The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

A forum for Dhamma resources in languages other than English
findinglostvalues
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:47 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by findinglostvalues »

Lal wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:22 am
I neither agree nor disagree with Sutta Central translations because I never used them.
Don't make me laugh. You don't know what is meant by vinnana or sankhara and thus you cannot explain those two suttas. I am just asking whether or not you agree with those translations. You don't need to "use" Sutta Central translations to answer that question. It is not a trick question.

No point in having a discussion UNLESS you answer the simple question. How can I discuss Buddha Dhamma with someone who does not know what vinnana and sankhara mean?

By the way, I have explained anicca, dukkha, anatta with so many posts:https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... -anatta-2/
- Many of them are also here at the DW forum. But it is easier to use the above link since all relevant posts are in one section there.
- The problem is: you may be expecting a simple (and stupid) translation of anicca as "impermanence."

No more responses from me unless you respond to my simple question about those two suttas.

P.S. For your convenience, I am reproducing the Pali version and English translation side-by-side for both suttas below:
https://suttacentral.net/ud1.1/en/sujat ... ript=latin
https://suttacentral.net/ud1.2/en/sujat ... ript=latin

Then you can read my criticism here: "Distortion of Pāli Keywords in Paṭicca Samuppāda" posted on Nov 28, 2021viewtopic.php?t=26749&start=1410

Hi Lal,

Why do I need to explain or comment anything about those suttas in order to ask you about clarifications of your meanings and reasonings for Anicca? How are those two things related and how is it beneficial to what I am seeking? My concern is learning, practicing, and experiencing the Dhamma. So I was interested in what you have to say and asked you to clarify the questions that came up for me while reading your articles. So what relation does me asking a question relating to what your articles say have anything to do with SuttaCentral or their translations? Why are you attempting to corner me into a position that I have no reason to be in?

Lal why are you incessantly craving an answer for this, to the point that you're blind to what I am actually asking and keep making judgements about me while talking down to me? What does the dhamma say about that? What defilements are there? Is it reasonable to assert and make demands of me to answer your questions, when you haven't answered any of mine? For the sake of making progress, I'll simply say that I do not agree with certain specific uses of words in the translations you are concerned about. I will not make any further comments about SuttaCentral or their translations other than this, because it does not concern me, my questions regarding your articles, or help me in making progress. It is of no benefit. This is akin to me asking the Buddha if there is a self or no self, the question or the answer is of no benefit for my progress.

I don't know what your point is in linking me your articles again. All my links in my post are from your articles only. I already read them, thus, my questions to further clarify things in them and your reasoning. Why would you link the articles I have read, and have questions about again, for me to read? I'd appreciate it if you could engage the questions instead.
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

Abhisaṅkhāra Lead to Kamma Viññāṇa

Two Categories of Viññāṇa

1. Viññāṇa needs to be understood based on the context. All viññāṇa belong to either six types OR two types:

(i) The six typess of viññāṇa are: cakkhu viññāṇa, sota viññāṇa, jivhā viññāṇa, ghāna viññāṇa, kāya viññāṇa, and mano viññāṇa.
(ii) The two types of viññāṇa are: vipāka viññāṇa and kamma viññāṇa.

- Five types of viññāṇa in the first category are ALWAYS vipāka viññāṇa. Mano viññāṇa can be either vipāka viññāṇa or kamma viññāṇa.
- Kamma viññāṇa are ALWAYS mano viññāṇa.

Sensory Expeience (Vipāka Viññāṇa) Versus Abhisaṅkhāra Generation (Kamma Viññāṇa)

2. An easy way to remember those categories is as follows.

- The six types of viññāṇa arise when sensory inputs come in through the six senses: cakkhu, sota, jivhā, ghāna, kāya, and mano. I have discussed them in "Chachakka Sutta – Six Types of Vipāka Viññāna."  (https://puredhamma.net/dhamma-and-scien ... a-vinnana/)They are just sensory experiences and no kammic energy is produced. These are all vipāka viññāṇa.
- Kamma viññāṇa are strictly mano viññāṇa. These are the viññāṇa that arise in Paṭicca Samuppāda. They generate kammic energies that can lead to future vipāka and even "power up" future rebirths. They arise in "Akusala-Mūla Uppatti Paṭicca Samuppāda," and "Idappaccayātā Paṭicca Samuppāda https://puredhamma.net/paticca-samuppad ... da-cycles/
- Therefore, the five types of sensory experiences involving the five physical senses (cakkhu viññāṇa, sota viññāṇa, jivhā viññāṇa, ghāna viññāṇa, kāya viññāṇa) are ALWAYS vipāka viññāṇa.
- On the other hand, mano viññāṇa can be either vipāka viññāṇa or kamma viññāṇa.

