Arahant with Bad Manners

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

Fight with me sometime over me being Mahāyānika then, but don't die on this hill over whether or not the Buddha compared the vagina to the snake's mouth and whether or not that is "rude" or just seems rude to certain audiences we can imagine. It's not a hill you'll have victory on, and there is no distortion of the Buddha's words by me in explaining the logic and grammar behind the arranged clauses we read on the screen.

Do you want to continue? Do you still see me as twisting the Buddha's words as they appear in the vinaya?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Pulsar »

Thanks Santa100 for the context you provided.

It is the tradition that believes these are Buddha's words, according to Coemgenu.
Tradition also believes Abhidhamma is Buddha's words. but many do not, since there are glaring contradictions between Buddha's doctrine and teachings of abhidhamma.
Dear Santa: the passage you provided
  • enlightened me as to the context, which should be central to the discussion.
Here is the passage from Vinaya that Coemgenu left out, but Santa provided.
Haven’t I given many teachings for the sake of dispassion,
not for the sake of passion; for the sake of freedom from bondage,
not for the sake of bondage;
for the sake of non-grasping, not for the sake of grasping?
When I have taught in this way, how can you be intent upon passion, bondage, and grasping? Haven’t I given many teachings for the fading away of sensual desire,
for the clearing away of intoxication,
for the removal of thirst, for the uprooting of attachment,
for the cutting off of the round of birth and death, for the ending of craving, for fading away, for cessation, for extinguishment?
Haven’t I in various ways taught the abandoning of sense pleasures, the full understanding of the perception of sense pleasures, the abolishing of thirst for sense pleasures, the elimination of thoughts of sense pleasures, the stilling of the fever of sense pleasures?
Vinaya compilers most likely pulled these out of suttas... there are similar passages in the suttas.
Not every metaphor that comes thereafter, esp the one about cobra and a mother's genitals??? or a woman's genitals can be attributed to Buddha,
not s single sutta contains this simile. If you know of such a sutta with an agama parallel, that might help.

For all I care the vinyasa monks could have written mouth of a child used by a male child molester is
like a cobra
or the mouth of such a child is like a charcoal pit. It is just a metaphor, not to be read literally.
  • Why don't we pay attention to what sounds like Buddha's words.
  • for the removal of thirst, for the uprooting of attachment, for the sake of freedom from bondage
Thank you Santa, you are incredibly knowledgable, regarding the Vinaya. Vinaya is so cumbersome, there must be so few layman on this forum who are familiar with every rule of Vinaya.
If Coemgenu thinks these quotes are well known, he is deluded, but then it is only his opinion.
His opinions are not well known to the public.
Regards :candle:
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

Pulsar wrote:Thanks Pulsar for your kind words
Coëmgenu wrote:Do you still see me as twisting the Buddha's words as they appear in the vinaya?
If you still say that the Buddha directly compared the vagina to a cobra's mouth, then yes, I still see you as twisting the Buddha's words as they appear in the Vinaya.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

Varaṁ te, moghapurisa, āsivisassa ghoravisassa mukhe aṅgajātaṁ pakkhittaṁ, na tveva mātugāmassa aṅgajāte aṅgajātaṁ pakkhittaṁ.

The "entering into" is the same each time in Pali as much as in English. It is "aṅgajātaṁ pakkhittaṁ," which appears in the translation as "...for your penis to enter..." The second time it appears in the translation from Ven Brahmali it is shortened to "...to enter a woman," but I do believe that the full Pali phrase is "...than (for your penis) to enter a woman." That is debateable, perhaps I'm wrong whether or not "for your penis" belongs in the second unit of repeated words, either way it doesn't matter.

The phrase is structed as "it would be better for your penis to enter X than your penis to enter Y." That structure does not draw an equivalence between X and Y. It establishes a comparison, because it compares X and Y. It speaks of "your penis entering," but it does not compare the penis, nor its entrance, to anything other than just the penis entering. This is an equivalence, not a comparison. In each statement, the penis and the entering have a relationship of equivalence with each other by virtue of being the same words repeated.

Statement 1
It would be better, foolish man, for your penis to enter the mouth of a highly venomous snake than to enter a woman.

Statement 2
It would be better for your penis to enter the mouth of a black snake than to enter a woman.

