Tobias wrote to me and said he could not add the following THREE comments:
1. It is said on page 14/15 of the second discourse. I would also upload the file, but how?
2. Also on page 7 of Waharaka Thero discourse No. 7, it is said: “…‘Sañ’+ udaya = Samudaya’. ‘Sañ’ means union, formation. If something arises from formation, ‘sabbam tam’, all those are, ‘nirodha dhammam’, not worthy of pursuing. If we say ‘nirodha dhammam’ means perishable, that is wrong. …”
That refers to the verse: “Yam kiñci samudaya dhammam, sabbam tam nirodha dhammam”
Lal translated that verse in the post Ye Dhammā Hetuppabhavā.. and Yam Kiñci Samudaya Dhammam..
as “If there are dhammā that give rise to suffering (i.e., any samudaya dhammā), all such dhammā can be stopped from arising (via the Noble Eightfold Path).” (see #7 in that post)
Waharaka Thero translated this verse (summary from above): “If something arises from formation, all those are not worthy of pursuing.”
3. There is more to this on page 7 of discourse No. 7. Here the English translation:
“…As the meaning of this phrase, we have been taught that, if some phenomena arise, all those are perishable. Whatever arisen, will be lost. That’s how it has been clarified.
Existent is one extreme, nonexistent is the other extreme. Association with either of the extremes, will not facilitate enlightenment.
We do not take it as existent. ‘Samudaya’ means arising, arising of the formation, developing. If we take it as something existent, that would hint towards eternalism.
Something existent would mean something existing eternally. These are things that are forming out of causality. …”
Waharaka Thero says we shall avoid the extremes of existent and nonexistent. But he goes very far when he says that “existent means existing eternally”. Also, the word bhava is explained as “potential for existence” (somewhere on puredhamma.net).
I would agree on the view that things arise as formations. A normal person would take this formation as having a face value, which is not there. All we experience is made of satara maha butha with a ghost-like nature (and anicca nature). Therefore it is really of no value (anatta). That explanation does also not require the extremes of existent and nonexistent.