All Viññāṇa Arise in the Mind

3. The six types of viññāṇa ALL arise in mind. The six types are there to indicate the "sense door" through which it comes in. For example, a sensory input coming through the eyes is a cakkhu viññāṇa, one coming through the ears is a sota viññāṇa,..one comes through the mind is a mano viññāṇa (six types).

- Such six types of viññāṇa only give rise to an experience. We see something with cakkhu viññāṇa, hear with sota viññāṇa, .. and recall something with mano viññāṇa (six types).
- Note: Vipāka viññāṇa DOES NOT mean that each sensory event has a one-to-one correspondence with a past kamma. When born with a human body due to past kamma, that body will be subjected to all kinds of sensory experiences associated with the human bhava. That is a result (vipāka) of being born human.
- Based on those vipāka viññāṇa, we may start accumulating "new kamma" with kamma viññāṇa.

Kamma Viññāṇa - More Than Experience

4. BASED ON vipāka viññāṇa (i.e.,  sensory input,) we may start thinking, speaking, and doing things thereby accumulating new kamma (mainly leading to vaci and kāya kamma based on vaci and kāya abhisaṅkhāra, as we have discussed.)

- All those initiate with mano viññāṇa that arise via "avijja paccayā abhisaṅkhāra" followed by "abhisaṅkhāra paccayā kamma viññāṇa" in Paṭicca Samuppāda.
- In the course of that process, the mind generates kammic energy. That is why it will be easy to remember that by calling those "kamma viññāṇa."

Kamma/Vipāka Viññāṇa Categorization - Not in the Tipiṭaka

5. The categorization of vipāka and kamma viññāṇa is not mentioned explicitly in the Tipiṭaka. But it helps separate the two types.

- Otherwise, it can lead to a lot of confusion even for the translators as I pointed out in the recent post, "Distortion of Pāli Keywords in Paṭicca Samuppāda" among many others.
- Kamma viññāṇa is the type of viññāṇa that bhikkhu Sāti said would "travel form bhava to bhava" (presumably from his Vedic background) in the "Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta (MN 38)."(https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato ... ript=latin) But we know that various types of kamma viññāṇa are cultivated by us, and only one of them can give rise to existence at a time.
- Just like bhikkhu Sāti was confused, present-day translators are also confused (o may be not even aware of) that viññāṇa CAN BE many types. When they translate viññāṇa as "consciousness" that would only include vipāka viññāṇa. That leave out viññāṇa arising via, "abhisaṅkhāra paccayā kamma viññāṇa" in Paṭicca Samuppāda.

Vipāka Viññāṇa Do Not Involve Abhisaṅkhāra

6. Any mental EVENT (involving vipāka or kamma viññāṇa) will have associated vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa.

- Vedana "detects" the sensory event and saññā identifies what it is. Saṅkhāra means to "prepare" that citta (loosely called "thought"), and that is done with the cetana cetasika, as we have discussed. See, "Kamma and Saṅkhāra, Cetanā and Sañcetanā."https://puredhamma.net/paticca-samuppad ... sancetana/
- That is why vedanā, saññā, and cetana are three of seven "universal cetasika" that arise in ANY citta. In other words, ANY mental event (involving vipāka or kamma viññāṇa) will have vedanā, saññā, and saṅkhāra. The totality of that experience is viññāṇa.
- That is also why vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa are the principle "mental aggregates."
- Now, when the cetana cetasika "prepares the citta," that is saṅkhāra. Thus, we can now see that mano saṅkhāra are in EVERY citta because vedanā and saññā are in every citta! Now, if we consciously think (with vaci saṅkhāra) about doing something and then do it (with kāya saṅkhāra) that could lead to new kamma.  See Ref. 1.
- Note: Breathing is via kāya saṅkhāra (so is raising a hand) but those do not lead to new kamma.

