- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Excellent post, Sir Lal 🙏🏿.
Does Impermanence Lead to Suffering?
This post is timely. Recently, I have been facing criticism about the interpretation of Annica, the inability to maintain things to our satisfaction. Some people are so entrenched in their misunderstanding that it is impossible to reason with them. They firmly believe that Annica means impermanence. The following statement is from someone who criticizes the correct interpretation of Annica.
certainly this kind of predestination bears little resemblance to the buddha’s broader teachings on kamma in the suttas.
further, however, the linguistic argument of word meanings here is extremely weak, and is entirely at the subjective mental association of this monk’s own mind. for example, ‘balayo’ could just have as easily been associated with ‘bāla’ meaning ‘fool’ in pali.
these word plays, while clever and reflecting a quick mind, are entirely arbitrary according to the speaker’s mind, with no specific or accurate relationship to the buddha’s words in pali.
further than this, it’s important to note that waharaka thero is using the singhala language to derive meanings of pali texts. this is ridiculous. singhala is a modern language, 2000 years older that its buddhist-related ancestor sanskrit, and has been successively changed over the years through waves of invasion in sri lanka. singhala is effectively a mutt language, with influences from tamil, portuguese, dutch and english, on background of originally coming to sri lanka as ancient bengali. even sanskrit-pali correspondence is poor, let alone removed further from pali by 2000 years and a multitude of cultural linguistic influences.
an example is waharaka thero’s use of ‘malu’ (fish) above. malu has no direct correspondence in pali, but it does in tamil (sea). in sanskrit, malu has a meaning (woman; type of creeper) that is unrelated to fish. accordingly the semantic association of singhala ‘fish’ and tamil ‘sea’ suggests that this may be one word ‘malu’ originating from tamil rather than sanskrit or pali roots, and hence, waharaka thero’s analysis here may be rooted in dravidian tamil, rather than pali or even sanskrit.
it’s useful to use an analogy. modern english spoken in australia is heavily influenced by ancient latin, spoken 2000 of years ago, though is more related to germanic, with influence from multiple other cultural and linguistic sources. the australian word ‘dunny’ (meaning toilet) phonetically resembles the ancient latin word ‘donatus’ (given, bestowed), and so within a waharaka-type analysis, the ‘true’ meaning of donatus could be something of the like of ‘the defilement which is expelled’.
the important point to note here is that waharaka is applying the modern language usage to derive a meaning for the ancient word – not the other way around, as would make sense.
for example, we know the modern word ‘donation’, the meaning of which we can derive from the ancient meaning of donatus. however, it’s a very poor translator who would derive new meanings for ancient words based on their modern homonyms.
“word-play aside, to his credit, the interpretations that he attributes are largely associated with the dhamma, promoting sila, moral virtue. indeed, other well known monks are known to have engaged in word play to make a point.
however, my understanding is that he does apply this kind of facile reasoning to the word ‘anicca’ to become in Sinhala ‘iccha’ (liking), so, the pali ‘anicca’ becomes ‘not to one’s liking’.
I’ll say again, this is ridiculous. he has reduced the meaning of the buddha’s core teaching on impermanence to mere liking and disking. all on the basis of a subjective phonetic association between two languages removed by thousands or years.
this is slandering the buddha:
What Was Not Said: Abhāsita Sutta (AN 2:23)
I again note that waharaka thero always brings back his interpretations to the dhamma. for this reason, some think his offence to the dhamma isn’t great. however, in changing the meaning of core teachings of the buddha, he most definitely is doing damage to the sasana, dispensation of the dhamma left by the buddha, and he is injuring the opportunity of his followers to attain stream entry.
I note that in psychology, it’s well known that intermittent reward schedules are the most addictive. unpredictable reward leaves us hungry for more – like rats tapping at a lever incessantly for a reward that only occasionally and randomly comes.
In the case of waharaka thero, when he repeats the buddha’s words directly, he does so faithfully. when he goes off script (often), he makes up associations and meanings that simply aren’t there.
and I believe it’s this mix of dhamma and adhamma (false dhamma) that is addictive to his followers: they’re on unpredictable reward; they’re hooked. it’s hard to wean oneself off such information, because just as one develops doubts about the adhammic aspects of what’s taught, one comes across some dhamma that reels them back into belief. like the fish he talks about, they’re hooked on the intermittent dhamma fix that waharaka thero provides by returning to the buddha’s words.
it’s important to note that what they’re truly addicted to are the buddha’s teachings packaged up around the adhamma. that’s the addictive part. but people become confused by these sorts of experiences and mistake the dross for gold.
for these reasons, I don’t believe that waharaka thera was an attained disciple. to corrupt the meanings of the buddha’s teachings in this way necessitates a level of delusion that even a stream enterer would lack, and demonstrates an ego and disregard for the welfare of the dispensation and other beings (that one feels they can add to the buddha’s teachings) that isn’t in keeping with an attained disciple of the buddha.
I of course mean no offence to waharaka thero or his followers, but given the importance of this gift of dhamma left by the buddha, and the recent posts in him in this sub, I feel compelled to speak strongly about him.
I invite anyone who is familar with waharaka thero to point out any errors I have made in quoting / paraphrasing him, and forgive me for any errors or any offence from this post.“
- I don’t know what to say in the face of such ignorance. The person goes so far as to say that Venerable Waharaka Thero’s interpretations slander Lord Buddha. I have no more time wasted on such people. I decided to post to show how deep ignorance can be, even among so-called Buddhists.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
This semantic word salad reads as nothing more than a lazy gaslighting attempt.
