That's only your inability to confront the evidence that I presented in the form of the few Majjhima suttas where mind-contact feelings were described to give rise to cetasika feelings couched in the same stock formula employed by the Salla Sutta. I don't intend to gloss that over as amnesia. Nor do I see any point in responding to yet another ex cathedra pronouncement on the perceived failings of my argument. I could just as easily pronounce that you've failed to rebut any of my arguments...
As for the accusation of my employing esoteric readings, well, pls produce the evidence using the Pali grammars to demonstrate that your reliance on plain English grammar to understand Pali is not the more bizarre.
Since you're so fond of citing the Vimuttimagga (in that other thread), perhaps you may like to explain why you cherry pick what works for your thesis, but conveniently not mention those bits in the Vimuttimagga that deal with Nimittas, Upacara, Appana, and the need to emerge from Appana to exercise the iddhis etc. That presumes that we are both looking at the same primary source which was translated.
Another example of more cherry-picking would be your insistence that we resort to the Dhammasangani. Well, why not import the entire Abhidhammic analysis of the rupajhanacitta and how that is totally bereft of the kamavacaracittas?
You also dismissed Piya's "appeal to personal experience". Fair enough but you do not hold yourself to the same high standard when you cite AJ Chah's and AJ Thanissaro/AJ Fuang's experiential accounts. What makes you feel privileged to be immune from the yardstick that you apply to others?
I'm only adopting your tactics in asking me and Piya to go back and re-consider. Since you seem to view that this kind of tactic is suitable in evading the substantive issues raised, well, what's sauce for the goose...
Seriously, instead of dismissing Piya's or my arguments with nothing more than a limp suggestion that we need to brush up on our suttanta and Abhidhamma, cite those references for the benefit of everyone else to see. If you felt that the suttas and the Abhidhamma support you, cite them. I'm not going to declare that I have demonstrated the errors of your interpretations (ex cathedra is not my forte and that thread is still available http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=60
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for anyone interested). But if you wish to rehash our previous discussion, let's revive it.
Very simply put Geoff, it matters little to me how venerable you think your research is. Your self belief does not endow your pronouncements with any weight. You either take the trouble to demonstrate or run the risk that I would bluntly point out how meaningless your statements are to the issue.