Mano Saṅkhāra Cannot be Abhisaṅkhāra Leading to Rebirth

7. The critical point here is that mano saṅkhāra are in vipāka viññāṇa as well as in kamma viññāṇa, i.e., in any type of viññāṇa. In fact, they are also in "pure citta" or "pabhassara citta" of an Arahant in Arahant-phala samadhi.

- Mano saṅkhāra can NEVER become abhisaṅkhāra that can lead to rebirth.
- To generate kammic power (in javana citta), we need to generate defiled thoughts CONSCIOUSLY. Those involve vaci and kāya saṅkhāra. Kamma viññāṇa (in javana citta with kammic energy) arise only in Paṭicca Samuppāda.
- It is not necessary to fully understand the above in #7. It is there for completeness.

First Two Steps in Paṭicca Samuppāda in the Niddesa Version

8. I have pointed out that "avijja paccayā saṅkhāra" is the uddesa version (or the brief version) used frequently in the suttas. The niddesa (or a bit more descriptive) version is "avijja paccayā abhisaṅkhāra."

- In the same way, we can now see that the next step of "saṅkhāra paccayā viññāṇa" would be a bit more explanatory (niddesa version) as "abhisaṅkhāra paccayā kamma viññāṇa." In fact, we used that terminology in #4 above. The three different ways of explaining concepts discussed in, "Sutta Interpretation – Uddēsa, Niddēsa, Paṭiniddēsa."https://puredhamma.net/sutta-interpreta ... diniddesa/
- As discussed above, our conscious thoughts (with vaci and kāya saṅkhāra) in the Paṭicca Samuppāda processes create kammic energy. Some kammic energies may result in kamma vipāka during life, but some can lead to future rebirths.
- On the other hand, no kamma viññāṇa can arise when an ārammaṇa comes in via one of the six sense faculties. Those are vipāka viññāṇa (just seeing, hearing, etc.)

Difference Between Kammic Energy and "Food-Produced" Energy

9. Some people get confused when I say kāya saṅkhāra are needed to take bodily actions, i.e., to move body parts. They may be asking, "how can thoughts move body parts?"

- That is a valid question from a mundane perspective. I have seen many materialistic scientists and philosophers ask the same question.
- The key is to understand that the mind only INITIATES the movement of body parts. That body movement is carried by the brain. The energy needed to move body parts comes from the food we eat.
- The brain is made of inert matter and is like a computer. All body movements are coordinated by the brain. The food we eat provides energy not only to move body parts but also to keep the brain working. Since the brain is the interface between the mind and the body, it consumes a lot of energy by itself, about 25% of all the energy from the food we eat.
- Consider the following analogy of a soldier (mind/mental body or the gandhabba) driving a fully-enclosed military tank (physical body.) The soldier can see the outside only with the video cameras (eyes.) To drive the tank, to see outside, and fire artillery, the soldier depends on the onboard computer (brain.) The amount of work by the soldier (mind/mental body or the gandhabba) is minuscule compared to that generated by oil powering the vehicle and the guns (food powering body movements.)
- See "Gandhabba in a Human Body – an Analogy" (https://puredhamma.net/dhamma/buddha-dh ... n-analogy/) for further details. It is critical to understand that analogy. 

Connection Between Kamma and Saṅkhāra

10. In other words, kāya kamma (like offering food) involves moving body parts; one has to prepare the food and offer it to someone. Those are bodily actions. Those activities are powered by the food we eat.

- The mind only makes the decision to make the offering. It directs the body to do certain tasks with kāya saṅkhāra. Since they involve alobha/adosa/amoha, those are kāya abhisaṅkhāra.
- This is why cetana determines kamma. Bodily movements are BASED ON cetana (saṅkhāra.) If we see a man carrying a big knife we don't know what his intention is. It could be cut loose a trapped animal (good deed) or to kill someone (bad deed.)
- The same holds for speech. One intends to utter certain words with vaci saṅkhāra. Then the brain gets the words out by moving the tongue and lips with vaci kamma. Now, if one generates such vaci saṅkhāra with an angry mindset, they would be apuññābhi vaci saṅkhāra (i.e., vaci abhisaṅkhāra.) - Just asking someone for directions would involve just vaci saṅkhāra (no abhisaṅkhāra.)

Only Kamma Viññāṇa via Abhisaṅkhāra Generate Kammic Energy

11. As we have discussed, a vipāka viññāṇa can only "bring in a sensory input" and we just experience it. Our minds do not generate any abhisaṅkhāra or kammic energy.

