@Nibbid83
1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for your phonetic “unpacking” method?
2. If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective interpretation?
I’ve always thought of Buddha Dhamma as personal, how it allows for a high degree of freedom of thought, for the follower to test everything for himself, and that this is an acceptable attitude of mind, though highly subjective.
Thus, a follower is to ask himself: does this interpretation, when followed, lead to the eradication of raga, dosa, moha? If he has faith that it does then he puts it to the test and verifies for himself.
To apply this attitude, let’s take a general example:
Waharaka Thero explained a Dhamma concept in a “phonetic unpacking” method.
The majority of other Dhamma teachers explain that same concept from a standard linguistics perspectives.
There must be some people who find Waharaka Thero’s interpretation to be beneficial for themselves in their practice, leading to magga phala. And the same for some other people who accept other Dhamma teachers.
This is a valid perspective, is it not? As I’m writing this, the Kalama Sutta comes to mind, and my guess is that there must be other suttas addressing the same topic.
Thank you.