Karol Lew Bednarczyk
From conversing. But have to be careful and not make diagnosis too
easily, have to ask many "test questions". People with some wisdom and
anatta insight might be able to do it.
Here's a teaching by Buddha:
Ṭhāna Sutta (AN 4:192)
NavigationSuttas/AN/4:192
“Monks, these four traits may be known by means of four (other) traits. Which four?
“It’s
through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then
only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive,
not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who
is not discerning.
“It’s
through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then
only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive,
not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who
is not discerning.
“It’s
through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only
after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not
by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is
not discerning.
“It’s
through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then
only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive,
not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who
is not discerning.
[1]
“‘It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not
by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to
what was it said?
“There
is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows
this: ‘For a long time this person has been torn, broken, spotted,
splattered in his actions. He hasn’t been consistent in his actions. He
hasn’t practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is an
unprincipled person, not a virtuous, principled one.’ And then there is
the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this:
‘For a long time this person has been untorn, unbroken, unspotted,
unsplattered in his actions. He has been consistent in his actions. He
has practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is a
virtuous, principled person, not an unprincipled one.’
“‘It’s
through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then
only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive,
not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who
is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it
said.
[2]
“‘It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not
by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to
what was it said?
“There
is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows
this: ‘This person deals one way when one-on-one, another way when with
two, another way when with three, another way when with many. His
earlier dealings do not jibe with his later dealings. He is impure in
his dealings, not pure.’ And then there is the case where one
individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘The way this
person deals when one-on-one, is the same way he deals when with two,
when with three, when with many. His earlier dealings jibe with his
later dealings. He is pure in his dealings, not impure.’
“‘It’s
through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then
only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive,
not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who
is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it
said.
[3]
“‘It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not
by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to
what was it said?
“There
is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of
wealth, or loss through disease, doesn’t reflect: ‘That’s how it is when
living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal
identity [atta-bhāva, literally “self-state”]. When there is living in
the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight
worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after
these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure,
praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of
wealth, or loss through disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments,
beats his breast, becomes distraught. And then there is the case where a
person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through
disease, reflects: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world.
That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity. When there is living
in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these
eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after
these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure,
praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of
wealth, or loss through disease, he doesn’t sorrow, grieve, or lament,
doesn’t beat his breast or become distraught.
“‘It’s
through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only
after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not
by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is
not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.
[4]
“‘It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and
then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not
by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to
what was it said?
“There
is the case where one individual, through discussion with another,
knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he
applies (his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question, he is
dull, not discerning. Why is that? He doesn’t make statements that are
deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
to-be-experienced by the wise. He cannot declare the meaning, teach it,
describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, or make it plain. He
is dull, not discerning.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing
on the shore of a body of water were to see a small fish rise. The
thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break
of its ripples, from its speed, it is a small fish, not a large one.’ In
the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this:
‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies
(his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question… he is dull, not
discerning.’