While I’m waiting for your response to my last post, I’m picking out one point of your last post to respond to.
<< But this takes us back to where we began. So the only thing I can conclude from your explanation is that "some people" get it and others do not. And those who do not "get it" are not helped even if they read the right set of texts, because they are conditioned to be distracted from "getting it."
The political corollary is that many religions are organized so that a caste of those who "got it" are empowered to teach those who have not got it yet, and including many who probably never will get it. That in my humble opinion is how magical thinking, dogmatism and fanaticism run rabid over very legitimate religious inclinations of the ordinary human being. >>
The first paragraph is saying that those ‘who don’t get it’ won’t gain anything from being taught. The second is saying that those ‘who get it’ will teach them from up a pedestal.
I know you are saying only that such a situation could evolve from the kind of attitude. But I’d suggest that it is in fact unnecessary to go into the kind of consideration.
I’m talking about the way things are which includes distinguishing elements that are wholesome and unwholesome and those that are neither. I am also stressing that to know this requires wisdom which not only is the highest good, but which can’t ever be developed without other kinds of good being developed alongside. Most particularly there is what is called the Ten Perfections. These are good qualities working to support one another led by wisdom, yet this wisdom can’t grow without these good qualities being developed which include:Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/buddhism/31499-buddhism-vegetarianism-would-siddhartha-eat-meat.html
Besides if you reasoned, you’d understand that since wisdom would know the value of good and the harm of evil, there’d develop an inclination towards the one and away from the other.
That some people will get it and some won’t, this is *fact*. When the Buddha was enlightened, on reviewing what he came to understand, his first reaction was a disinclination to teach it. What subsequently arose and on surveying the world, was the thought about beings with different levels of accumulated understanding, including those with what he considered ‘little dust in their eyes’, which then made him to decide to do so.
From my side all I can say is that I’m interested in the Dhamma, and since I see much value in it, sometimes I like to share. I also like to discuss, as it allows for my thoughts to be sorted out and challenged, and I sure would like to correct any wrong understanding that I have. I do sometimes come to conclusions about another person’s level of understanding and in some cases have the associated thought of it being not worth the effort to talk the person about the Dhamma. That would of course be due to aversion / lack of kindness. However much of the time, I am lead to think that I don’t really know who has what kind of accumulations and what set of words and when would anyone’s accumulated understanding suddenly show up. In fact I sincerely believe that there are several people out there who although at present have ‘wrong view’, that this is only because of their present situation, including not having yet gotten the chance to hear the Dhamma expressed in a way just right for them, that in fact some of these people are nearer to the goal than I am!
Some may think that I’m being arrogant since I’m acting the judge and don’t show any sign of acknowledging that I might possibly be wrong. To this I’ll say that right understanding of the Dhamma does not allow for wavering of any kind. Having a beginner’s understanding include knowing that one has this level of understanding, but that this may be wrong understanding does not cross one’s mind and would logically go against what one claims to be developing. Sure, I may in fact be wrong and completely deluded, and if this is the case, so be it since nothing can be done about it anyway. But I really see no value in being unsure.
Also in my case where I am is result of what I’d consider much reflection on many aspects of the Dhamma as applied to my life. And since I’m open to discussing the "Truth" with anyone at anytime, I don’t think that this has any relationship to the kind of attitude leading to “magical thinking” or even “dogmatism” would it?Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31499
Better end now or you’ll stop reading my posts altogether. ;-)