- But, based on such a sensory input, we may get attached to it and start generating abhisaṅkhāra and accumulate kamma (or more correctly kammic energies). Such kammic energies are unimaginably TINY compared to the energy required to move a hand, for example.
- Then such kammic energies can bring in future kamma vipāka, some of which can lead to rebirth.

Mental Aspects Are with the Mental Body (Gandhabba)

12. The fact that the brain is NOT the mind is quite apparent from the numerous studies on rebirth accounts and Near-Death-Experience (NDE) studies.

- With more rebirth accounts being published from all over the world, it is becoming impossible to avoid their validity. The same is true for NDE studies.
- Furthermore, scientists have been trying hard to come up with an explanation of how consciousness can arise in the brain. Despite many studies and proposals, they have not been able to make ANY progress. A popular approach is to say consciousness arises in neurons.
- But they seem to ignore the following basic question: "How can joy or sorrow arise in inert atoms/molecules? Anything in the brain is made of atoms/molecules!
- No one will ever be able to prove that consciousness can arise in the brain. Some philosophers are beginning to see the truth of that; see Ref. 2.

References

1. In the “Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44)“ (https://suttacentral.net/mn44/pli/ms?la ... ript=latin):

Tayome, āvuso visākha, saṅkhārā—kāya saṅkhāro, vacī saṅkhāro, citta saṅkhāro”ti.

“Katamo panāyye, kāya saṅkhāro, katamo vacī saṅkhāro, katamo citta saṅkhāro”ti?

“Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāya saṅkhāro, vitakka vicārā vacī saṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca citta saṅkhāro”ti.


- The last verse says: "breathing involves kāya saṅkhāra, vitakka/vicara are vaci saṅkhāra, and vedanā/saññā are mano saṅkhāra."

2. Here are a couple of papers on the subject related to the “mind-body problem” for those who are interested (click on them to open):

What is it Like to be a Bat – Nagel (1974) https://puredhamma.net/wp-content/uploa ... l-1974.pdf

All machine and no ghost- McGinn-2012: https://puredhamma.net/wp-content/uploa ... n-2012.pdf

- A recent book by Nagel shows that he leans further toward the possibility that mind is primary: "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" by Thomas Nagel (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Ontheway »

Why not you post your points at General Theravada Forum, and let everyone join in to view, to discuss or debate if necessary?

I don't think any English-only speakers will visit here at all. :juggling:

By the way, is it true that Sinhalese people believed Ven. Waharaka Thero was an Arahant?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
findinglostvalues
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:47 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by findinglostvalues »

Hi Lal,

I didn't add this into my previous post because it would have made it even longer.

It's about this article of yours on PureDhamma Logical Proof that Impermanence is Incorrect Translation of Anicca

This isn't logical proof, but selectively and intellectually dishonest and biased logical proof that something is incorrect. Basically, it's incorrect because you wanted to prove somehow and show it's incorrect. Some of it doesn't make any sense. Neither your definition nor impermanence would come out as correct with how you have structured this article and your logic to reach the conclusion; you simply have to take the current structure, and swap the definitions around for every place the other is used, and you'll see.


Example:

Code: Select all

no suffering → permanence, i.e., if one is not suffering that implies something (the object in question) is permanent.

But we can take many examples where “not suffering” does not imply a permanency. 
-For example, when we hear a death of a rival there is no suffering associated with that.
-In another example  if we get rid of a non-curable disease, that is associated with no-suffering. Thus, in both examples, the “no-suffering” condition did not imply a “permanence”.
no suffering → everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction, i.e., if one is not suffering that implies something (the object in question) can be maintained to one's satisfaction.

But we can take many examples where “not suffering” does not imply everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction.
-For example, when we hear a death of a rival there is no suffering associated with that.
-In another example if we get rid of a non-curable disease, that is associated with no-suffering. Thus, in both examples, the “no-suffering” condition did not imply "everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction".
Do you see how some of it doesn't even make sense when you simply take your approach and swap things around?


However, in the examples you gave above, it would actually make sense with the "Permanence" definition.

Code: Select all

-For example, when we hear a death of a rival there is no suffering associated with that.

This does imply permanence, because the rival that you suffered due to is permanently dead so you aren't going to suffer due to that condition again, permanently.

