<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254">This answer</a> says there are 9 types of conceit (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is not"), of which only 3 types are true (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is").</p>

<p>It says that a sotapanna is only capable of "true conceit".</p>

<p>To say "judge people unfairly with self-conceit" would therefore imply that the Buddha is more deluded than a sotapanna.</p>

<hr>

<p>This doctrine (about "true conceit") can also be found in this paper, <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/19.2a-Me-the-nature-of-conceit.-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">“Me”: The nature of conceit</a>, by Piya Tan (on page 50):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Here, the Vibhaṅga Commentary goes on to state that only the following three are types of true
  conceit (yāthāva,māna), that is, founded pride, namely:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>the superiority complex of the superior;</li>
  <li>the equality complex of the equal; and</li>
  <li>the inferiority complex of the inferior.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>The rest are types of false conceit [unfounded pride].</p>
  
  <p>While false conceit is abandoned by the path of stream-winning, true conceit is abandoned only by
  the path of arhathood. (VbhA 486 f)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's based on the Vibhaṅga Commentary.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-10T20:44:32.893Z
2017-10-10T20:44:32.893Z
2018-08-14T22:06:13.773Z
ChrisW
<p>After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me.</p>
  
  <p>Enough now with teaching  what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &amp;
  passion.</p>
  
  <p>What is abstruse, subtle,     deep,   hard to see, going against the flow
  — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,   won't
  see.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-10T20:25:52.253Z
Usually an answer is based on references or personal experience. If you're asking whether the Buddha's judgement/testimony is unreliable, what kind of evidence (references or personal experience) could an answer provide that would satisfy you? For example I could quote a statement by Mahasi Sayadaw which implies that the answer is "no", but I'm not sure you'd find that satisfactory?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T02:25:55.350Z
Is it true that the Buddha said "If you offend someone then you  are not following my teaching"? Didn't' he say something like, "Scrutinize even me, The Buddha"?
Lowbrow
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T02:48:51.993Z
This is a very good question, because thai tradition people always confuse between attā-anudiṭṭhi (not available in all ariya), māna (not available in just arahanta), and upanidhāpaññatti (available at all state, except just anupādisesanibbāna-dhatu). It is one of the reason that why abhidhamma have to describe very deep in dhamma's detail.
Bonn
<pali-canon>
Did the Buddha narcistically judge people unfairly with self-conceit?
# Did the Buddha narcistically judge people unfairly with self-conceit?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-10)

After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke:

> This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
> realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
> to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
> attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
> generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
> attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
> to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
> fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
> craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
> Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
> for me, troublesome for me.
>
> Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty I reached. This
> Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &
> passion.
>
> What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow
> — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't
> see.

Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

**Tags:** pali-canon

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Usually an answer is based on references or personal experience. If you're asking whether the Buddha's judgement/testimony is unreliable, what kind of evidence (references or personal experience) could an answer provide that would satisfy you? For example I could quote a statement by Mahasi Sayadaw which implies that the answer is "no", but I'm not sure you'd find that satisfactory?  
> **username_2**: Is it true that the Buddha said "If you offend someone then you  are not following my teaching"? Didn't' he say something like, "Scrutinize even me, The Buddha"?  
> **username_3**: This is a very good question, because thai tradition people always confuse between attā-anudiṭṭhi (not available in all ariya), māna (not available in just arahanta), and upanidhāpaññatti (available at all state, except just anupādisesanibbāna-dhatu). It is one of the reason that why abhidhamma have to describe very deep in dhamma's detail.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-10-10. Score: 4

[This answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254) says there are 9 types of conceit (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is not"), of which only 3 types are true (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is").

It says that a sotapanna is only capable of "true conceit".

To say "judge people unfairly with self-conceit" would therefore imply that the Buddha is more deluded than a sotapanna.

---

This doctrine (about "true conceit") can also be found in this paper, [“Me”: The nature of conceit](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/19.2a-Me-the-nature-of-conceit.-piya.pdf), by Piya Tan (on page 50):

> Here, the Vibhaṅga Commentary goes on to state that only the following three are types of true
> conceit (yāthāva,māna), that is, founded pride, namely:
>
> * the superiority complex of the superior;
> * the equality complex of the equal; and
> * the inferiority complex of the inferior.
>
> The rest are types of false conceit [unfounded pride].
>
> While false conceit is abandoned by the path of stream-winning, true conceit is abandoned only by
> the path of arhathood. (VbhA 486 f)

It's based on the Vibhaṅga Commentary.


---

