SuttaCentral
Yeah oops sorry that could apply to any audience, I hadn’t meant to accidentally single out a group.
*While a certain willingness to not investigate further may anecdatally explain the variable quality of SL diaspora touring dhamma preachers, it might equally explain many or most strange religious phenomena in any group.
I mean, “a certain willingness to not investigate further” sounds like a decent definition of avijja. Can’t get more universal than that.
I wonder whether it is, considering that even an Anagami is fettered by Avijja.
I apologize for being a late-comer here; I just got the D&D notification in my mailbox. I had never heard of Waharaka before: so, thank you, @prabhath!
Although the context is somewhat different (perhaps even quite different), as soon as I heard mention of a charismatic Sri Lankan monk with novel interpretations of Pali terms which lie completely outside the pale of conventional linguistics which purport to recover the Buddha’s “true” message, I immediately thought of the recently deceased Ven. Punnaji.
Two questions which spring to mind are:
Because I have seen passionate reactions on the forum when I’ve previously questioned Ven. Punnaji’s textual exegeses, let me just say that, in 9 out of 10 cases, I personally agree with and subscribe to Ven Punnaji’s conclusions–even though I often cannot agree with the linguistic explanations by which he arrived at them.
As I said above, I’ve come across a few touring Sri Lankan bhikkhus who had their own particular interpretations , so I presume it’s quite common. I don’t want to sound negative - these interpretations often seemed quite insightful. However, one does get an impression from Sri Lankans in general that being speakers of a language related to Pali gives them particular authority regarding the meaning of Pali terms. This can also sometimes be a problem with Thai speakers (and probably Burmese). Although Thai is obviously a completely different language, it does have a significant number of Pali and Sanskrit loan words.
I was also going to ask the same thing!
I wonder if this is because of the strong commentarial tradition/education. A not insignificant feature of the commentaries is analyzing terms.
Interestingly, I had never heard of Ven. Punnaji before, so I guess there is that difference 
Waharaka is far more popular in Sri Lanka—popular enough for at least some traditionalists to entertain the thought of introducing draconian legislative measures to eliminate the possibility of alternative interpretations.
The way I see it, Waharaka is a rare exception and not the norm at all. The vast majority of Sri Lankan Sangha and laity adhere to the traditional Theravada interpretation of the texts—deviations are often minor, and not wholesale like we’re seeing with Waharaka. Even when a new movement or cult arises, it is rarely based on new etymologies: they usually distinguish themselves from what texts they consider authoritative or how certain instructions in the texts are understood and practiced. They usually don’t go to the extent of trying to introduce new origins for familiar Pali words.