This discussion has been very useful for me.
Per a previous comment re: remedy provided, vs. a doer performing the remedy, I revisited Bhikkhu Bodhi’s generalized explanation:
"While English generally inclines to representing the subject of a sentence in an active role, as the agent of the action, Pāli often features the logical subject — the agent of an action, observation, or thought — in a passive role relative to the grammatical subject of the sentence. The logical subject becomes one to whom a thought occurs, one to whom an event happens, one to whom an object appears, with the thought, the event, or the object becoming the grammatical subject…
…In the following (p. 106), instead of saying that one who knows and sees the four noble truths attains the destruction of the influxes, the destruction of the influxes functions as the grammatical subject occurring to the actual agent — represented by two dative present participles — as if the agent were passively undergoing the attainment:
“‘Idaṃ dukkhan’ti, bhikkhave, jānato passato āsavānaṃ khayo hoti.” “It is, monks, for one knowing and seeing, ‘This is suffering,’ that the destruction of the influxes occurs.”
–end Bhikkhu Bodhi quote
In a mundane example (via footnote), Bhikkhu Bodhi says:
“Logical subject” refers to the subject of a sentence other than in a grammatical (or “syntactic”) sense. Sentences with a logical subject (as well as a grammatical subject) usually have a passive verb. For example, in the sentence “The burglar was arrested by the policeman,” the grammatical subject is “the burglar” but the logical subject (the doer of the action referred to, the arresting) is the policeman.
–end Bhikkhu Bodhi (BB) quote
This creates complexity for people like me whose native language does not generally function with a logical subject in a passive role. In the burglar/policeman example, my attention focuses first on a burglar, then on an arrest, finally on a policeman (doing the arresting).
In the text on the influxes, it’s easier for me to immediately assume the subject (“one”). But BB then goes on to provide more complex examples that take me back to the burglar/policeman conundrum.
There is a fundamental-- more than nuanced-- conclusion for me from this ongoing study. One commenter aptly used the remedy scenario with “climate change”. If the remedy (third noble truth) = reducing fuel emmisions, I can meditate on this time and again and experience its rightness. I might even watch the self fall away with such focused attention.
However, until I assume agency, it does not change anything except my own realization. I wonder whether there’s conflation of a basic Pali grammatical model with a modern cultural propensity to evade agency through intellectual and spiritualized means.
For my own ongoing practice, I can’t envision the Buddha evading agency for fear it would reify a sense of an enduring self. The turban-on-fire simile effectively says as much to me. I suppose I’m heading into Bodhisattva plus ethical territory here without having really intended to when I posted a couple of days ago with the original question.
I will keep my eyes open for any other insight on this topic and bow to the wholesome intentions that saturate this forum.