Dear cubibobi,
Thank you for bringing this up. Your perspective is beautifully articulated, and I completely agree with your core premise: Buddha Dhamma is indeed deeply personal, and the ultimate test of its efficacy is experiential. You are absolutely right to invoke the Kalama Sutta. The reduction of raga, dosa, and moha in one’s own mind is the true pragmatic measure of any practice.
However, from an analytical standpoint, we must make a very clear distinction between two different domains: Psychological Utility (what works for you) and Historical/Linguistic Accuracy (what a specific word meant 2500 years ago).
Let me use an analogy: Imagine someone misreads an ancient medical text, but by making that mistake, they accidentally discover a new exercise that cures their back pain. The cure is very real, and the exercise is highly beneficial! But their translation of the text remains factually incorrect.
When a Dhamma teacher uses “phonetic unpacking” to redefine a Pali word, and a student finds that new definition helpful in reducing their anger, that is wonderful. It proves the concept has psychological utility. But it does not prove that this is what the Pali word originally meant. This is why I asked about objective verification. If we use subjective spiritual attainment (magga phala) as our only metric for accurate translation, we run into an unsolvable problem. If Person A claims they reached magga phala using standard linguistics, and Person B claims they reached it using Waharaka Thero’s phonetic method—and both methods rely on fundamentally opposed definitions of the same words—how does an outside observer know who is right about the Pali language? We cannot look inside their minds to verify their enlightenment.
Furthermore, while your perspective is wonderfully inclusive (“both paths are valid if they work”), it is important to note that this is not the premise of “Pure Dhamma.” This site operates on the explicit premise that standard linguistics and traditional interpretations (like those of Buddhaghosa) are systematically flawed and actively prevent people from reaching magga phala.
If one system claims the other is factually broken, we cannot simply say “both are true.” We have to look at the foundational tools they use to construct their arguments. That is why I asked my questions regarding the rules of evidence.
Thank you again for your thoughtful contribution. It highlights the crucial balance between the personal practice of Dhamma and the objective study of its historical texts.
With metta,
Nibbid83
