befriend wrote:how do we look at things without creating defilments? thank you
argue against what you find true. it will give you an appreciation for another perspective, also it will show how personally you take things, how certain they are to you!
look at your own arguments for the "thing" (when arguing in favour for it, are they personal or impersonal (there is a fine line people confuse here "that is foolish" as opposed to "you are foolish"). in the canon the Buddha is seen as calling people foolish (particularly within the vinaya) but what follows this is very telling
The Blessed Buddha rebuked him, saying, 'This would be improper, O foolish one, crooked, unsuitable, unworthy of a Samana, unbecoming, and it ought not to be done. How can you, O foolish one, adopt nakedness as the Titthiyas do? This will not conduce, O foolish one, to the conversion of the unconverted.'
it is quite obvious (to me at-least) that the Buddha is addressing the action being done, not the person, although he also has to address the person doing the act.
but I shared a couple of videos from youtube
which may help frame beliefs although they are not from a theravadin perspective.
in essence try not to take things personnally, as all is not self Anatta-lakkhaṇa Sutta - The Not-Self Characteristic Discourse - SN 22.59; VinMv6.20 (Vin.I.6.20)
and what is taken as a self is more likely to burn us Āditta-pariyāya Sutta - The That Which Burns Discourse - S.35.28; Vin.Mv.I.12
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill