|
Revealing the heresies of Swarna and Presenting the Truth to the IntelligentHer name is Swarna and she claims to be a disciple of one Siriwardhana. She claims to have realized the truth in Buddhism, after listening to her teacher. Of course, it is obvious that she is feigning to have attained some sort of super knowledge. She has presented 21 points through websites. Though these appearing to be logical on surface, in fact are mere fallacious based on false and unfounded assumptions. The purpose of this letter is to disclose her ulterior motive of destroying Buddhism by proclaiming fallacious, illogical points of view. Her presentation of facts itself is evidence to show how muddle headed she is. We are not quite sure whether we could save her from the net of fallacies she is caught in. However, we have a duty by you, to help you to escape from falling into the trap laid by her to mislead you and lead you to a wilderness of heretical views. She cleverly has chosen an appealing title “BUDDHISM, AS PRACTISED TODAY”, and enumerates facts in a numerical order. However, our analysis of her views and other presentation of facts are not in that numerical sequence, but in accordance with the order of facts. Basically she rejects all Buddhist sacred scriptures and says that the language of Pali is of very late origin. She also claims that in the process of transmission from language to language the doctrine has been distorted. On this basis she argues that it is useless to study the suttas, and those are of no use at all for the purpose of realization of Nibbana. We shall examine her claim. Point No. 18 –
Swarna’s Buddhism:
The 4th Samgayana was held 500 odd years after the passing away
of the Buddha. This was
headed by a ‘Sthavira” and not an ‘Arahant’, which means by a
person who did not have the enlightened vision.
At this time there was already sects in the Sasana and it’s
documented that certain sects did not participate.
Doesn’t this segregation prove that the pure doctrine was
corrupted even at that time? Reply to Point No. 18: She is of the view that the 4th Buddhist Council was held 500 years after the Buddha’s passing away, and this council was headed by a non-Arahant Monk. Now we have to ask her where this (Theravada) council was held, who was the Chief Monk at this Council, and in what ways did the doctrine get distorted therein? What was the state of Buddhism at that time, and what is her source of information? The best sources for the history of Buddhism are the canonical texts and the Sri Lankan chronicles. According to these sources the Dhamma, Vinaya rehearsed at the 1st Council by Arahant monks belong to the Theravada tradition. It was this tradition that was introduced to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda. As far as we know there was no Theravada Buddhist council held 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha. The reign of King Valagamba was a period of calamity. The monks had to toil very hard to preserve the tradition in this time of adversity. If not for their valiant efforts the doctrine would have been completely lost. After the situation became normal they gathered together to discuss steps that should be taken to prevent the loss of the doctrine if such a situation occurred again. It was as a result of this that the Dhamma which was in the Pali language was committed into writing at Aluvihara. For this purpose the script used was Sinhale. This happened around B C 440-451 years. The charge she makes that the Dhamma by that time was distorted and did not represent the early pure teachings is utterly illogical and unfounded, and therefore nothing but a false charge. Point No. 19 – Swarna’s Buddhism: Buddhism was documented much later and in Sri Lanka. By this time Mahayana Buddhism had already engulfed the island and the monks were separated into sects, which means the pure doctrine was corrupted. Doesn’t this amply prove that the books that were written do not have the pure doctrine? Reply to Point No. 19: According to her, by the time the texts were committed into writing Sri Lanka had come under the clutches of Mahayana and therefore, the doctrine of that time cannot be called pure Theravada. This is a silly point of view, for Mahayana had not come into existence by that time. However, there was a sect called the Mahasanghikas at that time in India. But the Tripitaka introduced to Sri Lanka by Ven. Mahinda has nothing to do with this Mahasanghika sect. The early sources are very clear on this point. By this time there was no sectarian division in Sri Lanka. All monks belonged to Mahavihara tradition. Sectarian division started during the reign of Valagamba who built the Abhayagiri Vihara, which at a later date became separate headquarters of Buddhist monks. But this division was not based on any doctrinal difference. Had Swarna paid little more attention to the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, she would not have been forced to make such unfounded declaration. Point No. 20 – Swarna’s Buddhism: The Buddha preached in the ‘Magadha’ language, which was very close to Sinhala. When monk Buddhagosha came to Sri Lanka, he translated all Buddhist scripts to Pali and wrote his own book called ‘Visuddhi Magga’. Isn’t this again an interpretation of an interpretation, corrupting the doctrine even further? How much credit can we give to a versions written by someone without the enlightened vision? Reply to Point No. 20: Once again Swarna makes bare her ignorance. Now, Magadhi is the language of Magadha region and it is another name for Pali. At the 1st Buddhist Council Pali or Magadhi was the language used. Had there been any other language in which the Buddha preached, the learned monks in the council, who were close associates of the Buddha, would have certainly used that language. Their use of this particular language vouches for the fact that it was in Pali that the Buddha preached. At the time of Ven. Mahinda arrived in Sri Lanka the native language of the island was not called Sinhala, but known as “dipa bhasa”, the language of the island, and this was closely related to the Brahmi language of Asokan inscriptions. Ven. Mahinda used the Pali language to preach to the people, but used the native language for the purpose of commenting on suttas and it is these that became known as Sinhala-atthakatha. Venerable Buddhagosa came to Sri Lanka in the 5th century AC and translated these Sinhala-atthakatha or Sinhala commentaries on the texts into Pali. He was not translating the canonical texts. His Visuddhimagga is a text written to show his proficiency to convince the Mahavihara monks that he was capable of undertaking such a daunting task of translating the Sinhala-commentaries into Pali. So it is groundless to say that Buddhism got adulterated at the hand of Ven. Buddhagosa. This lady is spreading all these baseless ideas just to disparage Buddhism, for that is her aim as well as the aim of her mentor. Perhaps, they have some ulterior motive for this, and they may stand to gain by this. Point No. 17 –
Swarna’s Buddhism:
After the passing away of the Buddha, the 1st to the 3rd
Samgayanas were headed by Arahants. The
Dhamma was discussed here but not written down even though writing was in
existence. Isn’t this
because the enlightenment is a vision and cannot be put down in words but
could only be explained with relative words and examples depending on the
listener? Reply
to Point No. 17 She while rejecting all scriptures, in the same view says that the first three Councils were conducted by Arahants. If she rejects scriptural evidences, from where did she gather this information? While denouncing all scriptures as distortions, she accepts certain facts in them when they suit her line of argument. The Chullavagga accounts of the 1st Council clearly narrates how its affairs were conducted, what steps were taken to classify, categorize and preserve the Dhamma-Vinaya in their pristine purity. The Buddha admonished his disciples to preserve the oral tradition of the Dhamma. What is most surprising is that Swarna says that the Dhamma cannot be transmitted through words, cannot be turned into verbal expressions. Therefore, according to her there was no memorizing of Dhamma. If so was there anything left for the Arahants to rehearse at the Council? Point No. 16 –
Swarna’s Buddhism:
The Buddha knew several languages (8, as I am told). Written language existed in that society as the 3 Vedas were
already documented and in existence.
