The causes for wisdom

[danieLion]

I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?
Thanks

[tiltbillings]

I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?
Thanks

I would not think that my perspective would be difficult to identify. Essentially, while insight -- vipassana -- cannot be willed into existence, the conditions that can give rise to insight can be deliberately cultivated, as taught by the Buddha, by one's actions, choices -- sila, bhāvanā, the rest of the eightfold ennobling path.

[danieLion]

I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?
Thanks

I would not think that my perspective would be difficult to identify. Essentially, while insight -- vipassana -- cannot be willed into existence, the conditions that can give rise to insight can be deliberately cultivated, as taught by the Buddha, by one's actions, choices -- sila, bhāvanā, the rest of the eightfold ennobling path.

Thanks Tilt. That helps.

[pt1]

While yoniso manasikara may be an attribute of an ariya, it is a something to cultivate in order to attain to that level, otherwise one is stuck in the problem that we see with the Sujin people in this thread, you have to be awakened to be awakened.

That doesn't seem quite right since the usual message I get from K.S. and her students seems different, e.g. in relation to the above issue, I take it they'd say something like - mindfulness (sati) is always wholesome, and attention would also be wholesome when accompanying any sort of a wholesome state (citta). Wisdom (pa~n~na) may or may not arise in those instances. If it does, it's conditioned at that instance by mindfulness, attention and other wholesome factors (cittas, cetasikas, though I forget which conditional relations out of 24, as I think there's mutual conditioning going on there). Wisdom itself may be of any strength at the time, dependent on conditions, i.e. it could be of samatha kind (many degrees there), of vipassana kind (many degrees there), or of supramundane kind (ariyan) .

As for the original issue of the thread as to how exactly does wisdom (along with mindfulness and other wholesome factors) actually arise at the time, I take it they'd usually say - conditioned. I don't think there's any problem saying conventionally that a person cultivates wholesome states, mindfulness, wisdom, etc. Though, I do like abhidhamma people for the attention to detail, so they'd usually add something like - the term "cultivation" should be taken on best merits, i.e. it stands in for the actual arising of wholesome mental states, which then in turn condition more wholesome states, hence cultivation. In other words, if I like to meditate, my main concern then is knowing when wholesome states are arising, and when they are not, and the biggest hurdle is believing that wholesome states are arising, while in fact, they are not. Then what is unwholesome is taken for wholesome, and in turn conditions more unwholesome. It always seems good to be reminded about this possibility and get as many pointers to possible mistakes, even if at times they might seem arrogant. My take anyway.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

While yoniso manasikara may be an attribute of an ariya, it is a something to cultivate in order to attain to that level, otherwise one is stuck in the problem that we see with the Sujin people in this thread, you have to be awakened to be awakened.

That doesn't seem quite right since the usual message I get from K.S. and her students seems different, e.g. in relation to the above issue, I take it they'd say something like - mindfulness (sati) is always wholesome, and attention would also be wholesome when accompanying any sort of a wholesome state (citta). Wisdom (pa~n~na) may or may not arise in those instances. If it does, it's conditioned at that instance by mindfulness, attention and other wholesome factors (cittas, cetasikas, though I forget which conditional relations out of 24, as I think there's mutual conditioning going on there). Wisdom itself may be of any strength at the time, dependent on conditions, i.e. it could be of samatha kind (many degrees there), of vipassana kind (many degrees there), or of supramundane kind (ariyan) .

What i am going by is what is being said here by Sujin followers and by the links to a Sujin talk, and that is less than clear what they actually teach, but even your explanation of Sujin's point of view does not make it at all coherent in terms of the suttas.

As for the original issue of the thread as to how exactly does wisdom (along with mindfulness and other wholesome factors) actually arise at the time, I take it they'd usually say - conditioned. I don't think there's any problem saying conventionally that a person cultivates wholesome states, mindfulness, wisdom, etc.

You obviously have not been following this thread.

Though, I do like abhidhamma people . . . .

The Sujin business is one take only on Abhidhamma and Theravada in general, but it seems that they are quite willing to criticize and dismiss those who do not agree with their point of view, and it rather unfortunate and speaks very poorly for them. If you have not, you might want to read through this thread.

[pt1]

Sure, we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. Either way, I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying. Of course, I understand the difficulties with terminology and have them myself. Anyway, if there's a particular point you want to discuss, please raise it, though apologies if I'm slow in replying, not much time. (Incidentally, for years now I wanted to ask you what it is that you do for a living, to have so much time to post I mean. Maybe I need to look into a different line of work.)

Best wishes

[daverupa]

I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying.

