Going forward, please do not pretend that I do not address the irrelevant points you bring up. It is not against the TOS to inform someone that their precious quotes are wrongly applied and that they don't understand what they are copying and pasting. It is not against the TOS to inform someone that they have mutilated a sutta by putting weird red text into it that doesn't belong. It is very disingenuous to have put that red gibberish there yourself and then to pretend that the dictionary is to blame because it is somehow "clutching at straws" because DooDoot mutilates suttas with red text.
After you assert that I have not addressed the suttas you've brought up, please do not attempt to have me saying "No, I did address them" removed by moderation so that it indeed looks like I did not address them. I said "You say that past abodes can't mean other lives because multiple present abodes do not mean multiple present lives." That is directly quoting, indeed tangibly quoting if we will, your misuse and mutilation of a sutta other than MN 148, which you mutilated with an incompetently translated section of ungrammatical red text instead of weird emoticons. The quotation of yours of MN 148 is a mutilation you created based on misreading a dictionary and I do not have to take it seriously.
To illustrate how foolish your mutilation of MN 148 based on the dictionary entry was, I will use Merriam-Webster's definition of
foolish, namely "having or showing a lack of good sense, judgment, or discretion."
DooDoot when he quotes the dictionary like that makes a
foolish mistake.
DooDoot when he quotes the dictionary like that makes a
having or showing a lack of good sense, judgment, or discretion 
mistake.
Well, that's an ungrammatical mess. Looks like Merriam-Webster is clutching at straws!
The sense that you were looking for in the dictionary is sense 1, "to get to." In the New Concise Pali English Dictionary, this sense is refined into "is fit for, is suitable." This kind of semantic stretching is completely normal in natural languages. Saying "that does not arrive" or "that does not get to (it)" is a way of saying "that is not tenable" or "that is not suitable" or "that is not appropriate" in this Prakrit when we put it into English. The PTS dictionary is very old. You can't just cut and paste sections from the definitions into the suttas and expect them to be grammatical. Particularly, don't take a list of infinitives and place them into an English sentence as if they are conjugated, especially if you are perfectly capable of realizing that the Pali does not have infinitives in it to correspond to English infinitives. That is sure to create a mess like the mess of red text in MN 148. Similarly, do not conflate multiple different meanings from the dictionary as if they were all the same meaning. That is also going to make a mess like the mess you made in MN 148.
Was infinitive too large a word? An infinitive is like a "stem form" of a word in Pali. It is unconjugated. Do you know what unconjugated means, or is that also too large? If you didn't get anything I said, I will do exactly only one clarification post for vocabulary. I'll do this one post as a charity for you, since you complain that the words I use are too large.
, has totally given up searching, has unsullied intentions, has stilled the physical process, and is well freed in mind and well freed by wisdom.
