| Revision as of 03:16, 20 November 2019 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits Decided not to post this for obvious reasons.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:04, 23 November 2019 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits I don't have time to get into another back-and-forth. I'll post this once November is over.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :::I'm not going to touch anything in your second or third paragraphs. As for the first -- are we talking about ''mottai'' or ''mottainashi''? No one has ever argued that either word doesn't have a religious sense, and indeed my new favourite source Hasegawa is quite open about the fact that {{tq|''inexpedient or reprehensible towards a god, buddha, noble or the like''}} is the original sense of the word ''mottainashi'', so the claim that you are here to defend the view that ''mottai'' was used in Buddhist texts is ... bizarre. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:04, 23 November 2019
- I'm not going to touch anything in your second or third paragraphs. As for the first -- are we talking about mottai or mottainashi? No one has ever argued that either word doesn't have a religious sense, and indeed my new favourite source Hasegawa is quite open about the fact that
inexpedient or reprehensible towards a god, buddha, noble or the like
is the original sense of the word mottainashi, so the claim that you are here to defend the view that mottai was used in Buddhist texts is ... bizarre. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to touch anything in your second or third paragraphs. As for the first -- are we talking about mottai or mottainashi? No one has ever argued that either word doesn't have a religious sense, and indeed my new favourite source Hasegawa is quite open about the fact that