Dear Tzung-Kuen,
op 14-06-2004 04:59 schreef Mr Tzung-Kuen Wen op s4060239@...:

> I still do not understand why Ledi Sayadaw, Pa-Auk Sayadaw and you distinguish
> manodvaaraavajjana-citta into yoniso and ayoniso.
> As you said, manodvaaraavajjana-citta is only ahetuka and kiriya, it has no
> amoha cetasika, why can it be said to be yoniso ? Do we have earlier
> (sub)commentaries to support this idea?

N: I understand the problem. There is not much about this in the Co. as far
as I know. It helps to see cittas as conditioned dhammas that arise and just
perform their functions. As the Atthasaalinii stated, <Attention which
regulates apperception (javana) is a synonym for mind-door-adverting. > I do
not say that only this citta is having wise or unwise attention. As I see
it, the succeeding javanacittas are included. Thus, when kusala cittas arise
we know that there was wise attention, and the same for akusala cittas. If
we understand that it all happens because of the appropriate conditions and
that there is no person there, it may become clearer.
A citta that regulates what follows is very impersonal. Considering this
helps us to have more understanding of anatta.
When we read yoniso, wise attention, it does not mean that the succeeding
kusala cittas have to be accompanied by pa~n~naa, they may be kusala cittas
unaccompanied by pa~n~naa. Thus the translation for yoniso manasikaara as
wise attention may not be clear. It could be: attention in the right way.
Nina.