Arahant with Bad Manners

[santa100]

Those are conclusions drawn from the texts. Your “arguments” to the contrary were simply more of the same that we see here.

No, there're simply no texts that you've provided that clearly backed up your false claims about the Buddha. And throughout the many exchanges between you and me, I have consistently asked for a single explicit message, which you have consistently failed to provide. And quite frankly, all your posts really just smell the same, the odor of putting words into the Buddha's mouth.

When people do provide the passages, you simply claim they haven’t done so. It’s the kind of moronic arguments flat earthers and anti-vaxxer twerps use. Simply repeating that your opponent has “consistently failed” to do something when they clearly have done it is a cheap way for someone to try to look better than their interlocutor. I say try, because intelligent folks see straight through it.

Could be, but the simpler answer could also be that your cheap and dumb way of side stepping or dancing around the topic really need some strong replies.

[Pulsar]

C wrote

I think Venerable Buddhaghosa had far better critical thinking skills than many of the posters here with their ridiculous views based on extremely piss-poor arguments.

Which view are you referring to? that Buddha swore and that he said shit and f***? You are the one who said that, and later tried to argue with Joe.c that you would not be offended if Buddha used 'shit' to teach about foulness.
What a load of crap?
With love

[Ceisiwr]

No, there're simply no texts that you've provided that clearly backed up your false claims about the Buddha. And throughout the many exchanges between you and me, I have consistently asked for a single explicit message, which you have consistently failed to provide. And quite frankly, all your posts really just smell the same, the odor of putting words into the Buddha's mouth.

When people do provide the passages, you simply claim they haven’t done so. It’s the kind of moronic arguments flat earthers and anti-vaxxer twerps use. Simply repeating that your opponent has “consistently failed” to do something when they clearly have done it is a cheap way for someone to try to look better than their interlocutor. I say try, because intelligent folks see straight through it.

Could be, but the simpler answer could also be that your cheap and dumb way of side stepping or dancing around the topic really need some strong replies.

I’ve given you plenty of long and detailed arguments to support my position, on a prior topic. Mostly all I got back was “you have consistently failed to provide a sutta” etc etc mixed in with some general unpleasantness, because I’m saying things you don’t like.

[Ceisiwr]

C wrote

I think Venerable Buddhaghosa had far better critical thinking skills than many of the posters here with their ridiculous views based on extremely piss-poor arguments.

Which view are you referring to? that Buddha swore and that he said shit and f***? You are the one who said that, and later tried to argue with Joe.c that you would not be offended if Buddha used 'shit' to teach about foulness.
What a load of crap?
With love

One I had in mind was that rupa is completely mental, or that the formless weren’t taught by the Buddha, or that MN 10 is a completely useless text.

[santa100]

I’ve given you plenty of long and detailed arguments to support my position, on a prior topic. Mostly all I got back was “you have consistently failed to provide a sutta” etc etc mixed in with some general unpleasantness, because I’m saying things you don’t like.

And I've given you ten times as much backup literature and references that refuted your false claims. Mostly all I got back was the same side-steppings and dancing-around routines from you.

[Ceisiwr]

I’ve given you plenty of long and detailed arguments to support my position, on a prior topic. Mostly all I got back was “you have consistently failed to provide a sutta” etc etc mixed in with some general unpleasantness, because I’m saying things you don’t like.

And I've given you ten times as much backup literature and references that refuted your false claims. Mostly all I got back was the same side-steppings and dancing-around routines from you.

Rather you kept referring to one sutta, ignored my point about what the pali says rather than what the English translation said and subsequently refused to back up your argument by providing a distinction between liking something and finding it pleasant. It was like arguing with a 12 year old, to be quite frank. I’m getting the same feeling now, but now we are really off topic aren’t we.

[santa100]

Rather you kept referring to one sutta, ignored my point about what the pali says rather than what the English translation said and subsequently refused to back up your argument by providing a distinction between liking something and finding it pleasant. It was like arguing with a 12 year old, to be quite frank. I’m getting the same feeling now, but now we are really off topic aren’t we.

Don't blame me, most of the time, your Pali quotes are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sometimes I even suspect you use them as cheap tricks to side-step the topic. To be honest, you remind me of my ex-girlfriend. So don't blame me for saying thing as it is. And i have to say it again and again, it's nothing personal. As long as you or someone else put words into the Buddha's mouth, you can bet your behind that I or someone else will respond. Nothing personal though.

