[Nibbid83]

Dear Dr. Pinnaduwage,

I have been analyzing the extensive material on your site. I appreciate the highly structured framework you present, and I respect your background in physics, which brings a demand for logical consistency. However, to fully evaluate and understand the “Pure Dhamma” framework, I need clear confirmation on four foundational premises that seem to silently underpin the entire site’s material, yet are not explicitly detailed in the introductory texts.

Given your commitment to scientific rigor and cause-and-effect logic, I hope you can provide direct, unambiguous answers to the following historical and methodological questions:

1. The “Hela-Bima” Premise (Location of the Buddha) The Waharaka movement in Sri Lanka is fundamentally associated with the theory that the historical Buddha was actually born in Sri Lanka (Hela-Bima), and that the recognized historical sites in India/Nepal (like Bodh Gaya) are later fabrications. As the main English proponent of Waharaka interpretations, do you personally endorse the premise that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka and not in India?

2. The Linguistic Premise (The Origin of Pali) Your redefinitions of crucial terms (like anicca, anatta, samsara, and the root ‘san’) completely bypass established Indo-Aryan philology and Sanskrit root derivations. Do you, following the Waharaka premise, assert that “Pali” is not an ancient Indian language at all, but rather an ancient form of Sinhala (Hela language), and that academic linguistics should be discarded in favor of Sinhala etymologies?

3. The Methodological Premise (Source of Translation) While the site uses the language of science and quantum physics, is it not true that the absolute foundation for these “rediscovered” word meanings (which contradict all historical dictionaries) is the claimed supernatural abilities (Patisambhidhā Ñāna) and mystical insights of Venerable Waharaka Thero? Are we essentially asked to accept his paranormal visions over historical linguistic evidence?

4. The Compilation Paradox (Buddhaghosa and the Mahavihara) You claim that Ven. Buddhaghosa and the Mahavihara monks deeply corrupted the Dhamma with Hindu/Vedic concepts, leading to the “incorrect” standard translations. Yet, these exact same monks were the custodians who finalized, compiled, and preserved the Tipitaka you quote from. Logically, if they were fundamentally corrupted by Vedic thought, why is the Tipitaka they preserved considered fully trustworthy, while their commentaries and definitions are dismissed as “Hindu poison”?

I am looking for straightforward clarification on these four axioms to understand the true starting point of your analyses. Thank you for your time.

[Lal]

1. “..do you personally endorse the premise that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka and not in India?”

• No. I have not endorsed either view, i.e., whether the Buddha was born in Sri Lanka or India. Have you seen any on this website? 
• Furthermore, I don’t belong to any ‘movements.’ I appreciate the fact that Waharaka Thero uncovered many hidden aspects of Buddha’s teachings, and I am forever indebted to him for that. I also don’t think he intended to start a ‘movement,’ as such. He was simply teaching things he had uncovered. I am willing to learn from anyone, and I also try to uncover things on my own. 
• Our goal should be to fully uncover Buddha’s teachings, many of which have been hidden. I think there is still some left to uncover. I am amazed by the depth of the teachings.

2. You seem to believe in  Sanskrit root derivations. I do not. 

• The Buddha specifically prohibited translating his teachings into Sanskrit.  Sanskrit was called ‘Chandasa’ in the time of the Buddha.
• The following past discussion in the forum may help: “Sanskrit Prohibited.”

3. It is up to each person to decide whose interpretations are correct. I am not asking anyone to believe anything I write. A human is capable of making decisions on their own.

4. Yes. I claim so, and have provided evidence for my statements. For example, breath meditation and ‘kasina meditation’ using kasina objects such as a clay ball are Hindu meditations, and not Buddhist. Do you believe otherwise?

___________

Please feel free to comment and provide evidence supporting your comments, and include any evidence from the Tipitaka if it contradicts mine. I am willing to change my position if such evidence is provided. We are all trying to uncover the true teachings of the Buddha.

 

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for your clear, comprehensive, and courteous reply. I greatly appreciate your openness and willingness to clarify these matters. Allow me to address all four points to keep our discussion substantively cohesive.

Re 1. The geographical issue and the “Waharaka movement” Thank you for this unequivocal clarification. I am glad you are distancing yourself from the theory of the Buddha’s Sri Lankan origins—this allows us to focus on the essence of the Dhamma rather than historical revisionism. I also understand your position as an independent researcher who draws on the discoveries of Waharaka Thero without forming a formalized “movement.” We have complete clarity here.

Re 3. Freedom of choice and interpretation I agree with you a hundred percent. Everyone has the right to their own inquiries and to draw their own conclusions. My intention is not to impose anything, but rather to rigorously examine the methodology upon which these findings are based.

Re 2 & 4. The prohibition of Sanskrit and evidence from the Tipiṭaka I have taken the liberty of combining these two points because, from an analytical perspective, they represent a single, shared methodological problem.

You encourage me to present evidence from the Tipiṭaka (e.g., regarding breath meditation), declaring your willingness to change your position. The problem is that such a debate would hit a logical dead end. We do not differ on what is written in the Tipiṭaka, but rather on how it should be translated.

I could quote the Ānāpānasati Sutta or refer to word roots in traditional Pali dictionaries, but since you reject these dictionaries (favoring the phonetic/Sadda method), you would preemptively reject my evidence as well. This creates what is known as a closed hermeneutical loop.

Regarding the prohibition against using the Vedic language (Chandasa)—from a historical perspective, this rule (Cullavagga V.33.1) was intended to protect the teachings from being locked into the elitist, rigid metrical form of the Brahmins, ensuring they remained accessible in local dialects (sakāya niruttiyā). However, this does not mean that modern comparative linguistics (which studies the evolution of Indo-Aryan languages) loses its value as a tool for uncovering the historical meaning of words.

By rejecting standard linguistics, you rely on the method of phonetic “unpacking” of meanings (as in words like anicca or saṅ), a method pioneered by Waharaka Thero. My core questions to you as a researcher are therefore:

1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for this method? If two different meditators “unpack” the sound vibrations of the Magadhi language in two completely different ways, how do we objectively verify which of them is correct?
2. If we reject historical linguistics, do we not run the risk that anyone can define words from the Tipiṭaka to fit their own subjective thesis, making the entire system completely unverifiable from the outside?

I am not looking for a confrontation here, but rather trying to understand the error-correction mechanism within your methodology. If linguistics is not the arbiter, what is—and how can an independent researcher utilize it?

With respect for your work and dedication,
Nibbid83

• This reply was modified 11 hours ago by Nibbid83.

[Lal]

“Re 2 & 4. The prohibition of Sanskrit and evidence from the Tipiṭaka I have taken the liberty of combining these two points because, from an analytical perspective, they represent a single, shared methodological problem.”

• Those are not the same issues, even though related. So we should continue to address them separately.
• I would appreciate it if you could answer the question I asked regarding #4 of your original questions. Is breath (or kasina) meditation recommended by Buddhaghosa in the Tipitaka? If you say, “anapanapanasati” in the Tipitaka is the same as ‘breath meditation’, then please explain how it can lead to the fulfillment of Satipatthana (and Arahanthood) as explained in the Tipitaka.

Now, regarding your original question #3:

Again, to easily clarify the issue, let me ask a simple question: “Is ‘anicca‘ in the Tipitaka the same as ‘anitya‘ in Sanskrit?

 

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for the prompt reply. I am perfectly happy to keep points 2 and 4 separate if you prefer.

You asked me two direct questions:

1. How can “anapanasati” (if interpreted as breath meditation) lead to Arahanthood?
2. Is “anicca” in the Tipiṭaka the exact same as “anitya” in Sanskrit?

I am fully prepared to answer both of these questions in detail, referencing historical context, comparative linguistics, and the texts themselves. However, your questions actually perfectly illustrate the exact methodological problem I raised in my previous message—a problem you bypassed in your reply.

