vinasp wrote:It may also be the case that right view for puthujjanas was worked out first, and then the opposite set of views naturally became wrong view, which led to logical contradictions.
It should be considered that nearly the whole of the Dharma teachings are now available to nearly everyone, and that nearly everyone now thinks that they are qualified to determine their meaning...as if words and phrases on paper or electronic screens have only one concrete correct meaning within the Dharma. This isn't how the Dharma was originally taught, and even now it isn't how thoroughly trained traditional Dharma teachers teach it. The Dharma was originally taught as a path with the implicit meaning of one carefully considered step at a time, each step expediently and skillfully revealed to the student according to the student's level of temperament, awareness and ability to understand. Teachings that could lead to confusion or nihilism in unprepared or incapable students were withheld, and paradoxical realizations were reserved for later on the path. In our "all you can eat" time the Dharma teachings are widely regarded as a pig regards the trough...everyone is free to snout through them looking for morsels that feed their unique hungers regardless of their temperament, awareness, ability, or previous training or lack thereof. The Dharma path is full of paradoxical twists and turns that teachers skillfully employ in their wisdom. What is taught as the meaning of something at one stage of the path can ultimately come to mean it's seeming opposite at higher elevations (or inner core) of the path, without a trace of inconsistency. Many people who consider themselves "Buddhists" are wading in waters over their heads in the absence of a teacher that they are confident will reveal the Dharma to them in a skillful way.