A quick aside about a bad argument is in SN22.59

[josephzizys]

@Meggers

It has to do with “I” and “my” and how it can be used conventionally by people with the appropriate grasp.

I can read @Meggers , I was asking how what you qouted has to do with what the thread was talking about, saññā?

@Meggers

You don’t like the SN

This is simply untrue.

@Meggers

you prefer the prose narratives of MN and DN

I don’t “prefer” them, I think they where composed earlier. Everything I have worked on over the last 2 years has been in relation to that thesis, not that they are “better” but that they are earlier.

@Meggers

the classical sutta form that SN presents

This is a classic example of pots and kettles, you make the absolutely evidence free claim that the form of the sutta in SN is the “classical” form.

@Meggers

You haven’t presented any scholarship that informs your belief that prose narrative predates the sutta form, either within the larger tradition of Indian literature itself, or even within the Buddhist tradition,

And then criticise me, who went and checked every single occurrence of the aggregates tropes in all 4 of the prose collections in both the major languages, and then systematically compared them to every single occurrence of the jhana tropes in all four collections of both major languages to arrive at the conclusion that the S material post-dates the D material here:

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/are-khandhas-early-or-late-ebt/

An exercise that cites and quotes from literally hundreds of suttas including every sutta in SN that mentions form being impermanent or the aggregates as a group.

And is just one example of the systematic scholarship I have been attempting to do, precisely to rebut the “bias” claims that those who have a bias towards SN as the earliest collection like to throw at their advesaries.

@Meggers

I am sorry to say this, but it makes you look like you are cherry picking a sutta here or there out of over 2000 suttas in the SN that conforms to your bias.

Again. Every. Single. Sutta. that mentions the aggregates, in DN, DA, MN, MA, SN, SA, AN, EA. and Every. Single. Sutta. that mentions the jhanas, in DN, DA, MN, MA, SN, SA, AN, EA.

So frankly I no longer care what it “looks like” to those people who have chosen to adopt SN as thier bible and more or less don’t care about textual scholarship unless it confirms to thier religious expectation that SN is the “classical” collection of suttas, I will continue to post in the hope that there are in fact people who are interested in working out what is actually going on with the relationship between these texts and these collections, and are willing to back up what they say with actual analysis and citation of suttas and thier parallels and occurances of the terms and tropes under discussion, like saññā at SN22.59 and DN9.