Yoniso manasikāra is used very widely in the suttas. A basic definition is found at MN 2:
Ayoniso, bhikkhave, manasikaroto anuppannā ceva āsavā uppajjanti, uppannā ca āsavā pavaḍḍhanti; yoniso ca kho, bhikkhave, manasikaroto anuppannā ceva āsavā na uppajjanti, uppannā ca āsavā pahīyanti.
When one attends unwisely, unarisen taints arise and arisen taints increase. When one attends wisely, unarisen taints do not arise and arisen taints are abandoned.
Here “taint” is used much in the same way as defilement is used elsewhere.
So it seems that any use of the mind that leads to an increase in wholesome qualities is yoniso manaskāra, the reverse being the case for ayoniso manasikāra. Reflection, whether “critical” or “wise”, is certainly included in this. Depending on how it is used, it would come under either yoniso or ayoniso.
But there is more to a/yoniso manasikāra than reflection. Yoniso manasikāra is used all the way to the end of the path and includes the final directing of the mind as you attain the stages of awakening. In these cases the word “reflection” probably does not do full justice to what is going on, being, as it is, quite closely related to “thinking”. When the mind is very still, as it needs to be before profound insight is possible, it is more a matter of turning the mind in the right direction than verbalisation. It is for this reason that I think the standard rendering of yoniso manasikāra as “wise attention” or “careful attention” is quite satisfactory. It includes all modes of using the mind.
So we can’t think our way to enlightenment - critically or otherwise? We can describe the necessary causes and supportive conditions for waking up but it all has to be put into practice - through body, speech and mind? The description is not the described? We need a whole-hearted and conscientious engagement with the teachings in every aspect of our lives. Its not just about what the ‘little voices’ are telling us to do, what we believe makes sense and what does not.
One of the things that destroyed it are the recent findings in quantum physics. I am not speaking here about the double slit experiment, I am speaking about the double slit ERAZER experiment that destroyed both solipsism and materialism at the same time. Explaining this would take quite some time, therefore I suggest reading a day or two on the topic to better understand these findings.
Other things that destroyed it are things regarding the relationship between imaterial things such as consciousness, perception, etc. and physical matter. Things as simple as the placebo effect destroy materialism. Neuroplasticity also killed it. Some people think that we can say “oh, we just haven’t explained that yet, I am sure there will be an explanation that will make that fit somehow with our materialist believs”. That is the same as christians opinions about evolution or things that just contradict what is written in the bible. You just can’t have things like the placebo effect or neuroplasticity existing and still consider the causality between matter-consciousness that materialism proposes to be true. That conditionality has been shown to be wrong. There is nothing you can do about it, that particular conditionality has been shown to simply not be so. It is like saying scientific findings show the world is round, yet we can still make these findings fit with our flat-earth beliefs but we just need a little more time to see how we can do that.
What I like to do with materialist is suggest them to take 5 minutes (5 minutes, not 1 minute) to really think about how could such a thing as consciousness originate from matter. How can a primitive organism like an insect having 5 neurons posses consciousness yet a supercomputer can not. Just take 5 minutes to really really really think about how could consciousness originate from matter. You can’t just say it pooped up due to magic, you must find some kind of a mechanism. You need some kind of an explanation. You can’t just say “this is so because I believe it is so” or claim there is magic that made it pop up. You need an explanation that doesn’t involve the use of magic, an explanation that provides some sort of a mechanism.
Of course these are all simply not required since materialism has been burried by quantum phisics ever since the 50s, not to mention the recent quantum erazer experiment. This is why the few quantum phisicist that still believe in materialism now believe in the 'Many-worlds-theory" - a theory that not only does not solve these problems, but it also brings more problems than it solves. And it’s as ridiculous of a theory as ridiculous theories get. The spagghete monster is less ridiculous than the many-worlds theory. This is why very few quantum phisicist still believe in materialism. As I said, only biology highschool teachers still believe in this stuff, no serious scientist, especially quantum physicist, still believes in it. Most have just turned agnostic after materialism was refuted.
“The past is like a dream and the future is yet to come. When the future actually happens, it’s always the present. Tomorrow never comes; when it does, it’s called today. One cannot live in the future nor in the past. One can only live this single moment. If we really paid attention to every single moment, we would meditate well. We would also have no doubt about impermanence (anicca). In fact we would see it so clearly, we could let go of our attachments, our clinging.” - Ayya Khema
Yes, I should mention this is based on Richard Hayes’ interpretation of Dignaga. Others scholars differ I believe. This is mainly because Dignaga’s works (1) Don’t survive in sanskrit (2) Can be quite terse.