Code: Select all

-In another example  if we get rid of a non-curable disease, that is associated with no-suffering. Thus, in both examples, the “no-suffering” condition did not imply a “permanence”.
This also implies permanence, because the non-curable disease has been gotten rid of, permanently. You won't suffer due to that condition again, permanently.
The choice of example doesn't make sense unless you implied that non-curable implies it was meant to be permanent, but since it was gotten rid of, it is no longer permanent but one is not suffering. This is a flawed way to approach it, because getting rid of the disease can show impermanence, which could be taken to say impermanence has lead to not suffering, but in actually it was the permanent riddance of the disease that led to not suffering. Wouldn't it be intellectually and logically dishonest to say otherwise?

Code: Select all

"In the case of the three characteristics, the nature of this world is either nicca or anicca. There is no “in between”, i.e., it is either “nicca” or “anicca“.
This is applying two extremes to the world to help prove yourself right, and would lead to wrong views. You cannot say either, there are some things that can be maintained to one's satisfaction and some things that cannot be, where would they fit? Unless you take duration of time into account, then only "nothing can be maintained to one's satisfaction in the long run" would apply. So then the "nature of this world" isn't "either nicca or anicca", but just anicca.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

"In the mathematical language of logic, this is written as:

(no suffering iff permanence), i.e., (no suffering if and only if permanence)

This is a strong statement than the one in #3.

However, we have many instances of no-suffering without having permanency associated with, as we discussed in #3.

Furthermore, This implies that one can never attain Nibbāna (no suffering), since there is nothing in this world that is permanent LONG TERM. This is yet another contradiction."
In the mathematical language of logic, this is written as:

(no suffering iff everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction), i.e., (no suffering if and only if everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction)

This is a strong statement than the one in #3.

However, we have many instances of no-suffering without having permanency associated with, as we discussed in #3.

Furthermore, This implies that one can never attain Nibbāna (no suffering), since there is nothing in this world that can be maintained to one's satisfaction LONG TERM. This is yet another contradiction."
This is pretty straightforward and self explanatory. In this case, whether you use "Permanence" or "Everything can be maintained to one's satisfaction", following your logic it implies that Nibbana cannot be attained, or rather to be logically/semantically correct, sustained.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

7. However, if we take the correct interpretation of anicca as “nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run”, then the above statement reads:

(no suffering) if and only if (everything can be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run).

Since we know that “everything can be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run” is not correct, it is impossible to attain a state of “no suffering” as long as one is in this world, i.e., in the cycle of rebirths.

We can analyze any  situation and see that “nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run”. Thus everything experienced in this world eventually lead to suffering. The  only way to get rid of suffering is to realize this critical point; that realization itself leads to the end of suffering.
7. However, if we take the correct interpretation of anicca as “nothing is permanent in the long run”, then the above statement reads:

(no suffering) if and only if (everything is permanent in the long run).

Since we know that “everything is permanent in the long run” is not correct, it is impossible to attain a state of “no suffering” as long as one is in this world, i.e., in the cycle of rebirths.

We can analyze any situation and see that “impermanence”. Thus everything experienced in this world eventually lead to suffering. The only way to get rid of suffering is to realize this critical point; that realization itself leads to the end of suffering.
This seems pretty self-explanatory as well. Do you see how simply taking a word for its face value with no proper context or wording and swapping it around changes things? Specially when you do it selectively on top of it to feed a view and somehow prove a point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The realization of the truth of “anicca nature of this world” is beyond “just understanding”. The mind has to accept that without any doubt. One needs to analyze as many cases as one encounters in real life and convince oneself that this is the case. If you can think about an exception, please let me know.
I agree with this with the addition that, it is beyond just logical/intellectual understanding.

For example, if you take the statement "nothing is permanent" then that statement implies that the statement itself is a permanent truth, contradicting itself; however, it also validates the statement as a truth because the statement itself isn't a truth so nothing is permanent so then the statements becomes a permanent truth, and on goes the cycle.

Same thing applies for impermanence. If we say "everything is impermanent", then it implies that the statement itself is a permanent truth, contradicting itself. It also implies that impermanence itself should be impermanent, to validate the statement's truth; however that means impermanence becomes permanent and that permanence needs to be impermanent because impermanence is what is permanent, and on goes that cycle.

