Regarding the Dutiyamārapāsasutta that you cited, Jittananto, The Buddha says:
“Bikkhus, I am freed from all snares, both human and heavenly. You are also freed from all snares, both human and heavenly.“
He was talking to Arahants who have completed The Ariya Path and is saying that as a consequence, they are not only qualified to teach Buddha Dhamma, but that it would make sense for them to do so because they have done what needed to be done (i.e., attain Nibbana).
Jittananto, I read all of your posts and generally find your comments to be very insightful. With that being said, I don’t entirely agree with your position regarding this discussion. What is important is the intention behind our actions. If we were to criticize a group of monks and nuns and that endeavour were rooted in aversiveness, that would obviously be a bad thing to do. But if our intention is to sort our understanding out; to clarify whether or not what someone presents as being Buddha Dhamma matches up with how we see it, not only does that not constitute a demerit, it is absolutely critical.
I have searched far and wide and have yet to come across anything that is in the same ballpark as Waharaka Thero and Pure Dhamma. In my opinion, Jethavanarama Monastery is no exception. There are a lot of things that they get very right but they aren’t without their issues. To not be critical of those issues is to do a disservice to someone who is trying to attain Nibbana.
It has long surprised me that we discuss and reference them to the extent that we do. If you do a side-by-side comparision of Lal’s explanations and theirs with respect to the three characteristics of nature, they are simply not saying the same thing. Now, you could push back against that point by arguing they are explaining the same thing but from different angles – to which I would say that anicca is a particular way and by extension, there are a whole bunch of other ways in which it isn’t.