What I meant is that one cannot know the view of another based on words that one reads, hears or remembers.
So how can one know the view of "another" then? I would have thought that this is the only way that one can know the view of another, since it seems that (apart from telepathy) this is the only way that one (or another) can express their view: written word, spoken word or (the big one you forget) actions,
Well it is the way it is. I never experienced "insights" (no claim intended, consider those to be very minor) while listening but while reading.
And because you haven't as yet experienced insight while listening then that means that nobody can experience insight from listening? Isn't that a tad self-centred?
This may be seen as a disadvantage too: The presence of someone to ask may foster the tendency to give in to habitual papanca. If there is nobody present then papanca may settle "naturally".
Possible, but not necessary, but in BOTH circumstances. Why would papanca not arise when one is reading? One could argue that is more likely to happen when one is reading because they do not have the direct presence of an "other" to "ground" them in the present moment. When, for example, is one more likely to daydream? When alone or when in the presence of others? Anyway why would papanca settle naturally? It hasn't settled over all these countless rebirths so why would it settle just because one is reading a text or listening to an explanation (albeit Dharmic)?
Oh, for those (like me) who have no grasp of Pali
In Buddhism, conceptual proliferation or self-reflexive thinking (Pali: papañca, Sanskrit: prapañca) refers to the deluded conceptualization of the world through the use of ever-expanding language and concepts, all rooted in the delusion of self. It is intended to elucidate reality, although it has the unexpected result of distorting it and/or creating a false perceptual reality.
If you repeatedly engage with a text you may experience that meanings are impermanent and arise "in different lights".
Sure, or you can impute a real existence onto a dependently arising phenomenon (the book) and consider that it is really the phenomenon that gives rise to insight and not the mind.
This clarification is then based on thinking, rationalizing ... but not direct experience. If you get a text wrong mindfulness and direct experience will show the right "understanding".
And reading cannot lead to thinking and rationalizing? If you get an oral instruction wrong then mindfulness and direct experience won’t show right understanding? Gimme a break dude! Your arguments get weaker by the second.
I have nothing to say against this. Texts and practice are not separate spheres.
And neither are oral instruction and practice separate spheres. Actually I think you will find that texts, practice and oral (aural?) instruction are indispensable and interrelated. All three inform and are informed by each other.