Saying the opposites of those statements don't hold true because it's observable to us.

This is why it is necessary to avoid the extremes, and simply relying on logic ,it simply leads to cycles of logic and multiplying of views and confusion. The above applies to your definitions as well. So it is best to stick to what is beneficial and not what leads to confusion.

However I agree with your statement that "nothing in this world can be maintained to one's satisfaction in the long run" but not as the definition of Anicca but as a perception leading to understanding inconstancy/impermanence. It does not hold as a definition of Anicca, this is what leads you to keep changing it depending on context; sometimes calling it a nature, sometimes a perception etc. I agree that understanding this will help one on the path, but not as a definition of Anicca.



Have an open mind, but practice your own discernment no matter how knowledgeable a person may seem, knowledge doesn't free one from biases, and wrong views. I may be wrong too.



This will very likely be my last post on this thread. You do have a lot of knowledge Lal. I wish you well, may you be free from suffering and hostility.
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

Both of you still don't seem to be able to understand what is meant by vinnana and sankhara. That is unfortunate.
- It is also possible that you MAY now understand, after reading my recent posts. But you may not want to openly admit that the Sutta Central translations are blatantly wrong.

If you keep reading, you may eventually understand the true meaning of anicca as well. It is NOT just impermanence!
- Scientists, on their own, have figured out that nothing in this world is permanent. But they are not any closer to Nibbana!

I wish you well too!
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by ssasny »

It's almost as if the replies are automatically generated?

People have asked several times for clarification on the Pali term 'anicca' and Waharaka Thero's attainments, the
stock reply seems to be along the lines of,
-you don't understand (these other) Pali words
-will you agree the translations found on Sutta Central are wrong

Very much non-sequitur seeming.
Curious.

To me it's almost like I asked for help in understanding what a 'table' is, and I received the reply,
'You don't even understand what a chair is, how can you understand 'table', and will you admit other's explanations of
'table' is wrong?'
Which doesn't get me much closer to understanding 'table'.
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

People have asked several times for clarification on the Pali term 'anicca' and Waharaka Thero's attainments,
Have not I explained "anicca" in many posts? What more do you want me to do?
To refresh your memory: https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-conce ... -anatta-2/
- Many of those posts are here at DW too. Just find them read them.
- Some people may not agree with my explanations. There is nothing I can do about that. It is a waste of time to repeat what I have already written. I am not asking anyone to believe what I say. Each person has to make their own decisions.

How can I comment on Waharaka Thero's or anyone else's attainments?
- Only a Buddha can see that with certainty.
- But I have stated here that I think Waharaka Thero must have attained the Sotapanna stage in a previous life. I think that is why he was able to explain the concepts in the Tipitaka in a self-consistent way.
- On the other hand, I have pointed out MANY inconsistencies by current translators. No one has disputed my claims. You are welcome to do so.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by mikenz66 »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:23 pm People have asked several times for clarification on the Pali term 'anicca' and Waharaka Thero's attainments, the stock reply seems to be along the lines of,
-you don't understand (these other) Pali words
-will you agree the translations found on Sutta Central are wrong
It's curious that it is expressed as "the translations found on Sutta Central", which carries the implication that there is something especially unusual about the translations there. However, what actually seems to be meant is that "all other translations are wrong". As far as the disputed terms such as anicca are concerned, the various English translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Sujato, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and others are actually quite similar (impermanent, impermanent, inconstant, in the case of anicca).

:heart:
Mike
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by ssasny »

mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:17 pm
It's curious that it is expressed as "the translations found on Sutta Central", which carries the implication that there is something especially unusual about the translations there. However, what actually seems to be meant is that "all other translations are wrong". As far as the disputed terms such as anicca are concerned, the various English translations by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Sujato, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and others are actually quite similar (impermanent, impermanent, inconstant, in the case of anicca).

:heart:
Mike

Yes, that is a very good point. It does seem what is implied is that all translations other than "Pure Dhamma" are wrong.
Which is quite a statement.
And so it seems quite normal that people would like to have a discussion about these alternative ideas.