Statement 3
It would be better for your penis to enter a blazing charcoal pit than to enter a woman.

Statement Structure:
It would be better for your penis to enter X than to enter Y.

X and Y are being compared. In each, "your penis" is simply repeated. Each "your penis" has a relationship of equivalency, not comparison, with one-another. In contrast to this, the compared element, in this case what the penis enters into, is variable and changes. These variable and changing elements do not have a relationship of equivalence between the unlike phrases. It doesn't matter whether or not the statement is about entering into X or Y. It necessarily compares X and Y by virtue of speaking to two different alternatives with regards to areas that one enters one's penis into.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

None of that has any relevance to the original passage in its full context. There's absolutely zero evidence the Buddha made a direct comparison. For crying out loud, the word vagina was not even mentioned at all. Zero:
First Training Rule wrote:The Buddha rebuked him: “Foolish man, it’s not suitable, it’s not proper, it’s not worthy of an ascetic, it’s not allowable, it’s not to be done. How could you go forth in such a well-proclaimed Teaching and training and not be able to practice for life the perfectly complete and pure spiritual life? Haven’t I given many teachings for the sake of dispassion, not for the sake of passion; for the sake of freedom from bondage, not for the sake of bondage; for the sake of non-grasping, not for the sake of grasping? When I have taught in this way, how can you be intent upon passion, bondage, and grasping? Haven’t I given many teachings for the fading away of sensual desire, for the clearing away of intoxication, for the removal of thirst, for the uprooting of attachment, for the cutting off of the round of birth and death, for the ending of craving, for fading away, for cessation, for extinguishment? Haven’t I in various ways taught the abandoning of sense pleasures, the full understanding of the perception of sense pleasures, the abolishing of thirst for sense pleasures, the elimination of thoughts of sense pleasures, the stilling of the fever of sense pleasures? It would be better, foolish man, for your penis to enter the mouth of a terrible and poisonous snake than to enter a woman. It would be better for your penis to enter the mouth of a black snake than to enter a woman. It would be better for your penis to enter a blazing charcoal pit than to enter a woman. Why’s that? Because for that reason, you might die or experience death-like suffering, but you wouldn’t because of that be reborn in a bad destination. But for this reason you might. Foolish man, you’ve practiced what is contrary to the true Teaching, the common practice, the low practice, the coarse practice, that which ends with a wash, that which is done in private, that which is done wherever there are couples. You’re the forerunner, the first performer of many unwholesome things. This will not give rise to confidence in those without it or increase the confidence of those who have it, but it will hinder confidence in those without it, and it will cause some with confidence to change their minds.”[/url]
Last edited by santa100 on Mon May 23, 2022 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

It is completely relevant. It is explaining, at length, what those words mean and how they are communicating what they are communicating.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

For crying out loud, the word "vagina" was not even mentioned. Your point is completely irrelevant. If you want to make some claim, then at least do provide at least some shred of evidence for it, not some inference BS, which is all you've been doing all along.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

The penis enters the woman via an orifice. In the case of Statements 1 & 2, the penis enters the snake by way of a mouth, in the case of Statement 3, the penis enters the burning charcoal by way of the pit within it. I'll give it to you that Statement 1 could also be interpreted as speaking of any other orifice, but the offense that supposedly inspired the utterance was dealing with a vaginal orifice.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Mon May 23, 2022 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

There's no mentioning of vagina, let alone a direct explicit comparison to a cobra's mouth. That's a fact. Anything other than that is sheer Papanca.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

There is a direct comparison. It would be better for you to put your penis into X than Y. The offense was vaginal sex with a woman.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

No, there is not a direct comparison. There's no word being mentioned by the Buddha. It's entirely Papanca's work.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's not prapañca. It's a cogent analysis of three comparative sentences that analyses precisely what is being compared.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

And that "cogent analysis of three comparative sentences" is directly responsible for the Papanca mess. Didn't the Buddha tirelessly taught:
Ud 1.10 wrote:Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by Coëmgenu »

It is not responsible for a prapañca mess. Until you substantiate how it is wrong, this is just meaningless fluff.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant with Bad Manners

Post by santa100 »

Not me, I'm not the one who distorts the Buddha's words like you.
Post Reply