I think you disagree with other Sujin folk; the perspective here has been quite clearly spelled out, and it doesn't lie alongside the suttas to which it has been compared. Your disagreement with what you think of as a mischaracterization puts you in agreement with the suttas in this matter, it would seem, & not with the earlier-espoused (Sujin-esque?) view made by some.

[tiltbillings]

Sure, we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. Either way, I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying. Of course, I understand the difficulties with terminology and have them myself. Anyway, if there's a particular point you want to discuss, please raise it, though apologies if I'm slow in replying, not much time. (Incidentally, for years now I wanted to ask you what it is that you do for a living, to have so much time to post I mean. Maybe I need to look into a different line of work.)

Best wishes

Several things: the response to dhamma follower concerning having to be awakened to be awakened was an attempt at trying to clarify something she said several times, but -- alas -- she never clarified the point, even after asking her to do so several times.

we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. I am not deliberately in my responses to robertk, Virgo/Kevin, and dhamma follower trying to misrepresent what they are saying. As I asked you once already, have you actually read the exchanges in this thread? Please show me where I have significantly misunderstood what was being said by the Sujin followers here.

(I am a Registred Nurse, working night shift, which pays me well enough that I can do quite well working part time. When I am not working I keep night shift hours.)

[pt1]

I think you disagree with other Sujin folk; the perspective here has been quite clearly spelled out, and it doesn't lie alongside the suttas to which it has been compared. Your disagreement with what you think of as a mischaracterization puts you in agreement with the suttas in this matter, it would seem, & not with the earlier-espoused (Sujin-esque?) view made by some.

I don’t know. Coming originally from a sutta-only background, it took several years to get through the terminology and understand K.S.’s teaching and her students on their own merits (largely not native-English speakers, largely non-meditators, mostly without strong connections to modern Western Buddhist traditions and vocabulary). I obviously don’t think that K.S. teaching goes against the suttas, but there are differences between what K.S. and Mahasi Saydaw or Nyanyanyanda for example teach, so we’re talking about differences in the interpretation of the suttas. It’s useful, though probably not crucial, to understand these differences. Either way, whatever/whoever I study, I find the main question is – do I understand correctly what a certain teacher is teaching? I think it takes at least a few years of careful and respectful study to get to understand the teacher on his own merits and even then my understanding would be flawed by my own limitations at the time.

Best wishes

[pt1]

I am not deliberately in my responses to robertk, Virgo/Kevin, and dhamma follower trying to misrepresent what they are saying. As I asked you once already, have you actually read the exchanges in this thread?

Yes, following the thread, though usually a few days behind.

Please show me where I have significantly misunderstood what was being said by the Sujin followers here.

When I just got in contact with K.S. students, I expressed pretty much the same criticisms as you did. They patiently kept explaining I was misunderstanding them. After a few years of getting a hold on the terminology, I might have a clue about some bits that I was misunderstanding. In fact, I now think there’s really not much difference between what K.S. and say Ledi Sayadaw teach. There are some differences of course, though in the grand scheme of things, not that important I think.

The point being, you don’t need to understand K.S. to be a Theravadin, but if you want to understand K.S, it helps to approach it with the same respect and eagerness to learn as you would any other favourite teacher. Otherwise, not much point wasting energy because the difference in exposition is vast and the meanings of most terms need to be redefined, e.g. “bhavana”, “practice”, “path”, etc . Anyway I’ll address a specific discussion issue in another post (probably tomorrow and to separate it from this rambling), not sure if it’ll really clarify things, if not, you can always try dsg if you get the inclination.

(I am a Registred Nurse, working night shift, which pays me well enough that I can do quite well working part time. When I am not working I keep night shift hours.)

Good to know, as a nursing assistant hoping to slowly work and study my way to registered nurse, I hope one day I’ll get to be as prolific online as you are.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

Thank you for your considered reply.

I am not deliberately in my responses to robertk, Virgo/Kevin, and dhamma follower trying to misrepresent what they are saying. As I asked you once already, have you actually read the exchanges in this thread?

Yes, following the thread, though usually a few days behind.

Okay. Then you must have seen that I addressed repeatedly the question of the use of conventional language:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=40#p228363

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=60#p228438

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=160#p229243

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=220#p229407

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=400#p230923

And many more, and the issue of conventional language was never really directly addressed by the KS followers here. So, maybe you can clarify this significant issue.

I might have a clue about some bits that I was misunderstanding. In fact, I now think there’s really not much difference between what K.S. and say Ledi Sayadaw teach. There are some differences of course, though in the grand scheme of things, not that important I think.

Given the wholesale dismissal of formal sitting practice by robertk and Dhamma follower – not just dismissal, but characterizing is as wrong and as lobha --, I look forward to your discussion of this.

