Yes i do recognize this.
@Notez : Do you accept that the higher order realms have no sex, so any mention of them in the text in a masculine form is mere convention and nothing to do with actual allocation of sex to their form of existence?
I do not accept this. I delineate a distinction between what is in between one’s legs and one’s gender in this circumstance. I have not met Sakka but i am pretty sure i would apprehend him as a him rather than a she but not on account of him having a human organ or a lack of thereof.
There is more to being a man than having the organ.
Well…not sure where to start…or whether I even should. But two points to clarify:
- Sakka is considered part of the kama loka classification of realms (not the 2 higher order classifications we were discussing, the rupa-loka and arupa-loka)
- Your admission that you would apprehend him as a him is perfectly fine with me as he is a him. However, the fact that you even said that (when you thought Sakka didnt have an assigned gender as a male) is kind of the point…that you are ascribing a male gender to an authority figure. That is fine, and I have no problem with EBT referring to Brahma gods with a gender assignment when they dont have one for reasons of language or cultural norms…as long as we realise that is what it is…labels…not some statement about males vs. females that is coming from the Buddha.
What comes from the Buddha is that none of this has any relevance at all, what matters is the mind, volitional thoughts, speech and actions and eradicating the defilements in order to achieve liberation from suffering. None of that core teaching has anything whatever to do with gender, or even being human vs. not, for that matter…anyway thats my view and quite clearly you and I are not in the same universe on this 
1 Like
It uses masculine for a group of mixed gender. John Kelly's Pāli Class 2024 (G&K) Class 4 - #13 by johnk