is more than just consciousness know a lot more about Buddha’s “big picture”. That is not just a claim.
That appears to mean that whereas other people trade in claims and opinions, you have the truth. As does your claim that Ven. Dhammanando does not know the correct meanings of essential terms that he uses very frequently.

Again, if you are claiming that "truth" is a correspondence to "facts", then you can expect to be challenged on any claim that you know the facts better than others.

Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:30 pm

The inconsistency is in your frequent claim that your version of "the truth" is superior to others.
I have ALWAYS said that. I have ALSO said that each person can and should make his/her own conclusions.
- Buddha Dhamma in its pure form IS superior. No one can find inconsistencies in Buddha Dhamma in its pure form.
- I am not claiming my explanations to be the "ultimate truth", but it is closer than others. The subtitle of puredhamma.net is "A Quest to Recover Buddha's True Teachings".
- The explanations that I provide are self-consistent and also consistent with the Tipitaka. If there are some minor inconsistencies to be found in my posts or at the website, I fix them ASAP.
- i have also provided MANY inconsistencies in other interpretations.
- It is not about me. It is about the explanations: being able to be self-consistent and also consistent with the Tipitaka.
- If anyone can point out any inconsistencies in what I have posted, I will fix them. But one needs to provide evidence from the Tipitaka.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:47 pm

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:30 pm
The inconsistency is in your frequent claim that your version of "the truth" is superior to others.
I have ALWAYS said that. I have ALSO said that each person can and should make his/her own conclusions.
They do, hence the frequent challenges you get here.
- Buddha Dhamma in its pure form IS superior. No one can find inconsistencies in Buddha Dhamma in its pure form.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. They are usually disputing that your understanding of Buddha-Dhamma is superior, or objecting to your assumption that it is.
- I am not claiming my explanations to be the "ultimate truth", but it is closer than others.
Indeed. See above.
The explanations that I provide are self-consistent and also consistent with the Tipitaka. If there are some minor inconsistencies to be found in my posts or at the website, I fix them ASAP.
- i have also provided MANY inconsistencies in other interpretations.
- It is not about me. It is about the explanations: being able to be self-consistent and also consistent with the Tipitaka.
- If anyone can point out any inconsistencies in what I have posted, I will fix them. But one needs to provide evidence from the Tipitaka.
Any foolishness can be self-consistent; in itself it is not a virtue. Fiction is often self-consistent. Consistency with the tipitaka means (as per the issue with "sam", vinnana, etc., and the whole "baloney" episode) consistency with definitions which you have provided. Again, that's circular reasoning. For example, your interpretation requires vinnana to mean "defiled consciousness"; and it must mean "defiled consciousness" because your interpretation doesn't make sense without it.

Lal
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:16 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
For example, your interpretation requires vinnana to mean "defiled consciousness"; and it must mean "defiled consciousness" because your interpretation doesn't make sense without it.
What is your interpretation of vinnana?
-If it is just consciousness, I have shown evidence that it is absolutely wrong. Can you prove otherwise?
- If it is not just consciousness or "defiled consciousness", then what is it?

You need to provide evidence rather than just making statements.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:32 pm

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:16 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
For example, your interpretation requires vinnana to mean "defiled consciousness"; and it must mean "defiled consciousness" because your interpretation doesn't make sense without it.
What is your interpretation of vinnana?
-If it is just consciousness, I have shown evidence that it is absolutely wrong. Can you prove otherwise?
- If it is not just consciousness or "defiled consciousness", then what is it?

You need to provide evidence rather than just making statements.
I have already done so, on pages 56 and 57 of this thread. If one looks at how the term is used, it appears to have a range of different meanings according to context and the understanding of the compilers of the various suttas.

After all, attempting to provide a word-for-word translation of suttas and other sources is not so fruitful - as you yourself say. On some occasions it appears to mean "defiled consciousness", and the Sue Hamilton quotes and the general idea of "appetitive consciousness" within Gombrich's work make that very clear. But at other times, it appears not to.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:27 am

Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:06 pm
The Dangers in Just Focusing on Suttas – Tipitaka Has Two More Pitakas!

Waharaka Thero

commentaries (Vibhangapakarana, nettipakarana, and petakopadesa)

Visuddhimagga.
Excellent answer above, Lal, accurately representing your view. The Dangers of the Buddha :shock: . Focus on non-Buddha teachings. This finalises our discussion about sankhara in DO. As I posted, sutta is plural & abdidhamma is singular. Therefore, the meanings are completely different.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:27 pm
For example, one could explain that they understand viññāṇa to mean "consciousness" rather than "defiled consciousness"; and according to the criterion, that would have to be accepted as "true Dhamma".
It appears there are places in the suttas that unambiguously refer to "defiled consciousness" (such as SN 22.81; SN 22.53, etc). This probably should prompt us to review the meaning we attribute to the word 'samudaya'.
When an uneducated ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.
Avijjāsamphassajena, bhikkhave, vedayitena phuṭṭhassa assutavato puthujjanassa uppannā taṇhā;

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato
One attached is unreleased; one unattached is released. Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), landing on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:candle:
Lal wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:25 am
akusala-mula Paticca Samuppāda
The above does not appear to be the right way to discuss Lokuttara Dhamma of Paticcasamuppāda. The Pali suttas appear to say consciousness is defiled by ignorance (rather than by "akusala" & "kusala"; "merit" & "demerit"). MN 117 unambiguously says the idea of "merit" is not Lokuttara.
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
In summary, you appear to be teaching from Abhidhamma; as you admitted. Therefore, it cannot be Pure Dhamma. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

kstan1122
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by kstan1122 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:09 am

Deleted. See Below.
Last edited by kstan1122 on Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

kstan1122
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by kstan1122 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:13 am

kstan1122 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:09 am
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:27 am
In summary, you appear to be teaching from Abhidhamma; as you admitted. Therefore, it cannot be Pure Dhamma. :smile:
If you do not understand what is tipitaka, check this definition: What does Tripitaka mean?

For some who do not think that the Abhidhamma is buddhavacana, please take sometime to rethink why those monks (arahant) take the trouble to write down the Sutta, Vinaya and Abhidhamma of the Tipitaka.

Much metta.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests