Thank you Bhante @sujato
The Waharaka movement spares no opportunity to mention the paṭisambhidhā-ñāṇa of their originator, so it is indeed quite explicit and a critical part of their lore. In the Sri Lankan context it gives much gravitas to pada nirukti ‘etymologies’ they propose while offering an additional layer of insulation against criticism. There is no technical way to question pada nirukti because it’s an entirely new language, as leading Waharaka teachers such as Ven. Walasmulle Abhaya specifically mention: according to them, this is Ariya jargon inaccessible through conventional linguistics.
Unfortunately, this also means that when Waharaka and ‘regular’ Buddhists engage in conversation, they are using two different languages even if they appear to be the same. They can’t help but talk past each other.
There is, however, another important reason: the great disruptor in the Waharaka interpretation is to ask why anyone should care about the objective aniccatā of the Theravada commentarial interpretation. Who cares if something ‘out there’ in the world that one doesn’t care about happens to be impermanent—how does that lead to suffering (yad’aniccaṁ tam dukkhaṁ), they ask. The Waharaka solution is to change anicca to aniccha. I don’t think the traditional Theravadins in Sri Lanka still have a convincing answer, which explains (at least in part) why, against all odds, Waharaka still thrives.