Dear Saurabh,
Thank you for your very kind words. I am genuinely glad that you are enjoying the discussion and finding it thought-provoking. Public debates like this are ultimately for the benefit of earnest seekers and readers like yourself.
I want to briefly address your observation regarding my use of Tipitaka definitions, as you raised a very profound epistemological point. You suggested that I might be using the Buddha’s definitions in a “totally unique way based on my personal internal belief system.”
Actually, the exact opposite is true. The method I am using is neither unique nor personal; it is standard, objective textual analysis.
When I look at a term like kāya saṅkhāra in the Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118), I do not consult my “internal belief system” to figure out what it means. Instead, I search the Tipitaka to see if the Buddha explicitly defined it elsewhere in the same context. I find that in MN 44, the Buddha explicitly defines it as the physical in-and-out breath. Applying the Buddha’s own definition from MN 44 directly to MN 118 is not a “personal belief” — it is simply letting the Tipitaka explain the Tipitaka.
A “personal belief system” is required only when someone brings an external rule—like redefining Pali words based on phonetic sound splitting (e.g., assāsa = taking in good)—which is not defined anywhere in the Suttas, and forces it onto the text.
That is the crucial difference we are debating here: drawing meaning out of the text using its own cross-references (objective), versus reading one’s own meaning into the text (subjective).
Thank you again for sharing your perspective respectfully. I appreciate your presence in this thread, and like you, I look forward to Lal’s response to the specific Sutta points!
With metta,
Nibbid83