OK , I see , my English is limited , my apologies for the misunderstanding ! Thanks .
4 Likes
Each kind of language in any case will try to suit the need of their " time space and culture " background , hence , unless we have for example , a Chinese to English translation by a Chinese scholar , perhaps things will be easier for comparison ! Vice versa !
3 Likes
[quote=“James2997, post:63, topic:4986, full:true”]
OK , I see , my English is limited , my apologies for the misunderstanding ! Thanks .
[/quote]That is quite Ok, I did not mean to accidentally insult the Chinese, if that it what it seemed like I was doing.
Incidentally, if you are interested, 行塔 is a word in Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, it appears in a lot of Chinese Buddhist literature in general, but mostly in a Mahāyāna context, it is not a word that is encountered in EBTs. So, in an EBT, if one encountered 行塔, one would have to think long and hard, and do a great deal of research, to see if this word is in other contemporaneous Buddhist literature of the time that is in Chinese, failing to find that, one would have to intuit, based on context, what the individual meanings of 行 & 塔 were, and then try to see if there is justification for applying the reading to them, as it would be one of the first instances of its usage, I believe at least, I could be wrong.
For instance, the only “sūtra” I could find 行塔 in was a very late Mahāyāna treatise, the 貞元新定釋教目錄. It comes up very frequently in Buddhist texts in general, but it is late to the Buddhavacana, and absent from the language of the āgamāḥ.
[quote=“James2997, post:64, topic:4986, full:true”]
Each kind of language in any case will try to suit the need of their " time space and culture " background , hence , unless we have for example , a Chinese to English translation by a Chinese scholar , perhaps things will be easier for comparison ! Vice versa !
[/quote]Certainly the input of Chinese scholars is invaluable in the area of āgama studies 
Edit: Also apologies if my English is unclear to you, I admit that one of my flaws is that I have a hard time explaining myself shortly and quickly.
4 Likes
No worries , Genuine discussion complement each other ,
Negative attitude and arguments dishonour ourselves . 
Good night , with Metta .
2 Likes
Millinda Pañha, by your favor 
2 Likes
Thomas Rhys Davids was level-headed till the very end and never shared his wife’s views regarding an alleged monkish conspiracy to replace the Buddha’s original True Self teaching with the anattā doctrine.
Caroline herself was generally sound in her earlier works, like her translation of the Therigāthā, co-translation of the Kathāvatthu, and the Abhidhamma-related articles she published during the period when she was in correspondence with Ledi Sayadaw. The dodgy stuff is the post-Great War material, such as her introductions and annotations to Woodward’s and Hare’s translations, along with her own articles and books.
5 Likes
Hello Everyone,
Rajitha asked me join the discussion and provide my input. I run the puredhamma.net website, and would be happy to answer any questions about the material at that website. I also only knew about the “modern interpretation” of anicca, dukkha, anatta too, until I found the interpretation of the late Waharaka Thero a few years ago. I started the website especially to share those interpretations with those who cannot access the Waharaka Thero’s deasanas (they are all in Sinhala).
The easiest approach to solve this issue with the interpretations of anicca and anatta is to compare the two sets of meanings with the suttas in the Tipitaka. The correct meanings need to provide consistent interpretations of different suttas.
-
We have the “modern interpretation” or MI: “icca” (pronounced “ichcha”) and “anicca” (pronounced “anichcha”) mean permanence and impermanence.
“Atta” (pronounced “aththa”) and “anatta” (pronounced “anaththa”) mean “self” and “no self” OR “soul” and “no soul”. -
Then we have Waharaka Thero’s interpretation, which we can call “Waharaka interpretation” or WI.
“Icca” and “anicca” mean “what one desires” and “what one desires cannot be maintained to one’s liking”.
“Atta” and “anatta” mean “one can find permanent happiness in this world” and “one cannot find permanent happiness in this world” OR “there is something in this world that has substance” and “there is nothing in this world that has substance” depending on the context. But both are inter-consistent.
Anatta, at the end also means one is “helpless in this world, because one will only suffer trying to find happiness in this world”.
Anicca and Anatta have very deep meanings depending on how far one analyzes those words. Think about how many different ways one can describe vinnana, loosely translated as “consciousness”. Even outside Buddha Dhamma, philosophers describe consciousness in many different ways. Anicca, dukkha, anatta are even more deeper concepts.
So, one cannot define any of those three words by just one word.
Now let us take a few examples and analyze with the above two interpretations:
“Sabbe dhammä anattä” comes out as “all things are not self” in MI. How can dhamma have a self in any case? Is that even a sensible statement?
