Arahant with Bad Manners

[Coëmgenu]

I am not distorting the Buddha's words.

[santa100]

You're right, you're not distorting, you're bastardizing it.

[Coëmgenu]

Until you substantiate how the analysis results in or involves a distortion (or "bastardization" since you edited your comment), this is yet more meaningless fluff amounting to merely a false unsubstantiated accusation.

[santa100]

Until you've supplied the slightest shred of evidence to back up your false claim, it will remain a false claim.

[Coëmgenu]

You are contesting my analysis, saying that it bastardizes. It's there already. Back up how it bastardizes. The onus is on you now.

[santa100]

And you've continuously dodged my question, where is the vagina word? where is the direct comparison in that full paragraph in the Vinaya?

[Coëmgenu]

I've already explained that the fact that the penis enters the woman via the vagina is in part contextually derived from the incident that inspires the utterance. It was vaginal sex. She and the family wanted an heir. You can't get that from other kinds of sex easily.

The comparison is with "in the mouth," the mouth, mukha, is in the locative, mukhe, indicating where the action is taking place. The corresponding phrase involving the woman has aṅgajāte, the locative of "genitals," meaning that the location of entering the woman is her genitals, unless I am quite wrong. I don't think I am.

[santa100]

And I've already explained that that is entirely your own interpretation, made up by you and you only. I'm asking a very simple question, where is the word vagina, and where's the statement that the Buddha compared the vagina to the cobra's mouth, in that full paragraph of the Vinaya?

[Coëmgenu]

"In the genitals" is aṅgajāte, though it's not plural as in English, and refers to the locus of entrance, namely the woman's genitals. If I'm wrong, correct me.

[santa100]

No, it's not. It's the act of putting the penis in, not the object, as have been repeatedly mentioned. If there's an explicit sentence where the Buddha directly compared the 2 objects, feel free to say it out loud.

[Coëmgenu]

How can a locative communicate that? I don't think you know what you are talking about. I've already said it out loud. Mukhe and aṅgajāte. Go back and read again. Two locatives directly compared. They describe the location of the entrance.

[santa100]

I don't care about your made up locative. I ask you a direct question for a direct quote in that paragraph, and you still provided nothing. And here I'll cut you some slack, even if the vagina word was there, that'd still not back up your claim about a direct comparison, all it said is the "act of putting the monk's organ there" would result in much graver consequences than putting it inside a vagina. This is as clear as it can get.

[Coëmgenu]

It's not my "made up" locative. It's right there in the Pāli. I've provided you plenty.

[santa100]

And here I'll cut you some slack, even if the vagina word was there, that'd still not back up your claim about a direct comparison, all it said is the "act of putting the monk's organ there" would result in much graver consequences than putting it inside a cobra's mouth or a charcoal pit. This is as clear as it can get. But I still wait for you to point out a single sentence to back up your claim of the Buddha directly compared the vagina to the cobra's mouth.

[Coëmgenu]

You clearly don't get how the direct comparison between the entrance into the snake, which is "mukhe" (in/into its mouth), and the entrance into woman (mātugāma), which is "aṅgajāte" (in/into her genitals) features in the literal objective grammar. I'll have to make a longer post when I have time.