¿Cómo manejar la aversión que se deriva de percibir la arrogancia?

Ven Señores, Lectores,

La arrogancia es que uno se considera mejor que los demás. Si uno encuentra que este no es el caso, una persona arrogante se vuelve aversiva. La forma de superar es la siguiente:

(1) “Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(2) When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, consider
thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(3) When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(4) When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(5) When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to
change, consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality

(1) Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory [painful] or satisfactory [pleasurable]?”15
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”16
“No, bhante.”

(2) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is feeling permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(3) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is perception permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(4) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, are formations permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(5) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(1) “Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near18—all forms should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(2) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all feelings should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(3) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all perceptions should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(4) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of formations whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all formations should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(5) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all consciousness should be seen as
they really are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Seeing thus, Soṇa, the learned noble disciple is revulsed [disenchanted] with form, is revulsed
with feeling, is revulsed with perception, is revulsed with formations, is revulsed with consciousness.

Through revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, his mind is liberated.
When he is liberated, there arises the knowledge: ‘Free am I!’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth.
The holy life has been lived. What needs to be done has been done. There is no more of this state of
being.’

(Mana) Sona Sutta

¿Cómo manejar la aversión que se deriva de percibir la arrogancia?

Entendí que esta respuesta decía que hay dos tipos de "presunción": la presunción incluye "comparar a una persona con otra". Los dos tipos son "verdadera presunción" y "falsa presunción". No estoy seguro de cómo cualquiera de estos, una comparación correcta o una comparación incorrecta, podría ser una buena causa para la "aversión".

A lo que se refiere es al hecho de que de los nueve tipos de presunción, solo tres pueden surgir en un sotapanna.

Sin embargo, puede ser difícil relacionarse con alguien con una falsa presunción, pero es difícil conversar de manera útil.

También están las "cuatro grandes referencias", es decir, si alguien dice algo (p. ej., sobre el dhamma, que suele ser el tema de este sitio), entonces no debe "despreciarlo", sino considerarlo y comparelo.

Si fueras el maestro de alguien, entonces tal vez quieras ayudar al estudiante a ver la "arrogancia"; hay ejemplos en la literatura de maestros que hacen eso.

Sin embargo, tal vez sea mejor si las personas no intentan hacer eso en este sitio, tal vez este fue un consejo apropiado:

En general, a menos que usted sea realmente el maestro de la persona que pregunta, no asuma el papel de maestro.

¿Cuál es la apuesta segura aquí, la forma segura, hasta que sea posible desarraigar la causa en un nivel refinado?

Quizás estés esperando una respuesta específica, no estoy seguro de cuál. Tal vez sea "ecuanimidad" en este caso, recordando que "soy heredero de mis acciones", etc.

La misma cuestión de cómo manejar, indica una interferencia en tu ser, y en esa misma interferencia surge la aversión.

Si percibiste a una persona correcta o incorrectamente como arrogante, no es el problema, porque eso es lo que tu ser ya había percibido, lo que tu ser ya había entendido, no es ni bueno ni malo, solo una indicación de la sabiduría de tu ser. El único problema es interviniendo en el desarrollo de tu ser. No hay necesidad de percibir la situación correctamente, lo que fue percibido por tu ser es la realidad, hasta nuevo aviso.

Si no ocurre ninguna intervención, su ser se desarrollará naturalmente y actuará más sabiamente la próxima vez.