I mean I would think that point 2 is crucial to developing the path, like knowing "this is mindfulness and this is greed, this is right concentration and this is wrong concentration, etc." I mean, then it's clear what is the path, and what is not the path, and then insight can actually progress in the right direction.
Hi Pt. Panna on the conceptual level can understand what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Panna on the experiential level, satipatthana, does not care and can insight wholesome and unwholesome mindstates just the same. Any dhamma wether kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome) can be an object of insight. Even dosa, for example can be the object of insight. One can even attain magga citta through natural (conditioned) satipatthana on dosa, anger. That means, one could be angry at someone and panna (wisdom) and sati (awareness) could arise together, insight the charactersitic of dosa, and one could attain nibbana (given that one already traversed the other levels of insight either slowly over time, or very quickly all in a row like Bahiya of the Bark Cloth did). It matters not wether a dhamma is wholesome or unwholesome for insight, that only matters in terms of cultivating kusala which brings good results (brings wholesome kamma vipaka). Panna that understands wholesome and unwholesomeness and sees the drawbacks in unwholesomeness is a different kind of panna than the panna that leads to insight (same cetasika, different accumulations and function). The Buddha taught dhamma that conditions both of them. He taught dhamma that conditions insight into anatta and leads to cessation because he was an Ariya and foudn the path for others. He taught dhamma that leads to understanding the wholesome and the unwholesome, and adopting what is wholesome, discarding what is unwholesome, because he also had panna on the level that very clearly sees the drawbacks of even a slight unwholesome deed. Both insight and kusala should be cultivated, by conditions.
I don't really understand this part:
pt1 wrote:Would you agree here? Further, would you agree that individual characteristics define dhammas on par with tilakkhana, or do you think they are more (I'm trying to find the right words here) "conceptual" in nature, i.e. not really happening in experience?