On the other hand, any dhamma in this world cannot be said to have substance, in WI. The Buddha said even the Buddha Dhamma needs to be abandoned after one reaches Nibbana, just like a raft needs to be abandoned after crossing a river.
“Sabbe sankhara aniccä” comes out as “all sankhara are impermanent” in MI. Sankhara are what we think our thoughts: here it particularly refers to our hope and desires. Why does that become a grand statement? It is obvious that our thoughts are impermanent.
On the other hand, all those desires of ours cannot be fulfilled in the long run (in the WI). Even if one can generate a lot of worth by working hard, all those acquired things will be lost at death. Furthermore, those actions used to acquire wealth can lead to bad consequences in future lives.
Another example from the Anatta Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.14): “…Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṃ anattā“. How can an inert rupa or vedana, sanna, sankhara can be “self” anyway (in the MI)?
On the other hand, all those are without substance (in the WI). In the end, no matter how rich, famous, etc one becomes, one always dies, and most times suffers a lot in the old age even before dying. Aging and death cannot be avoided. This is what each of us have been doing in the beginning-less samsara (rebirth process) one life after another. And most lives have much more suffering (when born in the apayas).
many suttas including AjjhattaniccaSutta, Bahiranicca Sutta, and Yadanicca sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.15), the Buddha stated that the three characteristics of “this world” are RELATED to each other:
“yadaniccam tan dukkham, yan dukkham tadanatta” (“yad aniccam tan dukkham, yan dukkham tad anatta”), i.e.,
“if something is anicca, dukkha arises, therefore anatta”.
This “something” could be anything in this world. Anything (“sabba”) in this world can be described by many ways, but usually by rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana (pancakkhanadha).
Example: Suppose X has cancer. If that cancer becomes impermanent (i.e., if it goes away), would that lead to X’s suffering? X would be subjected to suffering only if that cancer becomes permanent, i.e., only if X’s liking (to get rid of the cancer) cannot be realized.
In the Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta, it says, “yam pi iccam na labhati tam pi dukkham”.
If “na labhati” means “not realized” or “not achieved”, then it becomes (in the MI), “if one does not get it (na labhati) something that is permanent that leads to suffering”. That is again, not something to make a statement about, even though nothing wrong with it.
On the other hand (in the WI), “If one does not get what one likes (icca), then that leads to suffering”. That is a statement that has a meaning.
If anyone has any evidence from the Pali Tipitaka against the above reasoning, OR, if one can point to any flaws in the above description, I would be happy to discuss.
If one is really interested in digging deeper into how these interpretations got distorted gradually over basically past 1500 years, I would recommend the section “Historical Background” at my website:
One could get a decent idea by reading at least the following posts in the following order:
and the last several posts starting with the post,
With metta, Lal
1 Like
A rather obvious flaw is that anicca in the suttas is consistently contrasted with nicca, and not with icca or iccha.
For example, in the Anattalakkhaṇasutta the Buddha asks the five bhikkhus:
“Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vāti?”
He does not ask them:
“Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ icchaṃ vā anicchaṃ vāti?”
6 Likes
Hi Lal, thanks for your readiness to answer our questions! 
I have a couple of questions as to Rajitha if you don’t mind:
I. the Pali word attha අත්ථ is actually masculine or neutral, which makes the hypothetical *Rūpaṃ … anatthā රූපං … අනත්ථා a grammatical impossibility unless it is in Ablative (very unlikely), and the hypothetical *atthatthā අත්ථත්ථා in SN 44.10 would be completely impossible under all grammatical circumstances - as far as I can see. The correct form would have been either Rūpaṃ … anattho රූපං … අනත්ථො or Rūpaṃ … anatthaṃ රූපං … අනත්ථං - and I do not find it anywhere in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. So, 1) why was the final vowel of attho changed and lengthened to attā? If it was done for rhythmical reasons then what are these rhythimcal reasons exactly? Could you provide other examples of it in the Pali texts? Why didn’t it happen in paramattho, attattho, uttamattho (all in Nom Sing here for the sake of convenience)?
II. When did this change occur? Ven. Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhimagga:
… Asārakaṭṭhena anattā … (Chapter XI) - anattā in the sense of not having substance/core/essence
Parato, rittato, tucchato, suññato, assāmikato, anissarato, avasavattitotiādīhi kāraṇehi anattato passati. (Chapter XXI) - [He sees all formations as anatta for the following reasons:] because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on
More about anatt(h)a in this chapter. Please note I am referring not to the spelling but to the meaning of Ven. Buddhaghosa’s statements that contradicts the attha interpetation. So when and why did this change happen and why no single monk in the ancient Sri Lanka speaking a pristine form of Elu and having a solid command of Pali noticed anything?