The point being, you don’t need to understand K.S. to be a Theravadin

So far what I have seen of KS in this thread and in the links provided, she is an outlier, but I would welcome to be shown to be wrong in that assessment.

not much point wasting energy because the difference in exposition is vast and the meanings of most terms need to be redefined, e.g. “bhavana”, “practice”, “path”, etc .

And this actually makes the point her teachings being an outlier, especially when you add to that the pointed dismissal of more traditional approaches.

I look forward to what you have to say.

[pt1]

And many more, and the issue of conventional language was never really directly addressed by the KS followers here. So, maybe you can clarify this significant issue.

I find more seasoned K.S. students have no problems using conventional speak. It’s a bit different for more recent students like me (and I suspect DF). I guess a certain level of understanding and confidence in the teachings is needed to be able to use conventional and ultimate speak together without problems. I still struggle and prefer ultimate-speak (which for me equals to pali terms in abhidhamma-like English sentences), mainly because of precision and not having to rely much on English for important terms because it’s not my native language, like it isn’t for most K.S. students, even though we communicate mostly in English.

Other reasons for ultimate speak among K.S. students, as I see it:

1. When you just get into contact with K.S. students, you notice a lot of pali, which I think is used partly to ease the communication between different nationals, but also because all the Theravadin classical texts are taken as authority – tipitaka, commentary and subcommentary. Thus, a lot of pali terms from abhidhamma and commentaries are in common parlance among K.S. students, so you have to look into abhidhamma and commentaries to understand the discussions.

2. For definitions of terms, one is usually directed to passages from suttas, but also, and sometimes even more often, to Dhammasangani, Visuddhimagga, Atthasalini, Samohavinodani and Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Thus, almost form the start, one’s interpretation of even the most basic terms is strongly influenced by abhidhamma and classical commentaries, which of course is different when compared to most modern Western Buddhist traditions.

3. As you probably know, commentaries are somewhat specific – they sometimes use and build upon abhidhamma terminology, employ abhidhamma-like exposition, momentariness, as well as sometimes a specific tone – more negative statements concerning actions and people, while statements concerning dhammas are more affirmative (e.g. Vis. XVI, 90: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there”).

4.Such tone of exposition obviously influences the way K.S. students discuss Dhamma (e.g. using statements like “no one can make mindfulness arise”), and it did feel quite foreign initially because I was used to sutta-only and meditation-speak (e.g. “a person should develop mindfulness”) that usually take the opposite tone - more affirmative on actions and people but more negative on dhammas. Incidentally, both types of the above statements would be used in K.S. discussions, and it used to really confuse me initially, until it was explained to me that the two statements essentially refer to the same thing, though seemingly being exact opposites due to positive conventional speak tone and negative ultimate speak tone.

Anyway, I feel it’s quite natural that if you’re spending a lot of time discussing abhidhamma and commentaries, your discussions would tend to be shaped by the terms and tone of the matter discussed, just like if you’re discussing meditation a lot, your discussion would then be shaped by meditation experiences. Of course, which one is better or more correct as an interpretation of suttas, I guess that’s up to each person to determine on one’s own, but I feel K.S. students can't be blamed for talking the way they usually do, just like you can’t blame people from Brazil for speaking English with a Portuguese accent. That said, I feel “when in Rome…” should apply, so if a K.S. student is participating in Dhamma Wheel discussions, an effort should be made to use conventional-speak, which is the lingua franca here.

Don’t know if this addresses what you were trying to understand regarding terminology? Maybe before moving on to the issue of formal practice I should give an example to illustrate the equality between ultimate and conventional speak statements despite them seeming to be complete opposites due to tone? Didn’t want to make this post overly long.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

Thank you for time you put into this.

And many more, and the issue of conventional language was never really directly addressed by the KS followers here. So, maybe you can clarify this significant issue.

I find more seasoned K.S. students have no problems using conventional speak. It’s a bit different for more recent students like me (and I suspect DF). I guess a certain level of understanding and confidence in the teachings is needed to be able to use conventional and ultimate speak together without problems. I still struggle and prefer ultimate-speak (which for me equals to pali terms in abhidhamma-like English sentences), mainly because of precision and not having to rely much on English for important terms because it’s not my native language, like it isn’t for most K.S. students, even though we communicate mostly in English.

From what I undetrstand robertk is not a KS neophyte.

2. For definitions of terms, one is usually directed to passages from suttas, but also, and sometimes even more often, to Dhammasangani, Visuddhimagga, Atthasalini, Samohavinodani and Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Thus, almost form the start, one’s interpretation of even the most basic terms is strongly influenced by abhidhamma and classical commentaries, which of course is different when compared to most modern Western Buddhist traditions.