Then why did not the Buddha with his infinite wisdom ask his
disciples to write this doctrine down?
This wonderful Dhamma that is so rare and valuable?
Isn’t it because an ‘akalika’ Dhamma could not be written
down? Reply to Point No. 16Her concerted attack is directed to scriptures, to recorded Dhamma. It is not clear why she despises the scriptures so much. Her fallacious assertions quite well reflect the level of understanding of her peculiar mentor. She says that the Buddha knew 8 languages, but provides no evidence for this. The Vinaya records how when two Brahmin disciples of the Buddha requested Buddha’s permission to render the teaching into Sanskrit, the Buddha did not agree to this request. He advised them to preserve doctrine in Magadhi itself. The oral tradition was maintained even in Sri Lanka. It was only on a consequence of the adverse conditions during the reign of Valagamba that forced the monks to commit the doctrine into writing. In spite of writing these down the ‘Reciters’ or the Bhanakes as they are called in Pali, continued with the oral transmission of the scriptures. She makes a funny claim when she says that as the doctrine is ‘timeless’ (akalika) it cannot be reduced to writing. This makes very clear that she is totally ignorant of the meaning of the term ‘akalika’. What this term really means is that it could be understood at any period of time. This in fact refers to the ‘Four Noble Truths’ which was first presented in the Dhammacakkapavattana sutta which was put down in writing. Did not the Buddha use language when he preached for 45 years? Point No. 15 –
Swarna’s Buddhism:
The Buddha’s doctrine is one where there is no ‘self’.
Then when we take the five precepts as a person, are we not
establishing the self-view, which is what we have to get rid of to attain
enlightenment? Reply to Point No. 15Her next target is the observation of precepts. She, for some unknown reason, appears to hate observance of ‘Sil’. Besides, she has got bogged down with the two terms – pudgala (person) and atma (soul/self). Buddha’s attitude to the belief in a soul is clearly stated in the Anatta-lakkhana sutta, which is now recorded in writing. In this sutta the Buddha takes up each of the five aggregates namely, form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana) shows that none of these should be viewed as ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’ or ‘this is my soul’. The belief in the soul is a vain attempt to keep within one’s control things which are dependently arisen and therefore not capable of bringing within the range of one’s supervision and control. The Buddha clearly demonstrates that one cannot demand any of the aggregates to behave in the way one wishes it to be. Swarna has failed to grasp this subtle teaching. She confuses the two terms ‘pudgala’ and ‘atta’, and maintains that these two terms are synonymous. It is well known that one observes the five precepts in order to regulate one’s verbal and physical behaviour and not to establish oneself in a soul-view. She maintains that by observing eight precepts one gets more entrenched in the soul-view, and it increases when one observes the ten precepts. If so by receiving higher ordination the situation will get further worsened! Does not such a silly view clearly bring to light how deeply sunk she is in ignorance. Point No. 01 – Swarna’s Buddhism: Today the heart of Buddhism is mediation. During Prince Siddhartha’s time, meditation already prevailed in society and he went from teacher to teacher studying meditation. If Prince Siddhartha attained enlightenment by meditation, he cannot be ‘Samma Sambuddha’ as a Samma Sambuddha is one who finds the way to Nibbana, through his own wisdom and without any assistance from any previous teaching. Reply to Point No. 01 She denounces meditation, and thus she does not have even an iota of understanding about meditation. There are scriptural evidence showing how the Bodhisattva, from his childhood engaged in meditation and how he, in his ‘noble search’ went to different teachers and learnt meditation. The Mahapadana sutta of the Dighanikaya describes how all Buddhas saw the ‘four signs’ (a sick person, an old person, a corpse and an ascetic). Even Bodhisatta Siddhartha Gautama encountered them and that brought about a dramatic change in his life. This made him reflect about the futility of running after things subject to decay, sickness, death, while oneself being subject to such conditions. He reflected deeply on these. The meditation comprising of both concentration and wisdom which is unique to Buddhism. But, what is really unfortunate is that this lady called Swarna is totally ignorant of these facts. Her intention is nothing but to disparage Buddhism. Somehow or other her mind has got bewildered, perhaps by day dreaming or by reading a third class novel. Point No. 02 – Swarna’s Buddhism :
The ascetic Siddhartha, after learning and practicing all types of extreme
meditation for 6 years, gave it up as being useless and started eating
normally to get his health back. During
the Dhamma Chakka Sutra, the Buddha preached that all what he had done up
to the point of enlightenment was worthless and was of no use to anyone.
