So if I were to chastise you before your closest friends for an understanding that you had, because you openly and honestly revealed it, and I call you the foolish one for having the understanding and for revealing it, because it was bad press for me, then what behavior am I calling foolish, and what behavior am I calling wise? Even if your view is the so-called pernicious view, you have faith in others by providing control over yourself to others, as you reveal it. Though I may disagree with the view, is it honest of me to challenge your view by characterizing you as foolish for having the view? You are not the view, as you believe you are not your mental formation. I might challenge you for teaching the view that I view is wrong, but who really gets to determine what is wise, and unwise, foolish or not? If you don't see the value in my view, or the foolishness in yours, I have to accept that from your viewpoint: you may be wise, and I may be foolish. Whether you see wisdom or foolishness in my words... it is not my doing. The blessed one does reveal his belief to his students, having faith in the others. However, he reveals himself to be selfish, concerned with the characterization of himself and his teaching. Meanwhile, he is blazingly characterizing the others as foolish and wise. This is why I say that he is behaving as a hypocrite. Why does he care so much about the pernicious view that is truly NOT his? Just trying to help his fellow monks? He is fighting the gossip over his own mental formation, or the lack thereof. The mental work that it takes for him to review his actions, is apparently not there. It would be a double standard for me to characterize your teaching, but to not accept you to characterize mine. If I were to say: IF you love me, and have faith in me, then you will go to heaven: am I being non-selfish? Is it necessary for you to love me, and have faith in me, for you to go to heaven? Am I demonstrating that I am clear of sense-desire, as I threaten-demand you to love me, and have faith in me? Do I really have the knowledge, or the right, to say that? I believe this is partly a translation error, but as I read it the selfishness is still very clear because the word 'ME' was not the translation error. The blessed one is NOT saying: love this wisdom, and trust in this teaching. He is NOT saying: love each other and have faith in each other. He is saying: do something with ME: love ME, and have faith in ME, and come seek ME for understanding because I am wise, and then you get to go to heaven. Who is ME? Would that be his mind-body aggregate that is not his, but yet he wants it to be loved, and to have the faith of others in it? He says to disown your mind-body, and clear your mind of these things, except for some form of love and faith in that blessed one. The ownership of wisdom is like the ownership of foolishness: if the one is not his, then neither was the other. I would say that it is good for you if you are loving, and having faith in others, even the one that is demanding it. Whether he is a fool, or wise, it is still valuable to hear him. But, who would I be to say that you will be in heaven by loving me, and having faith in me? Who does the blessed one need to love, and to have faith in, to go to heaven himself... love in himself, and faith in himself? I tell you the truth: I think Arittha was the closest one with approval in the eyes of God. Why do I say this? The so-called blessed one is in hiding. As he says: by clearing his mind, the gods with Indra, the gods with Brahma, and the gods with the Lord of Creatures, searching will not find on what his consciousness is based. He is in hiding, hiding himself from God. Does a person have any relationship with God, as he goes into hiding?