[bodom]

*MOD NOTE*

If members cannot refrain from personal attacks the thread will be relocked and warnings will be issued.

[Coëmgenu]

As was stated before, an analyst has the option of arguing at least two things with regards to this passage and what it precisely compares, and I can demonstrate this using the language that Santa100 himself has been using throughout this thread. The analyst can argue either that 1) there are four activities compared and contrasted or 2) there is one activity in four different contexts (or with regards to four different "objects" to use Santa100's terminology) compared and contrasted.

If we argue that different contexts of the insertion or "laying down" of the aṅgajāta into the different places, such as in the mukha (mouth) of the snake or in the corresponding aṅgajāta (genitals) of the partner, constitutes different activities of "laying down the aṅgajāta," then we must also admit that these four different activities are differentiated only inasmuch as they feature a differentiated, contrasted, receptible that is compared to other receptacles on terms of the pain and demerit associated with the context surrounding the specified receptacle, be it a woman's genitals, a snake's mouth, or a pit of burning charcoal.

To use Santa100's language, the four activities are only four different activities insofar as they have different objects. The entire comparison hinges on the difference in the "objects." These objects are compared with one another. One of these "objects" is the mouth of a snake. Another of these objects is the genitalia of a woman. This does not mean that the Buddha thinks that all women's vaginas are innately like the mouth of a poisonous snake, and to suggest that is foolishness. This is a teaching given in a very specific context, to celibates in response to a contravention of the spirit of the vinaya.

It might seem shocking to a worldly-minded person to make such a comparison. The Buddha did not say this to a woman, or in the presence of a married man, we can note. It likely would have seemed rude to the worldly-minded, just like how this passage seems rude and sexist to the worldly-minded of today. That doesn't mean that it actually is rude, and it doesn't mean that the Buddha actually was rude to have made such a comparison.

With regards to the above two outlined analyses labelled 1) and 2), 2) is the more natural analysis, because the text itself does not vary the "laying down of the aṅgajāta," but does vary where it is lain.

[Pulsar]

If a person does not understand metaphor? what happens?
They will think that Buddha swore, that he spoke insane words like f***, or spoke of genitals without rhyme or reason. They fail to see that Buddha's main goal was cessation of suffering. How do you do that? Buddha instructed us to get rid of craving, if we want to end our suffering.
In one instance he said

"Don't eat your son's flesh"

But many fail to see the significance behind this admonishment. He was mainly addressing the issue of sensual pleasures, the danger in consuming them.
Do people think  Buddha killed too? https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_111.html
Read the sutta of the Kesi the Horse Trainer...
Excerpts condensed:

"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"

The horse trainer asked the Buddha.

"If a tamable person doesn't submit to such instructions, then I kill him, Kesi."

Buddha replies.
Now some puthujjana reading this will think that Buddha swore and killed monks.
Don't be in a hurry to judge the Buddha. Read the sutta and see if Buddha really killed bad monks.
Except: 

"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"

"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit to good instruction, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing... This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing....

To be totally destroyed in the Doctrine and Discipline? 
Is it not worse than being killed?
Did the Buddha kill? Some claim Buddha swore. Did he? Did Buddha have likes and dislikes? SN 35.117 says his eye was not impressed by the seen. Likewise heard, sensed and cognized.
If so, is it possible for Buddha to have had likes and dislikes? Atthakavagga says Arahants do not have preferences, if so can they have likes and dislikes?
Good night dear friends!

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr claimed that I said

rupa is completely mental, or that the formless weren’t taught by the Buddha, or that MN 10 is a completely useless text.

I did not say rupa is completely mental.
However I said rupa in the context of DO and aggregates is a mental dhamma derived from the four primary elements. Don't quote me out of context.
As for formless were not taught by Buddha? which formless are you talking about? Please be specific.
The formless taught by other teachers like Alara Kalama was not taught by the Buddha. But if by formless you mean those who have succeeded in getting rid of form of Nama-rupa, then that was taught by the Buddha.

• Formless described in Kalahavivada sutta was taught by the Buddha.

One gets rid of form in the first satipatthana according to SN 47.42. Consequently all stages of Samma Samadhi are formless.
Do not misrepresent my words. Where do I say MN 10 is completely useless? Pl bring me the quote.
Now I have said that it is a Piltdown sutta. Do you know what Piltdown means?
Alexander Wynne has called MN 10 an "Elegant Fake". What he means by that could be "Truths packed in between false claims"???
Regards