I consider it my duty to be honest, and prior to that I want to know (more truth). Until all truth is known or -in other words- until all untruth is understood (the truth about it is known) that will be a process that changes what I say.
I couldn’t be a teacher who is ‘always right’ without getting fixated onto some untruth. I couldn’t assert that something ‘is’ and insist on it forever and speak the truth for no truth is forever. In fact I refuse to be a teacher, for my duty is to be honest and it is not to teach anyone. If one wishes to read a book, he opens and reads it. If one wishes to understand another, he can ask. If one wishes to understand himself he can also do the same. A teacher could make the mistake to try to reach out and put whatever he think ‘truth’ to be inside another. But that would be a violation of the other’s free will, and free will is protected for one as long as he doesn’t attempt to violate the free will of another.
With free will one can reach inside another and learn –with the others consent. And that’s potential learning from each other, and that’s not traditional teaching. It is my purpose writing in this blog. However, if one is used to traditional teaching he might feel forced (and enforcement which doesn’t come from me) to take what I say as true. That would actually be his own creation for himself.
Aside from the obvious, there could be other, less direct ways to enforce teaching. One could be to try to slander another so that another would then feel forced to reach out and correct the slandering. He would be forced to learn what the other was teaching then. And I don’t intend to engage into such activities neither as a student nor as a teacher. If communication is free to be given and received it cannot go wrong.