The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

[SarathW]

In the following Dhamma discussion Ven. W A argues that first precept include not only the killing but harming someone or blocking the ability to have a good life.
This means breaking someone's limbs also come under the first precept.
This may not be the generally accepted teaching.


http://www.waharaka.com/deshana/listen. ... d=CD064-15

[aflatun]

I have been asked by Ven. Sudithadeera (who is a disciple of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero) to join this discussion group. I have a website: https://puredhamma.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that is built on the material that I learned from the Waharaka Thero. I would be happy to provide my input to any specific questions as well.
With metta, Lal

I had happened upon this website before finding this thread and read through some of the materials. I found this article and the series connected to it insightful and helpful, and I was unaware of the connection, thank you!

http://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-concep ... ha-anatta/

[SarathW]

This wonderful monk passed away on 9/02/17 according to following web site.


https://puredhamma.net/about-me/

[DNS]

[SarathW]

Now there is another monk in the lineage.
His name is Ven. Valasmulle Abaya.
His teaching is very good.
However, this lineage has some non-Theravada ideas. (Gandhabba is waiting for re-birth after one's death etc)
He also said your mother and father is the people who donated sperm and the egg when it comes to heinous kamma.
These are minor issues for me considering his other teachings.

Another interesting point here is he said that he has met some people who practice Islam prayer attained some kind of Jhana. (Aloka)
He attributes this to Christians as well.
The following video is in Sinhala language.

https://youtu.be/FWGUHcE-XqM?t=2854

[Lal]

SarathW said:

However, this lineage has some non-Theravada ideas. (Gandhabba is waiting for re-birth after one's death etc)

Gandhabbaya is a key component in Buddha's teachings. There are sections in the Tipitaka on gandhabbaya. See, for example:
https://suttacentral.net/sn31

The key to the puzzle is that there is a difference between bhava and jathi. When one gets a human bhava (existence), one could be born (jathi) many times in succession until that kammic energy runs out. This is why people can recall past lives in recent past. Otherwise, since the human existence is very rare, how would one remember so recent past lives?
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... s-therein/

Also, there is no "gap" between two adjacent "bhava", i.e., no "antarabhava". There is only a single thought moment between cuti (death in the current bhava) and patisandhi (grasping the next bhava). Death of the physical body is not the end of the current bhava, unless the kammic energy for the current bhava has runs out:
https://puredhamma.net/abhidhamma/cuti- ... scription/

With metta, Lal

[mario92]

Now there is another monk in the lineage.
His name is Ven. Valasmulle Abaya.
His teaching is very good.
However, this lineage has some non-Theravada ideas. (Gandhabba is waiting for re-birth after one's death etc)
He also said your mother and father is the people who donated sperm and the egg when it comes to heinous kamma.
These are minor issues for me considering his other teachings.

Another interesting point here is he said that he has met some people who practice Islam prayer attained some kind of Jhana. (Aloka)
He attributes this to Christians as well.
The following video is in Sinhala language.

https://youtu.be/FWGUHcE-XqM?t=2854

I think this applies to petas that want to be born as humans

[SarathW]

Now he says "Nibbana is Atta"
This video in the Sinhalese language.

https://youtu.be/ma81JD_LNeM?t=6084

[Lal]

It just happens that I just published this post explaining why Nibbana is Atta:

https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... ical-link/

With metta, Lal

[SarathW]

Hi Lal
Ven Abhaya definitely got this wrong. Anatta- Lakkhana sutta gives a very clear definition of the meaning of Anatta.
I do not think we need to twist it in any other way.
==============
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

It just happens that I just published this post explaining why Nibbana is Atta:

This is a schoolboy error caused by incorrect transliteration of the Pāḷi.

“..katamo ca bhikkhave, anattö? panatipatö, adinnädänaṃ, kämesu­miccha­cärö, musävädö, pisuṇä väcä, parusä vacä, samphappaläpö, abhijjhä, vyäpädö, micchädiṭṭhi – ayam vuccati, bhikkhave, anattö..”

The Attha Sutta deals with what is of benefit, and what is not, i.e. what is harmful. This has nothing at all to with not-self (anatta).

4. Atthasuttaṃ

137. “Atthañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi anatthañca. Taṃ suṇātha … … Katamo ca, bhikkhave, anattho? Micchādiṭṭhi … … Micchāvimutti — ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, anattho. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, attho? Sammādiṭṭhi … … Sammāvimutti — ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, attho”ti. Catutthaṃ.