“i’ll say again, this is ridiculous. he has reduced the meaning of the buddha’s core teaching on impermanence to mere liking and disking.“
With all due apologies, the writer does not understand the first thing about “anicca“, as discovered by Waharaka Thero and elucidated by this website. All they’ve done is hurl a semantic accusation pertaining to the interpretation, and declare that it’s wrong without even attempting to explain anything conceptual.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I’ve wanted to share this for a while. I’ve looked into some of these rebuttal attempts myself and I’ve seen a pattern: critics of the “Waharaka interpretation” of anicca often dismiss it outright — not with sound reasoning, but with emotional rhetoric and shallow semantics. I would call for intellectual honesty to those who believe criticism requires more than parroting traditional definitions.
Waharaka Thero redefined anicca not merely as “impermanence” but as the inability to maintain things to one’s liking, directly tied to taṇhā and the illusion of control. This interpretation isn’t a casual gloss; it’s deeply rooted in the Paṭicca Samuppāda and the Buddha’s own suttas. When someone dismisses this framework by saying: “He reduced the meaning of anicca to mere liking and disliking,” — that’s a textbook straw man, not a refutation. It’s a refusal to engage.
Quite often I see that they prioritize associating with Sanskrit but the Nail in the Coffin for these Surface Semantics is in the Vinaya Piṭaka (Chullavagga V.33.1–2) itself, where the Buddha clearly states: “The Dhamma should not be put into Chandasa (Sanskrit). Whoever does so commits an offense.” This is quite clear because Sanskrit brings in Vedic metaphysical baggage incompatible with the Buddha’s insight. Replacing Pāli with Sanskrit roots often leads to conceptual distortions.
The real issue with these critics is that they never seem to answer basic questions:
- What exactly is wrong with linking anicca to the inability to maintain outcomes?
- How does their definition of impermanence generate the insight that breaks saṁsāra? (Do I need the Buddha to tell me that the world is impermanent?)
- Why is their reading more coherent with suttas like SN 22.59 and Paṭicca Samuppāda?
Instead, most rely on:
- Appeals to authority (“But the PTS says this…”, “Bhikkhu so-and-so translated it like that…”, etc.)
- Semantic nitpicking over roots
- Emotional declarations like saying “this is ridiculous” without substance
This is not reasoning. It’s academic gaslighting dressed as critique. If one is to say the Waharaka interpretation is wrong, the least I expect is they explain how it is conceptually wrong. But all I see are Linguistic surface-level critiques often interspersed with emotional rhetoric that don’t grasp the doctrinal implications.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1. Jittananto initiated this thread by quoting a person (let’s call X) who criticized Waharaka Thero’s interpretation of anicca. At the end of the quote, person X says, “I invite anyone who is familiar with waharaka thero to point out any errors I have made in quoting/paraphrasing him, and forgive me for any errors or any offence from this post.”
- Perhaps Jittananto can invite him/her to join the discussion.
_____
2. Stacy has provided some key insights into problems in the X’s critique. I can also provide the following observations for X to consider and respond to.
- Of course, “impermanence” is a feature of anything in the material world. Modern science has proven that not only everything on Earth, but also all stars and planets in the entire universe, are impermanent. However, the Buddha pointed out that it is a result of the ‘anicca nature.’
- The impermanence associated with material things we like leads to suffering when they inevitably become damaged or broken. Impermanence associated with those we love leads to suffering when they get sick or die. We all are destined to get old and die, too! All this is suffering. But, again, impermanence is the result, not a root cause.
- We cannot eliminate the suffering associated with impermanence by just observing the fact that everything is impermanent.
- The Buddha explained that impermanent “things and living beings” arise due to living beings not comprehending the “anicca nature” and engaging in immoral deeds. The root cause is a mental process!
- The Buddha did not elaborate on the origin of the inert material things because that is not necessary to attain Nibbana. He explained in detail how each living being generates kammic energy to fuel their future lives. That is the Paticca Samuppada process. It is a fully mental process! It begins with avijja (ignorance) and culminates in bhava (kammic energy that can generate future lives), resulting in jati (future rebirths). Those kammic energies are generated through (abhi)sankhara caused by avijja. That is the bridge between mind and matter (mind energy leading to subtle matter in a manomaya kaya or gandhabba)!
- When one begins to understand the deeper aspects of the Paticca Samuppada process, one can also see how even the external world arises through Paticca Samuppada. Only a brief description (without getting into Paticca Samuppada) is given in the Aggañña Sutta. See “Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Introduction ” and “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).” Again, it is a waste of time to spend time on that process.
- But it is good to know that everything in this world is based on “mental power.” See “Manōpubbangamā dhammā..” which means “mind is the precursor to everything.”
P.S. Also, the reason for anything created via “mental energy” to be impermanent: Mental energy (or any energy) can last only a finite time.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Here is another point to think about.
Stacy wrote: “Waharaka Thero redefined anicca not merely as “impermanence” but as the inability to maintain things to one’s liking, directly tied to taṇhā and the illusion of control.”
- One engages in immoral deeds (via the body, speech, and the mind) because one believes such actions can lead to happiness. That is believing in an “icca nature” instead of an “anicca (na icca) nature.” (Remember the adopted convention to write anichcha as anicca, i.e., to pronounce “c” as “ch” in writing Pali words. Many people in Sri Lanka do not realize this.)
- Those immoral deeds are done due to (abhi)sankhara.
- As I mentioned above, (abhi)sankhara arise in the mind due to avijja, i.e., not realizing that one will be unable to maintain things to one’s liking.
- Of course, there are things that “work out well in the short term.” For example, one selling drugs to make money may even live well until dying, but the consequences will be realized as rebirths as an animal or worse. Thus, in the long term, those efforts involving (abhi)sankhara (with raga, dosa, and moha) can only lead to suffering.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
We owe you a lot for your hard work. Thank you, Lal!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.