He had given up the two extreme ends of comfort and discomfort (Ubo
anthe anupagamma). So why are
we practicing meditation to achieve Nibbana, when the Buddha had abandoned
it as pointless for this purpose? Reply to Point No. 02 She undoubtedly is very cunning. When she wishes to denounce the scriptures, she boldly maintains that they are composed by ignorant, non-arahants. But when she wants to establish a point she quotes from the very same scriptures to support her contention. She at one time says that the Dhammacakka sutta is a concoction of Ven. Buddhagosa, and again when it suits her she quotes the very same sutta as authority. What a lopsided logic she is using!. Her interpretation on the ‘two extremes’ enunciated in the Dhammacakka sutta is wrong. The Buddha very clearly admonishes the disciples not to resort to either of the extremes namely self-mortification or self-indulgence. “Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures which is low, coarse, the way of the ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self mortification, which is painful, unworthy and unprofitable”. “Avoiding both extremes, the Tathagata (The Perfect One) has realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana. And what is that Middle Path realized by the Tathagata? It is the Noble Eightfold path, and nothing else, namely: 1. Right Understanding (clear comprehension of the Four Noble Truths) 2. Right Thought (thoughts of renunciation, of goodwill and of compassion or non-harm) 3. Right Speech (to abstain from falsehood, tale bearing, harsh and abusive speech, and idle chatter and instead speak words which are meaningful and blameless) 4. Right Action (abstinence from killing, stealing and sexual misconduct) 5. Right Livelihood (abstinence from wrong and unrighteous way of life. 6. Right Effort (the persevering endeavour to prevent the arising of evil and unwholesome thoughts that have not yet arisen, to discard such evil thoughts already arisen, to produce and develop wholesome thoughts not yet arisen, and to promote and maintain the good thoughts already present. 7. Right Mindfulness (the application or arousing of awareness in regard to the activities of the body (kayanupassana); feelings or sensations (vedananupassana), states of mind (cittanupassana) and mental objects (dhammanupassana). 8. Right Concentration (development of calm, concentrated, unified state of consciousness – enter and dwell in the fourfold set of jhanas – the first jhana, the second jhana, the third jhana and the forth jhana. In this Path the training is concentration (samadhi) that includes the four setting up of mindfulness (cattaro satipatthana) which was up to then unknown to the religious practitioners. At that time many religious men engaged in useless ascetic practices and those are described in Mahasihanada and Ariyapariyesana suttas . It is so even today. Many of the sages in Himalayas engage in such useless ascetic practices. When the Dhammacakka sutta clearly says that one should cultivate the three kinds of training in virtue, concentration and wisdom, it is hard to understand what this lady is arguing about. Her sole aim is to deviate the followers from the right path and lead them astray. Point No. 03 – Swarna’s Buddhism : The Buddha preached that the way to Nibbana was ‘Chetho Vimukthiya’ which means being liberated from all thought. Meditation is the concentration on one though, what ever it may be. If meditation was the way, the probably Asitha, Alara Kalama and Uddhaka Ramaputta, who were Prince Siddhartha’s teachers, would have become enlightened long before ascetic Siddhartha, as they had reached the ultimate point of meditation at that time. Even if these ascetics were able to control all worldly thoughts through meditation, they were unaware of the thought in the life continuum itself, which has to be eliminated to come into the enlightened vision. Reply to Point No. 03 She does not disclose her source of information, but denies even the Buddha’s own autobiographical accounts incorporated in the canonical texts. It is the Buddha himself who says how he learnt under Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. By that time the sage Asita was dead. Suttas such as Bodhiraja Kumara of the Majjhimanikaya records how he as a little child enjoyed in meditation while attending an annual ploughing festival. It also mentions how he utilized this meditation practice, how he entered the four jhanas immediately before directing his mind to the threefold knowledge – remembrance of former births; knowledge of vanishing and reappearing of beings; destruction of cankers, and achieved enlightenment realizing the four Noble Truths. The fourth of the Four Truths deals with the way to emancipation from dukkha and hence called the Path leading to the cessation of suffering. This is not a freedom of the mind (cetovimutti) as explained by Swarna. The cetovimutti presented by her is attainable by any ordinary person. It consists merely of freeing the mind of all thoughts. But the Noble Eightfold Path prepares the mind for the realization of Four Noble Truths. There are four attitudes to be adopted regarding these Four Truths. The first Truth namely dukkha-sacca is to be understood (parinnatabba); the second - dukkha samudaya-sacca to be abandoned (pahatabba); the third – dukkha nirodha sacca to be realized (sacchikatabba); and the forth – dukkha nirodha gaminipatipada sacca to be cultivated (bhavetabba). Destruction of craving is the realization of Arahanthood, release of the mind from craving. This is not a sort of freedom from thoughts, as this woman Swarna makes it appear to be. One can get rid of thoughts and remain without taking any signs. Yet this is not what meant by the Noble Eightfold Path. Even when thoughts are removed ignorance and craving persist and a person who has reached such a state would be born in the sphere of unconscious beings. Birth is suffering. If birth is to be stopped, then its cause craving has to be eradicated. The only Path for this is the Noble Eightfold Path. The term ‘akuppa me cetovimutti’ occurs in the Dhammacakka sutta. This means that the mind has been released by the twelvefold understanding of the Four Noble Truths, that is to understand each truth as satya-nana, krutya-nana and kruta-nana. This freedom of mind remains firm. However, being caught in some kind of misunderstanding this lady discards and rejects the Noble Eightfold Path and posits eradication of mental thoughts as realization of Nibbana. Perhaps, her intention is to make the public believe that she has attained some sort of special realization. Even during the Buddha’s time misguided monks such as Arittha, Sati, Devadatta proclaimed and clung to wrong views. Point No. 04 – Swarna’s Buddhism:
When the Buddha had 60 disciples
who had come into the enlightened vision, the Buddha requested that they
go in all direction and spread the dhamma (Charatha Bhikkave charikam,
bahujana hithaya bahu jana sukhaya).
