Observer of the Observer

[Śūnyatā]

I'm enjoying observing this discourse.

[pulga]

That's not what the sutta says. It is clearly describing how one gets to stream entry - by the means of wise attention. I don't know what you're getting at with "from the source" either.

As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.

‘‘So ‘idaṃ dukkha’nti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yoniso manasi karoti. Tassa evaṃ yoniso manasikaroto tīṇi saṃyojanāni pahīyanti – sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbataparāmāso. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.

How is the puthujjana supposed to apply yoniso manasikara to the four ariyasaccáni prior to enlightenment, i.e. prior to the arising of the dhammacakkhu? He can't. But when he does so -- note the genetive absolute -- the three fetters are extinguished. "These āsavā, monks, are to be abandoned through seeing." (Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.)

[kirk5a]

How is the puthujjana supposed to apply yoniso manasikara to the four ariyasaccáni prior to enlightenment, i.e. prior to the arising of the dhammacakkhu? He can't. But when he does so -- note the genetive absolute -- the three fetters are extinguished. "These āsavā, monks, are to be abandoned through seeing." (Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.)

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense. You say "he can't" and then you say "when he does so." Well, by what means does he manage to do so, if he can't?

Also, since this isn't the Pali forum, I think your points would be better made if you simply used the English translation for the terms you are talking about, or at least put it in parentheses. My familiarity with Pali is at the "hunt and peck" level.

What I see contrasted there is the following:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention.

vs.

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention.

I don't see any reason to assume that the latter case is already a stream enterer. Rather, he is following the path to stream entry, sounds logical to me.

[pulga]

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense. You say "he can't" and then you say "when he does so." Well, by what means does he manage to do so, if he can't?

When he "properly attends" to the Four Noble Truths, he ceases to be a puthujjana.

Also, since this isn't the Pali forum, I think your points would be better made if you simply used the English translation for the terms you are talking about, or at least put it in parentheses. My familiarity with Pali is at the "hunt and peck" level.
What I see contrasted there is the following:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention.

vs.

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention.

I don't see any reason to assume that the latter case is already a stream enterer. Rather, he is following the path to stream entry, sounds logical to me.

I find that the translations available are so biased and misleading that they're next to worthless. They all seem to reflect the agenda of those translating them, and it doesn't add to the credentials of a translator to admit that he doesn't really understand what he is translating, not at least as far as the message the Buddha was trying to convey. And no teacher wants to be the bearer of such bad news, so his only option is to water down the Suttas to convince his followers that they're making progress in the Teaching, that it is just a matter of "instruction" as to whether one is an ariyan or not. And of course we've all been "instructed", so we're all ariyasávaká. Such nonsense.

There is a passage from Anguttara Nikaya II,xi,7-9:

There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and improper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view. There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and proper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of right view.

So I suppose we're at the mercy of the utterances of another -- or a whole of host of others -- which is fine and good so long as they're enlightened. But is such the case?

I don't want to enter into any polemics, but Peter Masefield's Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism has a chapter on just this subject. Much of the book is far too speculative for my tastes, but this particular chapter I find convincing. His familiarity with the Suttas is impressive, and he clearly has a sense of the nuance conveyed in the original Pali. That his interpretation on this particular matter concurs more or less with the likes of Ven. Ñanavira and Ven. Ñanamoli, both of whom weren't really interested in teaching the Dhamma to others, should instill in one at the very least the ambition and initiative to read the Suttas in their original Pali.

[tiltbillings]

There is a passage from Anguttara Nikaya II,xi,7-9:

There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and improper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view. There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and proper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of right view.

NDB 178. You have yet to give an actual argument for reading this text and the text from MN i 6 them way you do. These texts can be read just as they are written, yoniso manasikāra is what is cultivated as a tool for right view. If you wish to argue this further, please start a new thread.

[pulga]

I'm enjoying observing this discourse.

Too bad it had to end. But as I said, it was a digression.

[tiltbillings]

I'm enjoying observing this discourse.

Too bad it had to end. But as I said, it was a digression.

If you ewant to discuss and make a case for your interpretation of yoniso manasikāra, start a new thread, please.