III. Why can Sinhala words be used for interpreting Pali? We don’t use French to interpret Latin, we don’t use Russian to interpret Church Slavonic. Why is Sinhala different?
IV. Why don’t you consider the Sinhala word api that most probably comes from atmān. Rajitha expressee doubts as to how it is possible, so here’s my very preliminary etyomological chain: atmān > atvā > atpā > appā > apā > api. There were possibly a few more stages, but the rough picture is pretty clear. Cf. Maharastri, Apabhramsa, or Ardhamagadhi:
V. Why do you use a Sanskrit loanword in Sinhala (artha) to explain a Pali term? Why can’t we use Sanskrit words proper, then?
VI. What are the etymologies of the Sinhala words you compare Pali terms with? Cold you please provide a link to your scholarly sources?
VII. What do you think about the evidence of other Canon recensions as outlined by @Coemgenu in his great comment:
2 Likes
Oh, one more question that I completely forgot to ask in my previous comment.
VIII. When you say that a word is pronounced ‘aththa’, what is the exact phonetic value of th? I am asking because in English th stands for interdental consonants absent in Sinhala and Pali. Instead, these languages have dental plosives that are absent in English (the t plosive is actually alveolar in English). So why use such an odd transliteration?
2 Likes
Sorry. I may not have gotten the hang of how to quote others. I am in a rush right now. Will figure it out later.
Dhammanando said:
A rather obvious flaw is that anicca in the suttas is consistently contrasted with nicca, and not with icca or iccha.
For example, in the Anattalakkhaṇasutta the Buddha asks the five bhikkhus:
“Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vāti?”
He does not ask them:
“Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ icchaṃ vā anicchaṃ vāti?”
Answer:
Icca is basically “liking or craving”. When icca is strong, one has the sanna (perception) of nicca: that one always keep it that way. Anicca means that perception is wrong.
Yes. It is more correct to say, anicca is opposite of nicca. But that nicca comes from icca.
One can see this in the Icca sutta (or Iccha sutta as appears in Sutta Central: https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn1.69
“Kenassu bandathi loko? kissa vinayaya muccati? kissassa vippahanena, sabba jindati bandanthi?
Iccaya bandathi loko, icca vinayäya muccathi, iccaya vipahanena, sabban jindathi bandanthi“
Translated:
“What binds the world together? How does one get released? How can one gain release?
The world is bound by icca, one becomes free by losing icca, one becomes free of all bonds by losing icca“
Regarding the two comments by Vstakan:
Atta has the deeper meaning of “without refuge” and other similar attributes. As I said, these words cannot be restricted to have just one word definitions. Atta is also a perception, so I would say it is gender neutral.
When one thinks one can maintain what one likes, then one has the nicca sanna, and that leads to the perception that one has full control, atta sanna.
But the Buddha said, no matter how one feels that way in the short term, in the long term both those perceptions are wrong.
As I said, it is hard to explain how the interpretations changed over 1500 years in a comment like this. That is why I gave the references at the website. Now, if those explanations are not correct, I would be happy to discuss. Simply state the post and the statement that is wrong.
As for the pronunciation of words, there is a glossary with pronunciations at the website:
And for the comment by @Coemgenu that you referred to: Pali Canon is still intact. One way know that is all the suttas and abhidhamma material etc are all inter-consistent. There are no contradictions. That is the ultimate test.
Problems arise when people start quoting commentaries such as Visuddhimagga (which is unnecessary, since we have the Tipitaka) and also interpret the Tipitaka incorrectly, in my humble opinion. Commentaries are supposed to be used if it is hard to interpret the Tipitaka. There are three original commentaries in the Tipitaka (Patisambhidamagga, Petakopadesa, and Nettippakarana) that are reliable.
With metta, Lal
Well, I didn’t find the answers to my questions on your website. Would you be so kind to give them specific answers here?
Oh, thanks a lot, that is most helpful. However, I still don’t understand why you use this weird transliteration with th for dental plosive. Conventionally dental plosives are transliterated as t or d, and what you write as a plain t is actually a retroflex ṭ with a dot below it.