Monks, I will teach you about what is of benefit and what is not of benefit. Please listen attentively ...
What, monks, is of no benefit? Wrong View ... Wrong Liberation — this, monks, I call of no benefit. And what, monks, is of benefit? Right View .. Right Liberation. — This, monks, I call of benefit.

[Lal]

Hi Sarath,
You said,

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

The Pali verse is, "Yaṃ pan aniccam dukham viparinama dhamman, kallam nu tam samanupassitum: ‘etan mama, éso hamasmi, éso mé attati?"

The key is to see whether translating anicca and anatta as "impermanence" and "no-self" is correct. In the above "atta" in attati is the opposite of anatta.

I have discussed these terms in detail:
https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... -anatta-2/

At least read the first post on the list and see whether those make more sense. Of course, each person needs to makes his/her own decision. I cannot say this is the correct explanation. Anatta Lakkhana Sutta is discussed in third and the seventh link given in the above set of links.

A given Pali word can have many different meanings. One needs to be able to figure out which meaning to be used depending on the context. A simple example is discussed in:
https://puredhamma.net/dhammapada/atta-hi-attano-natho/
Here atta is used both as "self" in the conventional sense and also in the deeper sense as "without refuge" or "helpless in sansara".

With metta, Lal

[Lal]

Ven. Bhikkhu Pesala:
First of all, my intention is not to debate but only to clarify my posts. I am NOT saying that "this is the truth and nothing else is truth". Each person is capable of making his/her own decisions. But I believe that key concepts of the Buddha, including anicca and anatta, have been misinterpreted for many hundreds of years, and all I am doing is to say "Here is another explanation. See whether these explanations make more sense".

You said,

Code: Select all

 This is a schoolboy error caused by incorrect transliteration of the Pāḷi. 

It seems that way since it is a very simple explanation. But simplicity should be considered a virtue. Buddha Dhamma is very simple at the base: If one can get rid of greed, hate, and ignorance, one can attain Nibbana or refuge, and thus one becomes "atta". Until that happens, one is helpless, without refuge, one is anatta.

When one lives by dhamma and stays away from adhamma, one becomes atta. So, the my post that you referred to repeats the above statement starting with dhamma/adhamma.

But Buddha Dhamma can go probe a given concept much deeper, and my site has posts ranging from simple explanations to deeper explanations. For example, on dhamma:
https://puredhamma.net/abhidhamma/what- ... -analysis/

With metta, Lal

[rajitha7]

Hi Lal
Ven Abhaya definitely got this wrong. Anatta- Lakkhana sutta gives a very clear definition of the meaning of Anatta.
I do not think we need to twist it in any other way.
==============
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html

You should watch this.

phpBB .

[aflatun]

It just happens that I just published this post explaining why Nibbana is Atta:

This is a schoolboy error caused by incorrect transliteration of the Pāḷi.

“..katamo ca bhikkhave, anattö? panatipatö, adinnädänaṃ, kämesu­miccha­cärö, musävädö, pisuṇä väcä, parusä vacä, samphappaläpö, abhijjhä, vyäpädö, micchädiṭṭhi – ayam vuccati, bhikkhave, anattö..”

The Attha Sutta deals with what is of benefit, and what is not, i.e. what is harmful. This has nothing at all to with not-self (anatta).

4. Atthasuttaṃ

137. “Atthañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi anatthañca. Taṃ suṇātha … … Katamo ca, bhikkhave, anattho? Micchādiṭṭhi … … Micchāvimutti — ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, anattho. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, attho? Sammādiṭṭhi … … Sammāvimutti — ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, attho”ti. Catutthaṃ.

Monks, I will teach you about what is of benefit and what is not of benefit. Please listen attentively ...
What, monks, is of no benefit? Wrong View ... Wrong Liberation — this, monks, I call of no benefit. And what, monks, is of benefit? Right View .. Right Liberation. — This, monks, I call of benefit.

Bikkhu Pesala, Lal, et al.

For those of us with no command of Pali, perhaps you could help understand the disagreement

Bhante, are you saying there is a master, source Pali text that says, for example, anattho vs. anattö ? If so, how/why has the transliteration error happened?

Thanks in advance