Except that most of us here are not “seekers” in that dichotomy. Some of us are scholars. Others, relative to that dichotomy, might be bystanders.
And I didn’t actually address seekers’ strategies but rather the tactics of Buddhists who refuse questions. This would be a category error of students (seekers) versus masters (teachers).
Finally, I would not treat prerequisites (“preparatory lemmas”) as a refusal. Sometimes you really can’t jump ahead, which is why prerequisites can be required. If this is indeed what that is, then I withdraw my objection.
But I wonder if that is what it is.
In my earlier post, I mentioned that Buddhists adopt a view that effectively blames victims by asserting that their reality is in some degree a projection of their consciousness when suffering can have external causes, like structural or physical violence. This Buddhist view aligns with “The Secret” and the “Law of Attraction” and what it does is allow the preacher to evade responsibility, alleging that the victim doesn’t believe hard enough. It feels like fraud and I don’t think anyone who has suffered poverty can accept it.
That perception of fraud is what leads me to doubt the bit about “preparatory lemmas.” Buddhists evade reality about suffering. It would be consistent for them to evade questions with “preparatory lemmas.”