I mean, this is not a criticism, this is rather a piece of advice: change your transliteration system please. It is not accurate from the phonetic point of view and is actually misleading for Westerners. It will only help your cause if we don’t have to figure out what these weird th combination is supposed to sound like
Beg your pardon? Could you please provide a linguistic explanation for it, with prefixes, word stems and all that?
So much that the word looses its meaning. However place it in context, and it has a specific meaning.
Apply a misplaced meaning in the wrong context, the result is a personal view that goes against all teaching of the Bhukkhus in Sri Lanka!
Not even the ‘group of five’, not even Alavaka or Angulimala or even Devadata himself perverted the Dhamma - please be careful!
with metta
Matheesha
1 Like
Above comments do not provide any useful information. Can any of you contradict my points in the my above two posts or from my website?
Please highlight any point that I have given and provide evidence against it from the Tipitaka. Just stating your own belief, no matter how forcefully you state it, does not count.
I will make further comments only if someone can provide any legitimate arguments, or reasonable questions. Buddha Dhamma needs to be learned with wisdom. But it is up to each person to make their own decisions.
With metta, Lal
Gosh! I don’t believe I have ever seen this many jockstraps twisted and sunk so deep all thinking has ceased.
Some seem to think the blessed Buddha’s all important “no-self” doctrine is under attack. That is not so. If anything the new revision strengthens it further. How does this happen?
The self-identity is the hardest of all to be removed. The current meaning of Anatha suggests one could simply sit in a corner and repeat to oneself form, perception, cognition are “not-self” - one’s conceit-of-self will magically vanish. This is not so.
The proof is in the pudding where absolutely no one has achieved enlightenment that way for the last thousand odd years. One cannot talk oneself out of this thing called self. The problem needs to be tackled indirectly.
How so? John Kay here demonstrates how such complex goals are best achieved indirectly. He calls it Obliquity,
So how does one remove the conceit of “I”, in oblique fashion?
> "Perception, O monks, is futile without refuge; if perception were beneficial, then perception would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not beneficial, therefore, perception leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.'
The aggregates are the 5 pillars holding up the conceit of self. The blessed Buddha says attack the pillars constantly imagining, thinking its futility. Then he says the passion for the pillars fades away collapsing the conceit-of-self to the ground.
"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
So that is what Ven. Waharaka revision of Anatha achieves. That is why he is a noble being and many others before were not.
I don’t think people here are disputing that saying that the five aggregates are futile or not to be clung to is a nice way to point people to how you deal with them with right view.
Many retreats lead by skillful and venerable teachers may have that as an agenda item, as people do need to be made confident that it is by letting go of the process of identification with aggregates the aggregates that the first steps in the path are taken. Sakkaya-ditthi is a first key fetter to be abandoned after all!
The issue is forcing the Buddha to have said so using a questionable etymological argument armoured by an argument of faith in terms of making the one who proposes it a infallible being (i.e.saying that because the venerable in question is assumed to be an arahant he must be right).
Given that this forum is concerned with EBTs you should only expect people here to be as suspicious as they have been being when proposed such unsupported alternative reading of something so consistently put otherwise across the Canon.
4 Likes
Perhaps you check yours first!
It appears that you have no regard for this highly respected forum. You remind me of your teacher Ven. Abhaya who also has the similar attitude towards others. Perhaps this is what you are learning from him.
1 Like
What is the meaning of “Anatta Lakkhana”?
My understanding of Lakkhana means - features or characteristic.
When I was small I asked my mother how the devil look like.
She said it is black and ugly.
So every time I saw a black and ugly person I thought that it was the devil.
Now I know everything black and ugly is not the devil.
The only way you understand the devil is by meeting him face to face.
The same way you will realise anatta by attaining Sotapanna.
Anicca, Dukkha and lack of controls are the sign or features of Anatta.
So we have to leave the word Anatta untranslated.
The question comes whether if something Nicca and Sukha is Atta.
This is a wrong analogy because Atta is a wrong mental attitude.
How can you explain something which does not exist?
Further to Ven Dhammanando’s post:
To apply this to the anattalakkhana sutta:
Taṃ kimmaññatha bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā’ti? Aniccaṃ bhante.
“What do you think, monks — Is form not(what one desires cannot be maintained to one’s liking) permanent or not(not(what one desires cannot be maintained to one’s liking
)) impermanent?” SN22.59
It becomes meaningless very quickly and the meaning of impermanence becomes meaningful. Lal may well know the Dhamma but out of context and when it is applied inconsistently it makes no sense. Do you also believe stream entrants were made listening to him for 10 days?