If there is anyone today, who has achieved enlightenment in the
meditation retreats or anywhere else, why don’t they come forward and
spread the Dhamma? Isn’t
that what the Buddha requested his disciples to do? Reply to Point No. 04 We are unaware as to from where she obtained quotes from the Buddha. The only source for this is the Tripitaka, which she vehemently denounce as presenting a distorted teaching. This event mentioned by the Buddha is recorded in the Mahavagga Pali. Therein the Buddha urges the disciples to go on different way in order to preach the doctrine for the benefit and well being of many. This doctrine is embodied in the Nikayas. The Buddha has shown that the doctrine has to learn through the medium of language, and realized through wisdom. But in spite of such repetitive admonitions by the Buddha, this Swarna insists saying that all dukkha could be eradicated by removal of thoughts. She very systematically directs her attacks on the meditation centers, to monks engaged in popularizing the teaching. She is merely trying to convince the people that she has realized the truth and that her group is spreading the true teachings of the Buddha. Her conceit is quite obvious. Point No. 05 – Swarna’s Buddhism: In all what I have read in the ‘Buddha Charithaya’ (which used to be the text book for GCE ‘O’ level by Venerable Narada), in every instance, persons became enlightened, by listening to Saddhamma and not through meditation. Even monk Ananda, after the passing away of the Buddha, tried valiantly to attain enlightenment before the first Sanghayana and achieved it only when he stopped to rest and not when he was meditating! Reply to Point No. 05 This shows how little she knows about the Dhamma. She has learnt the life story of the Buddha from a students’ handbook on the subject. But she pretends to have read the whole Tripitaka when rejecting doctrinal issues discussed therein. Her mental disease would be cured to an extent had she studied the Buddha-biography as recorded in the cannon. After reading a students’ handbook she has got utterly confused, and this shows how limited her knowledge is. The true life story of the Buddha could be understood from the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka. But she is not fortunate enough to get such knowledge. As if being possessed by the Evil One, she rejects these authentic sources. When people listen to preaching there are some who comprehend the doctrine. Reference to such persons (pudgala) are found in the Sutta rejected by this muddled headed lady. The Anivarana sutta of the Samyuttanikaya is a good example for such a reference. Therein it is described how in some persons who lend their ears to the teaching and reflect on them, knowledge grows, hindrances get suppressed, factors of enlightenment get developed and so on. As this unfortunate lady’s reading is limited to school texts she never finds the opportunity of reading this kind of valuable suttas. From the Anivarana Sutta it is very clear that total attention there arises concentration which leads to the development of Bhavana. A person who is capable of doing this could comprehend the doctrine by listening. It is common knowledge that all in the world are not similar; people differ according to the differences in their faculties. But she insists that meditation is totally unnecessary. The final result of this is that she will never be able to cultivate mindfulness and progress in the Noble Eightfold Path. Her remarks on Ven. Ananda are ridiculous. She disbelieves the Vinaya Pitaka account of Ven. Ananda’s realization of emancipation. In this reference there is no mention whatsoever to Ven. Ananda stopping the practice of meditation. She, being one who does not practice meditation, is totally unaware of the fact that meditation could be practiced employing any of the four bodily postures. We should have pity on her for being so ignorant. It is through her ignorance that she tenaciously hold to the view that emancipation could be obtained through freedom from thoughts. She fails to understand that for emancipation one has to eradicate influxes (asava) and this is how Ven. Ananda got emancipated. It is obvious that she is extremely jealous about people who meditate and possess knowledge about Dhamma. This is why she is so critical of meditation. There is ground for strong suspicion whether she is being supported by groups who are trying to subvert and destroy Buddhism. Point No. 06 – Swarna’s Buddhism:
To Alawaka Yakshaya’s question as to how one could attain wisdom
(enlightenment), the Buddha replied “sussutha labathe panna, appamattho
vichakkano”, one gets wisdom by listening and acceptance through
rational thinking. Therefore
not be mere acceptance through faith. Reply to Point No. 06 Once again she seeks the support of scriptures which she had already rejected as being spurious. She even cites a Pali quotation. However her translation of the quote is wrong. She quotes out of contexts and gives a wrong interpretation to it. The Alavaka sutta occurs at two places in the Sutta Pitaka in the Suttanipata and in the Yakkha Samyutta of the Samyuttanikaya. She has the audacity to quote from very scriptures she rejects as false. We should be cautious not to fall into her trap. The following is the answer given by the Buddha to Alavaka’s question: “Securing faith in the teaching of the Worthy Ones for the attainment of Nibbana, the diligent and discerning person gains wisdom with his eagerness to listen.” She is totally ignorant of Pali and therefore her translation is wrong. Her knowledge of Buddhism is based on elementary school text books. Therefore, it is inevitable that anyone who follows her would also become the laughing stock of the discerning people. Point No. 09 – Swarna’s Buddhism: The Buddha described ten fetters that bind us to this samsaric existence, which we have to eliminate to achieve enlightenment. The first stage of enlightenment is ‘Sovan’ which means getting rid of the first 3 fetters (samyojana), which are ‘Sakkaya Ditti’ (self view), ‘Vichikichcha’ (doubting the Dhamma) and ‘Seelabbatha Paramasa’ (wrong