[quote=“BugzNZ, post:11, topic:42841”]
“Take an unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones”[/quote]
Dat me too. So here is the “hottest take” ever, 2 cents worth (or not even 2 cents, 1 cent?)
just note, please forgive, but at the asterisk (*) I’m going to borrow a technique from Derrida where he will put a word suffix or prefix in a parenthesis to ensure the reader knows he is not committing to them in the way that like to assert or hold would, that’s just so you know I’m not “actually” holding this view but rather “this is a view” that never the less, still has cause and effect & so to speak “colours my reading” or interpretation, that I may “hold” and it’s the effect of that sort of view or reading (mis)reading that is wanting to be examined, not the actual claims in the metaphysical sense - I think understanding how forms of ignorance can condition further misunderstandings and misinterpretations - that’s simular to what maybe is called vipilesa? - anyhoo… 
What I (mis)understand* by this sutta 
is it’s talking about how the world arises in quite a literal sense but from the supra mundane right view - sense of a being, sentience, that subject to suffering - where the mistake lies in the origination of the world and being, in dependent origination. And that misake is what’s called ignorance - that gives rise to sankhara (hence the sort of double-take meaning both constructed, fabricated, but also choice, but essence, robotic, like a conditioned choice an addict might have theres still the conditioning of the compulsion - and theres a way the world seems, different to liberated person, whose mind not involved in coarse things, theres a body - not properly seen) the anusaya or underlying tendency which creates our “robotic choice” or things seeming “objects” (robotic machinery - external - self objectified too - “self in world”) how they come to be, or even subtler - how even consciousness comes to fall upon an “object” or “self and object” duality set up, or sense of what it is like “to be” - that sankhara is produced by delight, so someone maybe aware of causes of ignorance, seeing (somewhat) properly anicca, dukkha, anatta but when there still remains anusaya that can “delight” - this is productive of the sankhara - this is ignorance. (I’m agnostic on either multiple life view or single life view of D.O i think both mismark or are like “views” of D.O from the relative point of view and both have some truth in them while not being complete - or another way of saying “I don’t understand them yet and can’t tell” lol [0] agnositicism with epistemic skepticism until the experience resolves either - but that’s the funny thing about ignorance - one could have the experience that coheres with that view as some extent confirming that view - but become stagnant - because of delighting in it - the anusaya’s at work - which is also a reason I think the metta sutta is “by not holding to fixed views” as right view is in a sense not fixed view, its always anicca, dukkha, anatta - how else to spread loving kindness universally without the understanding of all views of beings hehe - ok way above my “pay grade” and hottest take ever )
So yes there’s a kind of funny paradox in the relative ways the dhamma is conveyed which was the unique and awesome capacities of a buddha - to convey the dhamma in the relative world, and the dhamma. This sutta seems “paradoxical” in a sense, but what its pointing to is the manner which a view even so close to truth or some correct in a relative sense can be mistaken and lead to ignorance, that is the function of delight - which is reasonable function - but I also think of this with like deep meditation or something like MN128 where the “elation” pulls them away from the development - the elation preventing them with insight into developing the samadhi and context to realise nibanna.
That’s my half a cent hot take and kind of honest reading or way I have of understanding that sutta - I must admit I delight in this take, so don’t understand it. 
Also I think this (mis)understanding/understanding is caused by “delight” in that - when we read dhamma we maybe have deep experience or what ever is our current “high water mark” for experience - and for instance when I’m saying “it’s about how literally the world arises” that is probably based on some “deep experience” being bhavanga which is noted by Ajahn Brahm as a cul de sac and also talked in Pa Auk as “mistaken for nibanna” but it’s experience of subtle where life contiuation consciousness is and not distinct for someone with coarse mind (hello, me ) and I think has a different emotional characteristic to different people depending on other past experiences so sometimes hear of it “same as occurs in deep sleep” pa auk notes it can be mistaken for jhana or nibanna - like someone it might be plain like the deep rest of sleep others its proceeding might be full of light etc [1] - and like “delight” in a view or a deep experience like mn 128 points out the elation the exit - so this is a flavour of wrong view - and its our tendency (anusaya, vipalesa) to read into suttas based on our deepest or most universal view which most people comes from meditation, and that delight itself is what conditions that view - and so I don’t understand it. But I can understand that particular species of wrong view as it’s one I have and hard to shake. I think I saw Ajahn Brahm answering a question from someone with that experience a few weeks ago in Perth on the Friday night and was funny to see the way he did because would give it no life because he understands its a cul de sac and delighting in it counter productive,
With metta
[0] I don’t mean agnostic on rebirth - that’s plausible and more likely than not if someone has experience of when senses disappear and “vision of forms” mn128 - also rebirth, rather than reincarnation, its kinda agnosticism on selves hehe
[1] from what I gather in their book “Knowing and Seeing” they are clear to give it no life like Ajahn Brahm does but when jhana developed they do in cases try to intentionally cultivate that bhavanga experience when they do the recollecting past lives - but the purpose there is only after jhana so the hinderances not present - otherwise a person would delight in it - “I was such and such a person in such and such a place” or following experience of everything ending, not world, self, time, “Oh, I had a cessation experience, let me write a book about it and post on the internet” etc. Which I think is actually the case and this explains a lot of confusions about dhamma that proliferate
anyway that will probably be last post here except to ask questions as this post sums up current “state of understanding” or extent of my current wrong view, and kinda not going to help further reading or understanding suttas further until develop further - which may never happen - but hope it does - or like “I really don’t have any other options but to try”- and it’s an awful lot of conciet to think “oh I understand MN1” lol but that is my honest sincer reading and how it makes sense to me at current. So maybe this stands as a warning of having experiences without the correct context …
“Take an unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones” Example in point: me. EDIT; just put the most important TL;DR of my (mis)interpretation in bold.
Anyway, now that’s out of my system and my sincere view of this sutta noted somewhere, hopefully can practice so mind changes instead of this “deepest held” belief, which is just a view caused by delight hehe (and there is the weirdest paradoxical part - that these views have substantial real-world like “real as bricks and motar” appearance, yet knowing caused by delight, non delight, the views change - the “fixation, undelying tendency” away from seeing the “object” see the anicca or empty etc) knowledge of which, understanding the (mis)understanding, is as I understand it, the understanding of this sutta, which means it’s a misunderstanding, - that’s the “seemingly paradoxical” but consistent with dhamma as I (mis) understand it) and hopefully can find context to practice where lucky enough to be “seeing the noble ones, skilled and trained in dhamma”, oh that would be like winning the universe birth and kamma lottery hehe
Elsewhere there’s like sn12.15 “without commiting, adherance” yeah, the misunderstanding - in essence the kinds of views that come from “holding” to fixed view are not the ones where coherent with the dhamma which seeing anicca,dukkha, anatta correctly, this sutta mn1 is in essence an important instruction at the beginning to warn about the misinterpretations when the buddha (who is the one who knows the dhamma and has the paramis to convey in the relative world, while there might of been solitary buddhas prior who could not convey) about one of the ways the misunderstanding of the ultimate from the terms of the relative (the means and conditions he has to teach) can arise.
