Greetings Ben,
My point simply was that someone who satisfies this test from the Canki Sutta that Peter drew our attention to...
As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on delusion... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not deluded. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's deluded.
... has a good Dhamma and discipline, but is not necessarily by default a good teacher.
I think the disconnect between the two in the instance of a paccekabuddha in fact makes paccekabuddhas the perfect example to demonstrate this point to Peter, who was questioning whether there is a difference between the two.
I'm not suggesting that people try to invent their own Dhamma in the absence of one, or anything bizarre like that. That would be totally incongruent with everything I've said throughout this topic to date.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."