Unfortunately the response seems to be along the lines of, 'I've discussed this already' and 'prove me wrong'.
Which is certainly not a great mode of discussion.
It seems pretty clear that Lal is not interested in a discussion of these topics and takes a rather dismissive attitude of all those who try.
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

It's curious that it is expressed as "the translations found on Sutta Central", which carries the implication that there is something especially unusual about the translations there.
Please don't misquote me, mikenz66.
- I have not stated that ALL Sutta Central translations are wrong.
- Also, I have stated that many other English translations are as wrong as those at Sutta Central. These wrong translations are specifically related to translating vinnana, sankhara, anicca, anatta, etc.

That is why I picked two suttas translated by three bhikkhus, even though they are all posted at Sutta Central.

Furthermore, I have stated that I may make mistakes. But I am confident about the validity of my understanding of the key concepts. You can quote from my writings and prove me wrong!

Please don't misquote me.
Why don't you respond to my criticism on the translation of those two suttas? OR why not ask them to respond?
- No one seems to notice the elephant in the room!
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by ssasny »

The 'prove me wrong' argument will not end well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:54 pm The 'prove me wrong' argument will not end well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
This is why I say that many people treat Buddha Dhamma like philosophy.
- Buddha Dhamma describes Nature perfectly. If someone can present it correctly, NO ONE will be able to show any inconsistency WITH the Tipitaka. That is why "prove me wrong" can indeed end well. I want to find any mistakes I make and get them right.
- I may not be there fully, but I am close. If someone can legitimately point out an inconsistency, I would not only correct myself but would be grateful too.

Of course, to convince oneself of the value of Buddha Dhamma, one needs to have a decent understanding of at least the foundational aspects like vinnana and sankhara. There is no point in getting into discussions about deeper concepts like anicca with people who don't understand what is meant by vinnana, sankhara, bhava, gati, etc.

I am not being sarcastic. I am dead serious. I have read comments on many discussion forums and I feel really bad about some of those who make comments. They have been writing the same stuff over the past ten years without making any progress!

Think about the following: Can a child who does not know how to do arithmetic understand calculus?
- Trying to understand the concept of anicca without knowing what is meant by vinnana, sankhara, etc., is precisely like that.
- That is why I will not get into discussions about more profound concepts like anicca and anatta with those who don't have that background.
- You can be one of the best scientists, but if you don't understand vinnana, sankhara, etc. you WILL NOT be able to understand anicca and anatta. This is not philosophy. This is Buddha Dhamma, which is deeper than any area of modern science. I know because I am a physicist. I have seen both sides.
- Again, some people will say he is bragging. But I am not. I am trying to say: don't take Buddha Dhamma lightly. Spend time and learn the basics first before getting into reading deep suttas or start discussing anicca.

That is why I am discussing basic terms in Paticca Samuppada, one by one, these days. Instead of asking questions about anicca, ask questions about these basic concepts. That is the way to make progress.
- Of course, there may be others who understand some or most of what I write. I hope that they are the "silent majority."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Lal,
Lal wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:43 pm Please don't misquote me, mikenz66.
- I have not stated that ALL Sutta Central translations are wrong.
My point was that you do not seem to agree with any other translations of anicca, and several other key terms.
Ven Dhammanando put some time into analysing some of these terms earlier in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=26749&p=421520&hil ... do#p421520
Your approach may well be helpful, but given that it diverges so much from all others, I would need a very strong reason to spend any more time on it.

:heart:
Mike
Lal
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

Hello Mike,

You wrote: "My point was that you do not seem to agree with any other translations of anicca, and several other key terms."

Why do I need to agree with ANY incorrect translation?
- Why does a given person need to agree with at least one translation if they are all wrong?

As far as I remember, bhikkhu Dhammanando did not give another explanation for "anicca" other than their standard explanation as "impermanence." If not, please reproduce the section of his comment where he gave another explanation for anicca.
- He just ranted on and on about "san" which he was trying to explain using Sanskrit roots. He keeps forgetting that the Buddha banned even translating Buddha Dhamma to Sanskrit, even though I have pointed out that to him several times.

You wrote: "Your approach may well be helpful, but given that it diverges so much from all others, I would need a very strong reason to spend any more time on it."

You don't need to do anything as far as I am concerned. If you or anyone else is happy with the explanation of anicca as impermanence, I have no problem with that. I don't get anything for myself out of this effort.
- I am taking the time to write these lengthy posts to help others just like I benefitted from the efforts of Waharaka Thero (By the way, I did not even get a chance to meet him in person.)
- I am not asking anyone to accept my explanations or even to read them. It is up to each person to do whatever they want.