Almost every one of these texts has been quoted in this thread, and, as I have addressed this issue above, I am not impressed with how they are used.

4.Such tone of exposition obviously influences the way K.S. students discuss Dhamma (e.g. using statements like “no one can make mindfulness arise”), and it did feel quite foreign initially because I was used to sutta-only and meditation-speak (e.g. “a person should develop mindfulness”) that usually take the opposite tone - more affirmative on actions and people but more negative on dhammas. Incidentally, both types of the above statements would be used in K.S. discussions, and it used to really confuse me initially, until it was explained to me that the two statements essentially refer to the same thing, though seemingly being exact opposites due to positive conventional speak tone and negative ultimate speak tone.

So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511 ?

but I feel K.S. students can't be blamed for talking the way they usually do, just like you can’t blame people from Brazil for speaking English with a Portuguese accent. That said, I feel “when in Rome…” should apply, so if a K.S. student is participating in Dhamma Wheel discussions, an effort should be made to use conventional-speak, which is the lingua franca here.

I'd blame KS for much of what I heard here. Listen to that Q&A talk on metta linked above by Virgo: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/2012-01-kk/2012-01-25-am-b-01.mp3 What I find unfortunate in this is that KS does not really seem to understand what actual meditation is about as a process of growth in understanding, and the negative attitude she which has toward "sitting in the dark" is reflected in her students, and that has been reflected in this thread.

Don’t know if this addresses what you were trying to understand regarding terminology? Maybe before moving on to the issue of formal practice I should give an example to illustrate the equality between ultimate and conventional speak statements despite them seeming to be complete opposites due to tone? Didn’t want to make this post overly long.

I think you have a some heavy lifting to do here. Don't worry about the length of the msgs, as long as they are on point, which I do not see as an issue with you. Please do illustrate your point about conventional and ultimate language. It would seem that, as of yet, KS has not been well served in this thread.

[pt1]

Glad to continue the discussion.

From what I undetrstand robertk is not a KS neophyte.

Yes, he’s been at it a lot longer than me, so I haven’t mentioned him among us of the newer crop. I think he’s actually quite good in using both terminologies, and in fact, I recall him criticising me on several occasions when I was dismissing conventional speak in favor of ultimate speak. I suspect he just doesn’t have the time to get into lengthy discussions at the moment.

So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511 ?
...
What I find unfortunate in this is that KS does not really seem to understand what actual meditation is about as a process of growth in understanding, and the negative attitude she which has toward "sitting in the dark" is reflected in her students, and that has been reflected in this thread.

When I was trying to make sense of similar K.S. and her students' statements, as a meditator, I found it helpful to put the statements into context regarding who’s the speaker, to whom the statement is intended and how do both understand “bhavana” (translated as development, practice, meditation). If that’s alright, I’ll get into this in the next post as it is probably the central difference here.

Please do illustrate your point about conventional and ultimate language.

I used to get confused when just starting with Nina Van Gorkom books when in one sentence she would say something like – (a) “we should develop mindfulness”, but then in the next sentence she would say something like – (b) “no one can make mindfulness arise”. I’d then ask – but aren’t the two statements exact opposites?! I was then explained that they weren’t - it’s just that one is conventional speak, the other ultimate speak, both describing more or less the same thing.

(a) “we should develop mindfulness” - this is conventional speak, taking on the positive tone, reminiscent of the similar exhortations in the suttas and in meditation speak. (Incidentally, someone questioned the issue of “we” statements earlier - I don’t really know, but I suspect it’s one of those non-English expressions that got translated into English literally and then just stuck. It’s basically just an equivalent of “a person should develop mindfulness”, “one should…” type of conventional expressions, etc.)

Now, if I was looking for the worst in the statement (a), I’d conclude that it is advocating self-view and mindfulness as something permanent that isn’t conditioned. This of course isn’t the intended meaning of the statement. So, looking for the best in the statement, I’d say it is trying to point to something like a neutral statement (c) – “mindfulness is conditioned and not self”, because I presume that someone with developed wisdom, and accordingly developed mindfulness (as the intended end result of the statement (a)), would understand mindfulness as such.

(b) “No one can make mindfulness arise” – this is ultimate speak, as well as taking on the occasional negative tone of the commentaries (negative on people and actions, positive on dhammas). Now, if I was looking for the worst in this statement, I’d conclude that it is advocating fatalism and passivity. This of course isn’t the intended meaning of the statement. Rather, it is meant to emphasize anatta and conditionality of mindfulness. So, looking for the best in the statement, I’d say it is again trying to point to something like a neutral statement - (c) “mindfulness is conditioned and not self”.

