pulga wrote:I find it intriguing that some teachers give the impression that they have a correct understanding of the Dhamma,
Yes, I find that intriguing too.
For example, one can hear them say things like "No, that's not what the Buddha meant" or "By this, the Buddha meant ..."
If they wouldn't propose to be Buddhists, I would think that the objectivist, authority-assuming style is simply a matter of following the communication maxim that one ought to always appear certain. (Many people assess that qualifying one's statements with "I think", "In my understanding so far", "It seems", and such is signaling that the speaker isn't sure of what he is saying and is thus, by being assertive, actually perceived as undermining his own credibility.)
But now, I'm not sure what significance their objectivist, authority-assuming style is supposed to convey.
e.g. Ven. Thanissaro, Ven. Ñanananda, and Ven. Ñanavira while a monk like Ven. Bodhi inspires through his familiarity with the Suttas in their original Pali all the while presenting himself as a puthujjana with the willingness to consider multiple interpretations.
On principle, there is an aggressive, combative, "I dare anyone to prove me wrong" approach possible to talking about spirituality/religion. You can see it sometimes in the Pali Canon when a person, claiming total certainty about something, comes to challenge the Buddha; those stories often end with that challenger being defeated by the Buddha and then taking refuge in him.
I know that some people use that aggressive approach in order to be able to find someone who can defeat them, that is, someone who knows better than them, who is more able than them. So it's not necessarily a bad approach. (Although it certainly isn't particularly nice.)
Taking the idea of a parato ghosa - a voice from beyond - to heart, is it worth making a leap of faith? Or is it better to resign ourselves to an eclectic muddle?
I suggest you start a new thread, this topic deserves more attention.