beliefs and wrong rituals). “Kama raga” (craving), is the 4th Fetter, starts to get dormant only in the 2nd stage of enlightenment, which is the stage of ‘Sakrudagami’, and is totally extinguished only at the 3rd stage of Anagami. Then today, why are all Buddhists trying to reduce and get rid of the 4th fetter, craving, to become enlightened? The Buddha has clearly shown that an enlightened person still has craving until he becomes an Anagami and that craving starts to get dormant only after enlightenment? Are we not putting the cart before the horse??? Aren’t we trying to something that cannot be done? Isn’t this one of the reasons that we can’t achieve enlightenment today? Reply to Point No. 09 Though she has been through out rejecting the authority of the text, suddenly she comes out saying that the Buddha had said that there are ten fetters that keep beings bound to samsara. Has she forgotten that she is quoting the very same texts she rejected as being false and spurious? From where did she come to know about Sotapannas, Sakadagamins etc? Is it not from these very texts? Now, where is the true Buddhism she claims to have discovered? Usually the term ‘enlightenment’ is used to denote one who has attained arahantship. Such a person is called an enlightened person. A sotapanna is usually referred to as a ‘stream entrant’. But she avoids this terms and uses the term ‘enlightened’ to denote a stotapanna. Clearly her motive is to establish that she is a sotapanna, and therefore an enlightened one! We have to clarify the meaning of Sakkaya ditthi. It simply means soul-view. It is a view which accepts that there is an abiding, permanent entity, a substance as one or the other of the five aggregates or in these when taken collectively. The texts says this view operates in the ordinary people in twenty different ways. However, when one attains sotapatti stage this view gets eradicated as a sotapanna understands the true nature of the five aggregates. A sotapanna obtains the Right view, the first feature in the Noble Eightfold Path and this is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. Consequently a sotapanna gets rid of both doubt and clinging to rites and rituals. The ‘Sota’ is used in Pali in diverse senses. It denotes also craving, the ear, the Noble Eightfold Path etc. In this context the term ‘sota’ is used to denote the Noble Path. It is also designated as the Dhamma-sota – the stream of doctrine. A person who reaches this dhamma-sota is called a sotapanna. According to her interpretation it is sensual desire that gets eradicated when one becomes an once-returner (sakadagami). But the texts clearly say that the two fetters - sensual desire (kamaraga) and enmity (patigha) get eradicated at this stage. She ridicules all Buddhists by questioning as to why all are trying to eradicate tanha to realize enlightenment. Perhaps she thinks that all Buddhists are ignorant as she is! In order to understand the nature of a Sotapanna she should at least read the Sammaditthi sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. All Buddhists know that Sotapatti is the first stage in the Path of spiritual progress to Nibbana. She claims to be a sotapanna and an enlightened person. She has already been fooled by her own self and now she is trying to drag the other Buddhists to the same plight. She maintains that an enlightened person still has craving. If we call a sotapanna an enlightened one, how are we going to describe an Arahant? All intelligent Buddhists know that a Sotapanna has to establish himself in Right View and further develop the four establishments of mindfulness. To attain anagamihood one has to cultivate Right Concentration and develop jhanic attainments. Yet, this lady discards all meditation practices. She knows nothing about the Path. If one were to follow her teaching there is no doubt that such a one will end up in hell. Point No. 10 – Swarna’s Buddhism:
The Buddha, who conquered
death, said that he does not approve of this world even for a moment. (Asuru
sanak vath mama bhavaya warnana karanne ne). Then, today, why do we take that he preached for a continuous
existence of being born in Deva and Brahma worlds and push off attaining
Nibbana to far off day? Why
do our monks bless us with repeated existence in these worlds? Doesn’t
this seem strange? Isn’t
this the Vedic doctrine? The
Buddha said that as long as the pure doctrine is available, anyone could
attain Nibbana this life itself. So
does this mean that the pure doctrine is no longer in existence among the
Buddhist monks? Reply to Point No. 10 The Buddha never praised existence. She too agrees on this and from where did she get this information? The text record of an Anagami bhikkhu who did not devote enough time for meditation. The Buddha coming to know this and also knowing that this particular bhikkhu has the ability to attain arahantship questioned him. He said that his goal was to obtain birth in the Brahma world and then realize Nibbana. The Buddha told this monk that even a little bit of human dung is bad smelling and similarly existence, however short it may be, is suffering. The Buddha said for this reason he never praise existence. This monk understanding what the Buddha said, and striving hard attained Arahantship within a short time. The Buddha very well knew that all cannot attain Arahantship. If all can become Arahants why should there be any other spiritual stages as Sotapatti etc. The Buddha viewed this world as a lotus pond where there are fully blossomed lotuses as well as buds of different stages of maturity. The Mahaparinibbana sutta refers to many in the Nadika village who had attained different fruits in the spiritual path who after death attained birth accordingly. The Buddha in reply to Ven. Ananda said that of those over fifty had attained non-returner’s stage and were born in the Brahma world; over ninety happened to be once-retunrers and they all were born in different heaven; over five hundreds who were sotapanna attained happy births among gods and men. Many suttas say that according to their knowledge the Sotapannas and the Anagamins are divided into