[Jittananto]

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.

• This topic was modified 8 hours ago by Jittananto.

[Author]

Posts