Before I present my evidence regarding anapanasati or anicca/anitya, we must establish what constitutes “valid evidence” in this discussion.

If I answer your questions using standard Pali-English dictionaries, academic etymology, and conventional historical grammar to explain these terms, will you accept those tools as valid instruments of evidence? Or will you reject my explanation precisely because it relies on standard linguistics rather than the Waharaka phonetic/Sadda method?

If your answer is that standard dictionaries are invalid, then my answering your questions is a futile exercise. We would simply be arguing over the definitions of words where you act as the sole judge, jury, and dictionary.

This brings us right back to the two questions from my previous message, which remain unanswered and are the absolute prerequisite before we debate specific words:

1. What is the criterion of falsifiability for the phonetic “unpacking” method you use?
2. If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an independent outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective phonetic interpretation?

I cannot meaningfully answer your questions about anicca or breath meditation until we agree on the tools used to measure their meaning. Once you clarify how your method is falsifiable and how we verify definitions without standard dictionaries, I will gladly dive into the specific evidence regarding your questions.

Best regards,
Nibbid83

[Lal]

What matters is whether someone can understand the Buddha’s message. 

Please feel free to use any method you like. Let us first focus on your following claim:

1.  Anapanasati” (interpreted as breath meditation) leads to Arahanthood via fulfilling Satipatthana.

Now, please understand. Here, one uses only breath meditation, i.e., focus on the rising and falling of the breath through the nostrils. Please explain how it can first lead to the Sotapanna stage, and then to higher magga phala.

[Nibbid83]

Dear Lal,

Thank you for your response. However, you have bypassed the foundational questions of our discussion and instead presented a classic logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.

You stated: “Here, one uses only breath meditation, i.e., focus on the rising and falling of the breath through the nostrils. Please explain how it can first lead to the Sotapanna stage…”

If Anapanasati were solely about watching the physical air at the nostrils, you would be absolutely correct—it could not lead to Arahanthood. But no serious scholar or practitioner claims that. The Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118) clearly details 16 stages. Focusing on the physical breath is merely the anchor for the first tetrad (Kāyānupassanā). The practice then progresses to contemplating feelings (vedanā), the mind (citta), and finally mental objects (dhammā)—specifically contemplating impermanence (anicca), fading away (virāga), cessation (nirodha), and relinquishment (paṭinissagga).

To reduce this profound 16-step cognitive framework to “only focusing on the rising and falling of the breath” is an extreme oversimplification designed to be easily knocked down.

But here is why I will not detail the exact mechanics of these 16 steps right now: Even if I explain how stage 13 (contemplating anicca) leads toward magga phala, we will immediately hit the wall that you just ignored in my previous message. You will simply say: “Your explanation is wrong because ‘anicca’ does not mean impermanence; it means the inability to maintain things to one’s liking, based on my phonetic unpacking of the Magadhi language.”

Do you see the problem? You are asking me to play a game of chess while reserving the right to change how the pieces move whenever it suits you.

I wrote to you asking how an independent researcher is supposed to verify your specific definitions. I asked two direct questions:

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?

You completely ignored these questions.

If your method cannot be objectively falsified, and if you refuse to establish shared rules of evidence, then we are not having a debate. You are simply asking me to step into a closed system where you are the sole authority on what words mean.

I am ready to explain the 16 steps of Anapanasati and how they fulfill Satipatthana. But first, please address the methodological questions from my previous post. How do we verify your translations without standard dictionaries?

Best regards,
Nibbid83

[Lal]

I do not understand your prerequisites.

“What is the criterion of falsifiability for your phonetic “unpacking” method?”

• There is no such thing. I use the meanings of Pali words, as I understand them. 

“If we disregard standard linguistics, how does an outside observer objectively verify your translation of a word over someone else’s subjective interpretation?”

• You can use whatever linguistics you want. 

__________

Please explain your 16 steps. Remember, the whole idea is that someone reading it should be able to understand what you are saying. 

[Author]

Posts