three and five categories respectively. This lady asserts that as long as the pure doctrine lasts any one can realize Nibbana in this very life. She forgets to note that it is so mentioned in the texts which she rejects on being corrupt. However, this is not mentioned exactly in the way she represents it to be. What the Mahaparinibbana sutta says is that as long as the bhikkhus in this dispensation follow the Noble Eightfold Path, the world will not be empty of Arahants. We cannot say that some are not following this path, for none carry placards to announce that they are on the Path. If there are any who have fulfilled the practice of the Path, then certainly even today there could be Arahants in the world. But if any one loudly publicize his attainment of arahantship, then there arises some doubt about it. This is because such public announcement is not keeping with Arahants, for they are totally self-effacing. If a lay- person makes such an announcement it could be due to some sort of misunderstanding of the doctrine or a sort of hallucination. Such a person needs psychiatric treatment. She announces her enlightenment merely to win over devotees by weaning them away from monks. Point No. 08 – Swarna’s Buddhism :In
the Dhamma Chakka Sutra ,the Buddha addresses the five un-ordained,
bearded ascetics led by Kondanna, who were neither robed nor had attained
enlightenment, as ‘Bhikku’. So there obviously is a deeper meaning to
the word ‘Bhikkhu’ than the reference we use today for saffron robed
monks. Reply to Point No. 08 Her aim is obvious. Her target is the bhikkhu community. Perhaps, she is under the impression that her heretical teacher is qualified to be a true monk. Where has she seen the Pancavaggiya monks living with their heads and beards unshaven? Perhaps she may have visited a few temples and seen the murals in them. As a child she may have got such an impression when she observed such mural paintings. It is the memory that is plaguing her. We could only pity her. Pancavaggiyas are monks. Shaving off of head hair and beard, dressing rag-robes were common feature among sramanas of the time. So at the early stages sramanas were addressed as bhikkhus. Later on this became the specific designation used to denote Buddhist clergy. Since then the term was specifically used for Buddhist monks. The Bhikkhu Vagga of the Dhammapada shows how suitable this term is for an Arahant. Even the term Brahmana has been used in Buddhist text to denote a holy, noble person. Hence, even Arahants are referred to as Brahmana. Among disciples of the Buddha those who entered the order are designated as bhikkhus; and the female counter-parts are bhikkhunis. The lay male and female devotees are called upasaka, upasika respectively. She seems to totally ignorant of all this, and seem to bare her understanding on recently drawn murals. This speaks eloquently for her knowledge, more precisely for lack of it. Point
No. 07 – Swarna’s Buddhism:
We have been taught that the rays of light emit from the Buddha’s
body. Even the five ascetics, who were helping ascetic Siddhartha in his
efforts to reach enlightenment, did not accept that ascetic Siddhartha had
attained the goal, when the Buddha first came to meet them at Isipathana,
as there were no visible outward signs. The
Buddha had to proclaim 3 times that he had reached enlightenment and ask
the ascetics if he had ever made any such claim previously, before the
ascetics prepared themselves to listen to the first ever sermon. Also
king Pukkusathi, who gave up his kingdom and was on his way to Jethawana
to meet the Buddha, spent an entire night with the Buddha in a mud-hut on
the wayside, without realizing that he was in conversation with the
Buddha. Only after the Buddha had expounded the doctrine and the king had
attained the stage of Sovan, that king Pukkusathi realized that he had
spent the entire night talking to the Buddha. This just goes to show
that the Buddha did not have any supernatural aura that the human
eye could see, as believed today. Reply to Point No. 07 She pinpoints two issues. One of them is referred to in the Mahavaggapali of the Vinaya Pitaka. If the Buddha went to the Pancavaggiya displaying miracles, emitting halo of rays from his body, the Pancavaggiya would have rejected him considering him to be a mere miracle performance. Besides, it is very well stated in the texts that though the Buddha had the ability to perform miracles, he did use them sparingly. The incident about Pukkusati occurs in the Dhatu Vibhanga sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya which Swarna rejects. Pukkusati met the Buddha in the night. Had he, like Bahiya Daruciriya, met the Buddha during daytime he would have recognized him. Though Pukkusati failed to recognize the Buddha, he attained anagami fruit at the end of the preaching. However, Swarna had only heard that Pukkusati attained sotapatti stage. It is better for her to verify facts before she boldly declares them. The Mahaparinibbana sutta records that Ven. Ananda had seen a ray of light in the form of a flame issuing out of the Buddha’s body. Why is she concerned about this sort of peripheral issues when there are more profound doctrinal matters to be discussed? The reason is obvious. She is under the delusion that her mentor, the heretic Sriwardhana is a Buddha. Yet she is worried that no such rays of light issues from his body. Perhaps she is worried that people might begin to doubt about her mentor’s claim for enlightenment. So she attempts to ridicule these miraculous happenings connected with the Buddha. Point No. 12 – Swarna’s Buddhism :
The Buddha preached that each one was responsible for his own
Karma, good or bad. This
means that we cannot give or take merit from others.
Then, when someone dies, why do we give merit to the person who
died? Hasn’t the Buddha
specifically said that it cannot be done? During the Buddha’s time ‘panshukula’ was not a
practice among the Buddhists. Isn’t
it obvious that it’s just a custom, which has been added on later? Even the word panshukula means a cloth that a dead body is
wrapped in and thrown in to a cemetery.
