daverupa wrote:I think that idea is mistaken, pulga. I am not here to argue either - I am here to ensure that we are all quite clear about an essential condition for right view:
SN 22.122 wrote:On one occasion Ven. Sariputta & Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then Ven. Maha Kotthita, emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend, which things should a virtuous monk
attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self.
For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry."
yoniso manasikara is here clearly practiced by both puthujjana and sekha alike. (arahants too! all aboard yoniso manasikara!)
Hi Dave,
The Pali reflects a greater precision than Ven. Thanissaro's translation:
Ekaṃ samayaṃ āyasmā ca sāriputto āyasmā ca mahākoṭṭhiko [mahākoṭṭhito (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] bārāṇasiyaṃ viharanti isipatane migadāye. Atha kho āyasmā mahākoṭṭhiko sāyanhasamayaṃ paṭisallānā vuṭṭhito yenāyasmā sāriputto tenupasaṅkami…pe… etadavoca – ‘‘sīlavatāvuso, sāriputta, bhikkhunā katame dhammā yoniso manasikātabbā’’ti? ‘‘Sīlavatāvuso, koṭṭhika, bhikkhunā pañcupādānakkhandhā aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā. Katame pañca? Seyyathidaṃ – rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho, saṅkhārupādānakkhandho, viññāṇupādānakkhandho. Sīlavatāvuso, koṭṭhika, bhikkhunā ime pañcupādānakkhandhā aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā. Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ, āvuso, vijjati yaṃ sīlavā bhikkhu ime pañcupādānakkhandhe aniccato…pe… anattato yoniso manasi karonto sotāpattiphalaṃ sacchikareyyā’’ti
Sorry I can't highlight any of the texts: the message board format isn't offering it for the time being. But what is being used here is the future passive participle (yoniso manasi kátabba). It conveys not only the future, but the imperative, so when Ven. Sariputta is speaking it doesn't necessarily mean that the silavata bhikkhu at that time is even capable of yonisomanasikara. He is saying that he should (in the future) properly attend to the pañcupádánakkhandhá, because if he were to do so there is the possiblity that he might attain sotápattiphala. If the silavata bhikkhu fails to live up to Ven. Sariputta's imperative, he remains a puthujjana. Sorry that I didn't catch that earlier.