Hi retro, Mike and all, just my thoughts on the topic and discussion so far.
retrofuturist wrote:
As a definition for 'speculative', how about "view (ditthi) that is not experientially verified as knowledge (nana)"?
I too find this a bit confusing. I think in the suttas, abhidhamma and commentaries, ditthi refers to wrong view, which is directly opposed to right view (sammaditthi in the suttas, wisdom cetasika in abhidhamma, and I've also seen sanditthi (proper view) in commentaries). So I would say, ditthi is not equivalent to thinking/speculation per se, i.e. thinking can run on the back of both right and wrong view, so to speak, so the path is not about stopping thinking.
retrofuturist wrote:
Tying this back to dependent origination, which Mike enquired about in the original post, the structural links between any nidanas which are not yet experientially known fall into that category of "view (ditthi) that is not experientially verified as knowledge (nana)" and are therefore speculative.
Not sure about d.o, but in general terms, the distinction you make between thinking (regardless of whether it's accompanied by ditthi or not) and direct insight (knowledge/nana) is important, imo. And what's directly related to Mike's original question I think is the difference between thinking which is not accompanied by ditthi, and, direct insight. Which would make a case that there can be a "right" sort of thinking even if it's not direct insight (or one of the nanas). I would personally subscribe to such interpretation, especially considering that most of us can't go from hearing dhamma to direct insight immediately - i.e. first we ponder what we hear/read, and then hopefully that results in/conditions direct insight sometimes later, at which point hearing dhamma might inspire/condition direct insight immediately.
So, in answer to Mike's original question, I'd say that those passages in the canon which seem to be inferential can really inspire/condition both the pondering - wisely thinking about Dhamma, as well as exhortation that would inspire heedfulness and direct insight in the present moment. And both are important and "speak" to us on different stages of understanding a certain aspect of the Dhamma. E.g. if I was to hold onto (cling to) the wrong view (ditthi) like Baka brahma that I am permanent, then hearing from someone that I am not free from death can possibly inspire/condition both pondering wisely first on the topic (thus for the moment not holding onto the ditthi), as well as direct insight into the nature of a dhamma as impermanent, etc.
retrofuturist wrote:
Yet, "this Dhamma is visible here-&-now, not subject to time, inviting all to come & see, pertinent, to be known by the wise for themselves."
This quote imo relates to the original question in many ways. E.g. notice that it says that all these things are to be "known by the wise". Who are "the wise"? Those who have experienced direct insight? Those who have experienced one of the insight knowledges (as in one of the nana stages)? Or maybe only Ariyas? (I might be wrong, but I think that according to Vsm, this whole sentence relates to Ariyas only - see chapter VII, 69, 76 and 85). Regardless, even if we take the most inclusive interpretation that it relates to anyone who can experience a moment of direct insight, for most of us (at least true for me) direct insight is not experienced 99.99..% of the time, what would mean that we can't really experience Dhamma directly most of the time. Other than through thinking and pondering wisely, which hopefully conditions direct insight at some point.
Best wishes