This cloth when retrieved by monks is stained, torn and tattered by
the animals that devour the body. The
areas of the cloth that can be salvaged are cut out and the pieces are
stitched together to form a robe. But
today the panshukula means a new white cloth! Reply to Point No. 12 There are two issues here. One is on kamma. The other is about pansakula. While rejecting the canonical texts and also accusing Ven. Buddhagosa of corrupting the teaching she talks about kamma. From where did she get these ideas. She is confused about the Buddha’s teaching on karma. According to her understanding of the Buddha’s teaching on karma, it is about acquisition and transference of merit. She denies the possibility of both. The Lokavabodha sutta of the Itivuttaka gives a definition of the term Tathagata. Therein it is said he is called Tathagata because whatever he preaches during the period between his enlightenment and his parinibbana happens just as he declares. There are bout 18,000 such discourses made by the Buddha and these are incorporated in the Suttapitaka. But unfortunately this woman and her followers reject these suttas. The Janussoni sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya presents the Buddha’s explanation regarding transference of merit. The Buddha says that while those born in hell, in the animal kingdom, human world or in the heaven do not accept merit, there are beings born among the departed one, in the ghost worlds, and they expect merit given by those living in the human world. Swarna with the intention of ridiculing this teaching condemns both alms giving and the pamsukula ceremony. She drags in the pamsukula ceremony to shower insult on monks. It may be true that during the Buddha’s time, the concept of pamsukula was different. Besides, we did know of some intelligent people who perform funeral rites without the pamsukula ceremony. The issue is not the pamsukula ceremony, but how she utilizes it to pour insult on monks and also distort the teachings. Point No. 13 – Swarna’s Buddhism :
The Buddha did not ask people to observe the 5 precepts before he
gave a sermon, as done today. The Buddha inquired from people that he met, what their
problems/concerns were in every instance the Buddha skillfully embodied
the 4 Noble Truth and the Dependent Origination within the answer to their
questions or concerns. How
else would anyone possibly come into the enlightened vision, if they only
listened to advice regarding lay life?
It is sad that we are not taught the deeper meaning of the
Buddha’s sermons today, but only the superficial examples and words Reply to Point No. 13 Her knowledge regarding the social conditions of the Buddha’s time is nil. When Buddha came to the scene there was no Buddhist society. It is after listening to the Buddha that they got converted and became Buddhists. Today here we have a Buddhist society. In such a society seeking refuge in the Three Gems and observation of five precepts are integral features. It is not necessary to make an issue whether this is done before or after the commencement of a discourse. The real issue should be whether these undertakings are really practiced. Though not all, at least a fair number of monks yet preach on fundamentals of Buddhism such as the Four Noble Truth, Paticcasamuppada etc. Yet, she maintains that at present the real essence of Buddhism is not taught. This is an unfounded accusation. She levels such accusation merely to boost her mentor’s teachings. Point No. 11 – Swarna’s Buddhism :
Would a Buddha with infinite wisdom, who saw the futility of the
continuous craving and existence of beings, who had ended the cycle of
rebirth, be born in this world, give advice on how to lead a good lay life
and to accumulate merit for the next?
Doesn’t it sound rather absurd, when ample rules and rituals for
a good lay life already existed in the Vedic doctrine of that day?
Wouldn’t he teach what he attained?
Wasn’t the Buddha’s message to get out this suffering here and
now in this life itself? Reply to Point No. 11 The Buddha’s teaching is aimed at ending dukkha in this very life, or in other words to teach the four Noble Truths. There are no hidden meanings in this. The canonical texts elaborately deal with them. It is not known the sources from which she gets her information on these. The Buddha had a good understanding about the laity and clergy. Monkhood is set up to help followers to attain emancipation in this very life, to help to carry on the practice. The Buddha advised the laity to seek to attain the state of non-returners. At least all should try to attain the state of stream-entrants in this very life. Though few, the Buddha has delivered discourses that are conducive to the peace and well being of society. On one occasion he advised the laity, who expressed their desire to live according to the teaching, to attempt at least to develop factors that constitute sotapatti state. There are four such factors: 1. firm faith in the Buddha 2. firm faith in the Dhamma 3. firm faith in the Sangha who have attained to spiritual state 4. to cultivate noble virtue Point No. 14 – Swarna’s Buddhism : ‘Sil’ that is taken as precepts, was already in existence in the Brahmin society when prince Siddhartha was born. This is apparent from the fact that Maha Maya Devi was supposed to have observed sil when Prince Siddhartha was conceived in her worm. So again aren’t we practicing something that is not Buddhism but Brahmin rules for the laity, for peace, order and harmony in the society, as Buddhism? As I understand now ‘sil’ is not something to be observed for a period of time, but is a permanent from of self-discipline, which comes through the liberation of thought and this is the result of the enlightened vision, ‘panna’. This also corresponds with the Buddha’s doctrine of panna, seela, samadhi and not seela, samadhi, panna as practiced today. Reply to Point No. 14 Swarna has fallen into an abyss from which she may not come out. She is under the impression that at that time there was a society which observed the five precepts. How does she know that? To understand the Brahmin society of that time it is necessary to read such suttas as Vasettha, Brahmana Dhammika etc. Besides Prince Siddhartha was not a Brahmin, but a Ksatriya, a prince of warrior caste. The Mahapadana sutta of the Digha Nikaya says that from the time of the conception of Bodhisatta Queen Mahamaya was naturally leading a virtuous life. This states also in the Acchariya abbutadhamma sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. But Swarna has no access to these and she totally depends on school text books for her knowledge in Buddhism. In many suttas such as Visakhopasata of the Anguttara Nikaya, Asibandhanaputta Gamani in the Samyutta