Can an answer, while sakayaditthi is present, be intentional free of bias?

Is a person able to give a "objective" answer if the mind is caught by identification-views intentionally?

That is the reason why we should answer by quoting the arahants' speaking.

I am not a Stream-Enterer. I can enlighten this life, but it is not going to happen because my Buddhist mission drives me to pause my meditation.

It makes me answering here without enlightenment.

Buddha already allowed my case by rules in VN Mahhākhandhaka and Mahāpadesa, so I can answer the question if I still quote the original text from Tipitaka and Atthakatha without making them conflict with each other.

It's like when I answer by only my opinion, it is my responsibility, but it is Tipitaka, Atthakatha, and the readers' responsibility when I answer the question by the quote, only when it is the right quote. My opinion can come from Sakkāyadiṭṭhi but Tipitaka and Atthakatha can't, so if the reader proves my quote with the origin they will see the truth that I never try to make Tipitaka conflict with each other, never make Atthakathā conflict with each other, and never cut any part of Tipitaka and Atthakathā off. It protects the reader from my opinion. The only Pāli canons without conflict with each other appear in my answer.

The Tipitaka and Ancient Atthakatha were arranged by the first council members and the Siṅhala Atthakatha was already arranged by Buddhagosa, so it is impossible that they let their work conflict with each other, right?

Wouldn't such a person, in such a state not either give a non-biased answer certain unaware of certain "self-damaging" or be shameless? In cases of being aware and fearing "self-damaging" simply not answering?

When I answer the question which I understand of it I feel like I am making "The Shorter Discourse on the Lion’s Roar", but when I answer the question which I don't understand of it I feel like "I am going to distort Tipitaka and Atthakatha and I am going to make people misunderstand in Tipitaka and Atthakatha", so I often avoid the question which is never quoted Tipitaka and Atthakatha because I don't understand the question objective exactly.

Below is an example

I can't understand Johann's question because he not often quote the original text. I often tell Johann about my terrible English skill through many years we met each other, but he never improves himself to understand my problem. This is very different from the Pa-Auk monks because they try to improve themselves to teach me and Thai people by learning Thai culture, i.e. language and pāli, another from ChrisW who often offer me help on the mistake of my english skill. I never find this help from Johann. Johann looks like a weird monk who often act out of Tipitaka and Atthakathā for me. Johann never tries to understand my terrible in English, not often quote Pali, and never understand my Buddhist mission. This is making realize that I should avoid him, the outsider monk for me.

I can be friends with people that disagree with me, I never keep to hate anyone, but someone can be my close friend if we try to adapt ourselves to keep our relationship. This is what Johann never did.

Johann often thinks "my opinion is the best truth", so he still keeps to make Tipitaka conflict each other although I can prove that they are not the real conflict, it is just the readers' fails. This is what I think he doesn't be honest with the pieces of evidence.

• Why I should care for the person who tries to make conflict of the no conflict?
• Why I should care for the person who tries to distort the pieces of evidence?
• Why I should care for the person who never cares about the truth from the evidence?
• If their understanding is right, why they still making Tipitaka conflict with each other and trying to cut some part of Tipitaka off?
• Why I should care a person who called himself "I am a monk" who acting weird from the Tipitaka monk?
• Why I should care of who never try to improve himself to understand me?

I still keep saying everyone is my friends however only someone can be my close friends.

I prove that I answer every question which I understand it by the above example, but for Johann case, I can't see the way I can answer him. He often uses difficult English grammar and he does not often quote the original text, while the other anti abihdhammist people quote, so I can understand the other question, except Johann's.

Johann: good to have a clear sample of the question's matter.

There are two kinds of bias, in relation to this question.

The first is deliberately answering a question in a way that serves the self-interest of the one who answers, but not necessarily the questioner's self-interest.

An example of this is that a salesperson, when asked some questions about the product he's trying to sell, would try to hide the disadvantages of the product and instead, highlight the advantages.

Indeed, there are people in the world, with identity view, who are not stream winners, who can act selflessly, and answer in an objective way without the above kind of bias. After all, an unenlightened person can selflessly act with altruism and compassion (karuna), to help another person.

The second type of bias is a deep-seated collection of biases, prejudices and stereotypes that lies deep within a person's mind. These are related to more than one of the ten fetters.

An example of this is that a person who identifies with a religion that's against h*m*sexuality and abortion, might answer general questions about these topics in a way that is aligned to his bias, even if any kind of answer to these questions do not bring him any profit or loss.

This kind of bias is very deeply ingrained and it would be very hard for a person with identity view to avoid this kind of bias.