user16787: What does Buddhism say to do when a specific Buddhist teaching or example of a teaching, is in disagreement with lived experience?
This is not about rejecting the whole way but maybe small parts based on lived experience not wants.
(Example, Brother Phap says when we are strong we are more likely to hurt people and when suffering or hurt we are nice and sweet. In my experience, hurt people hurt people more so it seems false to me.) https://youtu.be/6P-NrCNUSJU

user24284: Note that your two ideas don’t necessarily contradict. It is possible both for hurt people to hurt people, for hurt people to be meek, and for stronger people to hurt people, all in the same world; it obviously depends on the person.
Buddhists do not necessarily have to prove every proposition they hear to be true or false. In fact, it often does the opposite; see for example how in the Aggivacchagotta Sutta, it is claimed that a Buddha is neither ‘reborn’, ‘not reborn’, ‘reborn and not reborn’, nor ‘neither reborn nor not reborn’.
In practice, try to meditate on these apparent contradictions. They may resolve themselves into a synthesis; you may find that your lived experience is warped by your perception; or even you might find that you completely disagree, which is fine! ‘Agreeing with every last sentence a monk has ever said’ is not a requirement to reach enlightenment.
Finally, from the Dhammavandana:

Well communicated is the Teaching of the Richly Endowed One,
Immediately Apparent, Perennial,
Of the Nature of a Personal Invitation,
Progressive,
to be understood individually, by the wise.

We may particularly flag up ‘immediately apparent’ as an issue with your problem here, but was the teaching behind the example immediately apparent? It may be, even if you disagree with the way it was explained.

user24334: 
It is fitting for you to be perplexed, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Do not go by
oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of
texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by
the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence
of a speaker, or because you think, ‘The [practice] is our teacher.’

-Words of Lord Gautama Buddha from the Aṅguttara Nikāya, “The Book of the Threes” (3.65. Kesaputtiya)

16787: <p>What does Buddhism say to do when a specific Buddhist teaching or example of a teaching, is in disagreement with lived experience?</p>
<p>This is not about rejecting the whole way but maybe small parts based on lived experience not wants.</p>
<p>(Example, Brother Phap says when we are strong we are more likely to hurt people and when suffering or hurt we are nice and sweet. In my experience, hurt people hurt people more so it seems false to me.) <a href="https://youtu.be/6P-NrCNUSJU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://youtu.be/6P-NrCNUSJU</a></p>
 24284: <p>Note that your two ideas don’t necessarily contradict. It is possible both for hurt people to hurt people, for hurt people to be meek, and for stronger people to hurt people, all in the same world; it obviously depends on the person.</p>
<p>Buddhists do not necessarily have to prove every proposition they hear to be true or false. In fact, it often does the opposite; see for example how in the Aggivacchagotta Sutta, it is claimed that a Buddha is neither ‘reborn’, ‘not reborn’, ‘reborn and not reborn’, nor ‘neither reborn nor not reborn’.</p>
<p>In practice, try to meditate on these apparent contradictions. They may resolve themselves into a synthesis; you may find that your lived experience is warped by your perception; or even you might find that you completely disagree, which is fine! ‘Agreeing with every last sentence a monk has ever said’ is not a requirement to reach enlightenment.</p>
<p>Finally, from the Dhammavandana:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Well communicated is the Teaching of the Richly Endowed One,
Immediately Apparent, Perennial,
Of the Nature of a Personal Invitation,
Progressive,
to be understood individually, by the wise.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We may particularly flag up ‘immediately apparent’ as an issue with your problem here, but was the teaching behind the example immediately apparent? It may be, even if you disagree with the way it was explained.</p>
 24334: <blockquote>
<p>It is fitting for you to be perplexed, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Do not go by
oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of
texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by
the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence
of a speaker, or because you think, ‘The [practice] is our teacher.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>-Words of Lord Gautama Buddha from the Aṅguttara Nikāya, “The Book of the Threes” (3.65. Kesaputtiya)</p>