Nikaya, Dhammika in the Suttanipata, there are detailed accounts about the observation of morality. The Visakhopasata sutta explains to Visaka who has attained the sotapatti state how the eight precepts should be observed on uposata days. Swarna is under the impression that emancipation could be obtained by freeing oneself of thoughts and there is no need to comprehend the Noble Truths. There is no doubt that Swarna is far away from emancipation. Panna denotes understanding of the four Noble Truths and not freedom from thoughts. Right view is obtained by properly comprehending the Four Noble Truths. Through this one becomes a sotapanna. Yet his knowledge is not complete. It gets complete with the realization of Arahantship. The Mahavedalla sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya says how panna should be used. It has three purposes, to obtain special knowledge, to penetratively understand things that should be so understood and to abandon things that should be abandoned. If a sotapanna can achieve these three objects through his panna, there is no special that he should do, for he has completed his mission. Yet sotapanna is one who is engaged developing wisdom. Therefore he should establish himself in sotapatti factors and cultivate samatha and vipassana. Then in proportion to his development of concentration and wisdom he will become a once-returner. Then when he completes concentration and eradicates sensual desire and hatred he will become an anagami. He has to further develop samatha-vipassana. Then when he reaches the eradication of other fetters he will attain arahanthood. This has been well described by the Buddha in the Sopadhisesa sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya. She thinks that at that time the three training were arranged in the order of panna, sila and samadhi. How is it possible for one who does not even understand properly the scheme of spiritual training to claim for sotapatti attainment? It is on good grounds that Right view and Right thought are enumerated at the head of the eight factors of the Path. A disciple who obtains a proper understanding of the Four Truths obtains Right View. Yet he has to understand krutya nana and proceed with the practice, and this has to be done through samatha and vipassana. It is then that he obtains kruta nana and realizes arahantship. The Salayatanika sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya says that for this one should specifically develop samatha – vipassana. Now you can visualize the state of the deep abyss into which this unfortunate lady has fallen. Being helpless she blames the Buddha and accumulates much demerit. She is like a person who has got hold of a snake by the tail or the coil. The wrongly held ‘pseudo’ doctrine is destroying her. The fate of such people are well explained in the Alagaddupama sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. Point No. 21 Swarna’s Buddhism :
The Buddha condemned the worship of trees, status, fire, gods etc. as he
saw them as barbaric rituals. The
Buddha chased away Wakkali who had been gazing at him in awe and said that
the way to see the Buddha was by seeing the Dhamma.
(Yo dhammam passathi so mam passathi).
The Buddha repeatedly told Ananda ‘You don’t honour me” even
though Ananda was at the Buddha’s beck and call and looked after the
Buddha in every possible way, night and day.
Doesn’t this show that if we are to see the Buddha we as
Buddhists are not supposed to be worshipping statues, doing ‘Buddha
poojas, Aloka poojas, and Bodhi Poojas’, giving merit to the dead,
attending meditation retreats and praying to numerous gods but to listen
to the true Saddhamma, to look within ourselves and come to the
enlightened vision in this life itself? Reply to Point No. 21 This is her last assault. She denounces tree worship. Her aim is to shatter the people’s faith they cherish regarding the sacred bodhi-tree. This was brought to Sri Lanka by Arahant Theri Sanghamitta. She should try to understand why this is called the bodhi –tree. The story of monk Vakkali is found in the texts that she refuses to accept as unauthentic. Though she fails to understand the true story, she shamelessly reproduces the events along with Pali extracts. She makes yet a peculiar statement. She says that the Buddha often asked Ven. Ananda not to respect him. This is one of her own concoctions. What the Buddha asked Ven. Ananda was “Ananda be an island unto yourself, a refuge unto yourself; do not seek refuge outside”. This means to seek refuge in the four establishments of mindfulness. Yet Swarna fails to understand this. She sees only one thing as the doctrine and that is freedom from thoughts. Her sole intention is to wean away the people from meditation, bodhi pooja etc. and imbibe heretical views in them and push them into the net laid by her heretical mentor Siriwardena. CONCLUSION By presenting 21 points this woman is trying to drag away the Buddhist from their faith. Yet we have clearly exposed her intention, her folly, her misguided teachings etc. The greatest fault she has committed is the denouncement of the sutta and the vinaya pitakas as rendering of Ven. Buddhagosa. But we have shown how these sacred scriptures were rehearsed at Council and brought down to posterity in pristine purity. She rejects meditation, yet accepts concentration. But she fails to understand that concentration is not possible without bhavana. She intends to drag down the unsuspecting devotees into the same pit hole she has fallen. Her final aim is to make the society constitute of people who have no faith, no devotion, no religion beliefs, no morals, and no generosity. Then the next, their descendents could certainly give up Buddhism and embrace another faith. Their ulterior motive is to serve another religion. I wish to quote her own words regarding the Buddha’s definition of Karma. The Buddha has said each and everyone should be responsible for good and bad one does. According to this we can imagine the plight of Swarna, his mentor and their followers. By now they have amassed enough demerit to suffer in hell. This is their own making due to their own pride, conceit and evil intention. We can only have pity on them and hope that they would make an attempt to realize the gravity of the situation in which they are and reform themselves by understanding the true doctrine. I earnestly request all those who wish to understand the true doctrine to read the following: 1. Digha Nikaya 2. Majjhima Nikaya 3. Anguttara Nikaya 4. Samyutta Nikaya 5. Damma Padaya 6. Udana 7. Khuddaka Patha 8. Itivuttaka 9. Sutta Nipata 10. Thera, Theri Gatha 11. Vimana Vatthu 12. Preta Vatthu 13. Vinaya Pitakaya May
the Blessings of the Triple Gem be with you. With metta, Kiribathgoda
Gnanananda Thera
|