So basically, the two can be interpreted in the same way if looking for the best in them, even though they seem entirely opposite. I feel that both types of speech can work, sometimes a person needs to hear it one way, sometimes it might help to hear it another way. I’m under the impression that a lot of misunderstandings in this thread arose due to looking for the worst in each other's statements.

Similarly, regarding K.S. and her students’ statements on meditation - even though a meditator can find them critical and hostile even, I generally find them really helpful when looking for the best in them. Of course, even then, the statements might not work for everyone. Anyway, I’ll get on the subject of criticising formal meditation in the next post, just please give me a few days to come up with something decent.

Best wishes

[robertk]

So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511 ?

This is what I said in that link:

robertk wrote:It is not that sitting and watching the breath or watching bodily sensations is going to help or hinder the path, anymore than me choosing the Belly Sandwich Shop in preference to Subway. But if one believes that it is these very operations that somehow are key to satisampajanna to arise then one is in the realm of silabataparamasa.


If you think that is dismissive and bitingly negative you maybe don't realize how much I enjoy Tuna sandwiches>

[tiltbillings]

So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511 ?

This is what I said in that link:

robertk wrote:It is not that sitting and watching the breath or watching bodily sensations is going to help or hinder the path, anymore than me choosing the Belly Sandwich Shop in preference to Subway. But if one believes that it is these very operations that somehow are key to satisampajanna to arise then one is in the realm of silabataparamasa.
If you think that is dismissive and bitingly negative you maybe don't realize how much I enjoy Tuna sandwiches>

Damdifino how much you enjoy tuna sandiches. Your initial comment comes across a negative and dismissive, and this comment only adds to the negativity. Maybe you could try writing in a far more straightforward manner.

[robertk]

So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511 ?

This is what I said in that link:

robertk wrote:It is not that sitting and watching the breath or watching bodily sensations is going to help or hinder the path, anymore than me choosing the Belly Sandwich Shop in preference to Subway. But if one believes that it is these very operations that somehow are key to satisampajanna to arise then one is in the realm of silabataparamasa.
If you think that is dismissive and bitingly negative you maybe don't realize how much I enjoy Tuna sandwiches>

Damdifino how much you enjoy tuna sandiches. Your initial comment comes across a negative and dismissive, and this comment only adds to the negativity. Maybe you could try writing in a far more straightforward manner.

Earlier in the thread I wrote this:
Here is a quote from a popular book by Venerable Gunaratana,Mindfulness in Plain English:

One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any emotional or mental state.. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness.

I agree with that quote
I don't believe that vipassana/satipatthana is related to posture. I believe that satipatthana can arise while eating a tuna sandwich at Belly Sandwich, or even at Subway. It can also arise while sitting in lotus posture in a jungle.
This is because it is a purely mental phenomena, and unlike samatha development, where sound is a thorn, vipassana can be aware of sound or of unpleasant feeling or pleasant taste. It can even arise "in the midst or a raging fury" or "in the middle or a footall scrimmage"> THis is because "mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness"

[tiltbillings]

Here is a quote from a popular book by Venerable Gunaratana,Mindfulness in Plain English:

One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any emotional or mental state.. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness.

I agree with that quote
I don't believe that vipassana/satipatthana is related to posture. I believe that satipatthana can arise while eating a tuna sandwich at Belly Sandwich, or even at Subway. It can also arise while sitting in lotus posture in a jungle.
This is because it is a purely mental phenomena, and unlike samatha development, where sound is a thorn, vipassana can be aware of sound or of unpleasant feeling or pleasant taste. It can even arise "in the midst or a raging fury" or "in the middle or a footall scrimmage"> THis is because "mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness"

I wonder if you agree with the full context of this quote in Ven G's book, which is that mindfulness can be deliberately cultivated, and it is a matter of discipline choice that leads to the cultivation of mindfulness. Also, that passage refers to a well cultivated mindfulness. Like passages you have quoted above, this also seems to be out of context in the way you are using it here.

[pulga]

I still don't have the time to engage in much "heavy lifting", but I noticed that two of the sutta quotes offered in support of a mundane interpretation of yoniso manasikara come from the Kalyanamittavagga of the Anguttaranikaya. A kalyanamitta is explicitly defined as an ariyan in the Suttas, later the monks felt the need to introduce the notion of a "kalyana puthujjana" (Patisambidhamagga and the Commentaries) to compensate for the dearth of ariyans in their midst.

[daverupa]

I still don't have the time to engage in much "heavy lifting"

It's cool, I'll wait.