Ven Kiribathgoda Nanananda (Mahmeunawa) & Ven Sri Samanthabadra (Sri Lankan monks)

Interesting…I have read comments from people saying similar things particularly about Thanisarro before. When I’ve gone to investigator further I’m unable to find solid information and come to a dead end (may be that my googling is prejudice!).
Anyways I have no vested interest other than having read some of the books he’s written and listening to his talks. I’d really appreciate any source you have so that I’m better informed as to the issues people have raised. Hope this is not hijacking the original thread.
With respect

Please search in Dhamma Wheel.
There are tons of discussion about this subject.

Counter 1.37 Ven. S says that Nibbana is the seventh sense. This is in line with that Nibbana as another type of consciousness. His teachings are definitly not Theravada.

According to ven. N , Abhidhamma was taught to non-humans in tawtisa so humans can’t understand it as their investigation skill is lower than deities. I think I prefer ven.S’s talks with his mistakes. :joy::joy::joy:

This is the video of ven.S presenting the report on errors of the Tripitaka by ven. N to Malwatu maha nayaka and anunayaka theros.

Ironically yet sadly, today–on the international women’s day, I came across an article penned by Ven Kiribathgoda Gnanananda, where he speaks about women in an extremely derogatory manner.

In this above article, Ven. KG teaches that it is not suitable for a woman to touch a Bodhi tree. If she wishes to adorn a Garland around the tree, she should be assisted by a man. He also says, Venable Sangamitta Theri did not touch the sapling of the Bodhi tree Buddha sat under, even though she was the one brought it down to SL from India, protecting it during the journey.

Further down, he uses vivid derogatory adjectives to describe women.

The whole article is about the rituals that should be followed when venerating bodhi trees.

He entices his followers by instilling the fear of hell and talking about the pleasures of heaven.

In the above article, venerable Kiribathgoda Gnananada says that in heaven, gods congregate on a poya day and write down the merits and demerits of humans in a golden journal and hand it over to Sakra, the king of gods.

Unfortunately, both these monks have a huge follower base.

If the moderators feel that this comment is inappropriate, and accusing sangha, feel free to delete.


That is so very sad to hear.


This particular claim isn’t the thera’s invention. It’s from the commentarial elaboration of the assembly described in the Mahāgovinda Sutta, DN19.

From Malalasekera’s Dictionary of Pali Proper Names:

The Four Kings appear to have been regarded as Recorders of the happenings in the assemblies of the devas (D.ii.225). On the eighth day of the lunar half-month, they send their councillors out into the world to discover if men cultivate righteousness and virtue; on the fourteenth day they send their sons, on the fifteenth day they themselves appear in the world, all these visits having the same purpose. Then, at the assembly of the devas, they submit their report to the gods of Tāvatiṃsa, who rejoice or lament according as to whether men prosper in righteousness or not (A.i.142 f; for more details see AA.i.376 f).


In the Dīpavaṃsa’s and Mahāvaṃsa’s narratives of Buddhist “eternal recurrence”, each of the Bodhi tree saplings of past Buddhas is carried to Sri Lanka by a bhikkhunī. In some of the narratives (e.g. that of Rucānandā with the Bodhi tree of Kakusandha Buddha) it’s reported that the bhikkhunī did touch the tree; in others (e.g. Saṅghamittā with Gotama Buddha’s tree) no mention is made of whether she touched the tree or not. None of them contain any explicit statement to the effect that “Bhikkhunī So-and-so was careful not to lay a finger on the tree.”


Is there a logic in women not touching atree?
I think this sort of views are clinging to rites and rituals.

I suppose that the ‘logic’ would derive from extra-dhammic folk superstitions. I don’t know what particular form these would take in Sri Lanka, but in Thailand the exclusion of women from certain parts of certain temples is usually justified by appeal to the widespread belief in saksit, the charismatic potency of certain places, objects or persons, and the belief either that (1) saksit will be weakened by the close presence of a woman, or (2) that a woman may be harmed (e.g., become mentally unhinged) if she approaches too close to something very rich in saksit, like a stūpa.

At one Chiang Mai wat I recently visited there was a sign in English prohibiting women from entering the ordination hall. Unusually the sign was accompanied by an explanation in which both undesirable outcomes were invoked:

“Beneath the base of Ubosotha in the monastic boundary,
many precious things, incantations, amulets,
and other holy objects were buried over 500 years ago.
Entering inside this area may deteriorated the place
or otherwise the lady herself.”

At this same wat a couple of years ago three women did enter the ordination hall. Their action resulted in a certain man becoming unhinged. :thinking:


Perhaps it is something wrong wih the man. (sick)

1 Like

There is no any restrictions for wome except they are expected to ware some decent dreeses not thought provoking.

1 Like

Interesting. Does the Theravada tradition hold these commentarial elaborations as valid or tue? Also, I could not find the author. Maybe, that should explain where these elaborations are considered important.

The commentaries don’t actually rate themselves as being infallibly correct in their exposition of Dhamma. In fact in their listing of sources according to their degree of authoritativeness the commentaries modestly put themselves in third place:

Sutta: the whole of the Tipiṭaka.
Suttānuloma: what may be directly inferred from the Tipiṭaka
Atthakathā: commentary.
Attanomati: personal opinion, the weakest source of authority.

Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that the mainstream of the Theravāda does tend to treat the commentaries as “valid and true”. For example, most monastic education in Theravādin Asia takes it as a given that a canonical text is correctly understood only when it’s understood in the light of its commentary. There are of course plenty of dissenters in this matter, and the Theravāda in practice is a broad enough church to tolerate them.

Buddhaghosa is the author of the commentaries to all of the first four Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka.


Or did you mean the authors of the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa? If so, the former is unknown; the oldest portion of the latter is attributed to Mahānāma of Dīghasaṇḍa.


This explains. Thanks.

Claiming authority in such judgments is a bit presumptive – who can, other than as a matter of view, determine “core” teaching?.

In my opinion:
Four Noble Truths are the core teaching.
Hence Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta teaching are core teaching.
I do not consider some Sutta and Jataka tale etc core teaching.

1 Like

In terms of, for instance:
(Note: the Table of Contents is at the end)

Where might be, other than tactical quibbles, definitive “distortion”?