I’ve heard that when a non‑noble practitioner lets go of one defilement, another one tends to become more prominent. (Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Sumedho once mentioned in a talk long ago that when he ordained, he gave up sexual desire, and as a young monk his interest shifted strongly towards food.)
Based on this idea, I hypothesise that after practising for some time, the coarse defilements gradually weaken, leaving only the major ones. This may explain why long‑time Dhamma practitioners can let go—at least to a good extent—of their attachment to beautifying themselves, food, and similar concerns, yet their self‑righteousness or superiority conceit becomes stronger.
Hence, it can be puzzling to others that some “temple people” (a Thai term referring to those who regularly visit temples and are presumed to practise the Dhamma) appear very egotistical and unwilling to listen to differing opinions. That is, my way is the only way.
Is there a sutta that addresses this issue or something similar?
However, the verses you quoted are ‘impersonal’. It is true that the one who sees the dhamma has more wisdom than the commoners.
What I want to understand is why some presumed dhamma practitioners are egotistical and self-righteous. Though in general they keep 5 precepts and are kind, etc, when it comes to ‘opinion’, they are narrow-minded—their view is the only right one.
I think you missed the point, that the very Dhamma is taught to remove this issue And totally it is removed only by arahat.
B.N. tells us that one of the principles of the Oxford Group is ‘Absolute Unselfishness’, which is perhaps worth discussing briefly. Some casual English visitors (two ‘grisly English faces’—Cyril Connolly’s phrase—hitchhiking around the world) came the other day and asked me whether it wasn’t rather selfish to sit here alone seeking my own welfare. The idea was, no doubt, that I should busy myself with helping others, like Albert Schweitzer, who is generally regarded these days as the model of unselfish devotion to the service of others. Another Albert—Einstein—has something to say about this:
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. (‘Religion and Science’ in The World As I See It, p. 23)
Why, then, does Albert Schweitzer devote his life to the care and cure of lepers in Africa? Because, says Albert Einstein, he feels the need to do so; because in doing so he satisfies his desire. And what does the Buddha say? ‘Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known, and the ending of suffering.’ <M. 22: i,140> Einstein has, to some extent, understood that suffering is the fundamental fact and the basis of all action. The Buddha has completely understood this; for he knows also the way of escape, which Einstein does not. When, therefore, the question ‘What should I do?’ arises,[a] the choice is not between being selfish and being unselfish; for whatever I do I cannot avoid being selfish—all action is selfish. The choice is between being selfish in Schweitzer’s way—by unselfish devotion to the welfare of others—and being selfish in the Buddha’s way—
The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one’s own welfare. (Dhammapada 166)
MN66 states one way to give it up. Why meditating on impermanence to give up conceit? Because, for example, if the conceit is based on something temporary like job, fame, wealth - those things can dwindle and realizing that makes one realize that there’s no point being conceited about something temporary.
Meditate on impermanence. For when you meditate on impermanence any conceit ‘I am’ will be given up.
I think your idea, while quite OK could be perfected. Lord Buddha actually say something more, that there is no point to insist on being (bhava) as such. No point to exist is space and time.
And totally it is removed only by arahat.