P.S. By the way, why don't you ask those bhikkhus to defend their translations of the two suttas that I keep referring to? Aren't you interested in getting their opinion? Most of all, do you think my criticism is invalid? I think even a child should be able to see the problem with the translation of the second sutta.
- That is what I referred to as the "elephant in the room" in a previous comment. Many people are trying to pick on my writings, but seem to ignore the obvious problems with the translations by others.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by ssasny »

In Ajahn Brahm's 2002 booklet, Dependent Origination, he discusses various types of meanings for the word saṅkhāra:

"The meaning of saṅkhāra is sometimes debated because this is a word that does have many meanings in different places. If one wishes to see the word saṅkhāra used as a cause for rebirth, one can go to the Saṅkhārupapatti Sutta. [MN 120] Saṅkhārupapatti means ‘rebirth according to saṅkhāra’. Here, the Buddha talks about how certain beings arise in dfferent realms according to their planned actions of body, speech or mind. These are actions of body, speech and mind, which are accompanied by will (cetana); and it is this kamma which gives rise to future rebirth. This is called saṅkhāra."

"In another sutta [SN 12.51] the Buddha talks about how, if a person who has ignorance (avijjāgato, who has gone to ignorance) plans a meritorious saṅkhāra (puññaṁ saṅkhāraṁ abhisankaroti), his consciousness goes to a meritorious place. If he plans a demeritorious saṅkhāra (a-puññaṁ saṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti), his consciousness goes to an apuñña place, a demeritorious place. If he plans an āneñja saṅkhāra (āneñja being something in-between), then his consciousness goes to that place accordingly. Again, this shows that there are three types of saṅkhāra—meritorious, demeritorious and in-between—and that saṅkhāra is the working of kamma. In much the same way that kamma can be made by body, speech and mind, so too there are three types of saṅkhāra—body, speech and mind saṅkhāra."

And certainly this is true, otherwise the word saṅkhāra would not completely make sense in all contexts.

A problem is, to render this:
Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhāra; saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ;

other than something like this:
“From delusion as condition, volitional formations (come to be); from volitional formations as condition, consciousness;"

is rather difficult in English, and it most certainly needs further explanation. All good translators understand that the same Pāli word can mean different things in different contexts, just like English words.

Regarding the meaning of viññāṇaṃ in DO as something different than one of the aggregates, Ajahn Brahm in Some Remarks on Paticca Samuppada (1994) says:

"Lastly, it becomes obvious that the full Paticca-samuppada cannot be interpreted as existing in one life when one looks at the first 3 links in reverse order: When Avijja ceases so does Sankhara and, consequently, so does Vinnanam. In other words the ending of Avijja causes the ending of Vinnanam. Now what type of Vinnanam can possibly cease as a result of a person eradicating Avijja, the ignorance of the full meaning of the Four Noble Truths? We all know that an Arahat, one who has eradicated Avijja, remains fully conscious, retaining Vinnanam, after his attainment. He does not become unconscious at the moment of his attainment, ever more to be comatose until he dies! So Vinnanam cannot mean the ordinary, arising in every moment, type of consciousness. However, we all know that sometime after the attainment of Arahat, after a period of days or years after Avijja is ended, the Arahat’s life span ends, the 5 Khandhas dissolve and they never arise again. In particular, the 5th Khandha, the binding Vinnanam, ceases after the life span of an Arahat ends. Thus, it is very clear that the Vinnanam which is caused to cease by the ending of Avijja is the first arising of consciousness in a new life, or in other words the rebirth linking consciousness of the Commentary. Nothing else makes sense. No advocate of the "one-life" interpretation of Paticca-samuppada has ever been able to explain how Vinnanam can be something existing in this life and yet ceases in this life for an Arahat!"

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books11/Ajah ... emarks.htm

So my question is really about translation choices, not interpretation. It seems the main thrust of your argument is that words take on different meanings based on their context. And when one Pāli word is rendered with the same English word in different contexts, the nuances of the differences can be lost and confusion may arise. But just as an English reader can understand the contextual use of a word when reading an English text, can't that reader do the same in a translated text? (for example the aggregate sense of viññāṇaṃ vs. the DO sense) Using the same translation choice does not necessarily make an entire translation "wrong."
How would you propose it be done differently?
Post Reply