When we have changed a belief of another man, we normally say that we have convinced or persuaded him. You have said it in your own example: "Could someone/something convince those Budhist monks who...". If we want to convince anyone of doing anything, we must be good at convincing. There are people who are good at convincing from birth. But in this case, when we are in front of beliefs rooted so strongly, it seems not to be enough that natural capacity of convincing. You say it will be necessary a certain time and methods. Well, it would be said that the time is not as important as the method, because if you master the method to convince, you won’t need so much time to persuade anyone about anything. What is the method for persuading? Indeed, it is not a method, but an art or a craft. Gorgias called it rhetoric, and he said it is the power to persuade by speech. Even more, to Gorgias, “it practically captures all powers and keeps them under its control”. And he gave us this example of the power of rhetoric: “I have often in the past gone with my brother and the other doctors to some sick man refusing to drink a medicine or let the doctor cut or burn him; when the doctor couldn't persuade him, I persuaded him, by no other craft than rhetoric”. So, it seems that it doesn’t matter how powerful is a belief when you master rhetoric, because, as it keeps all the powers under its control, that who controls rethoric can defeat any belief.

What is the authentic knowledge, I mean, the completely right knowledge? The knowledge of what it is. What it is is only known by that who can have an immediate experience of it. We, the human beings, cannot have that kind of experience of what it is because we are sensitively limited. The only thing we can do is suppose how it is what it is. A supposition is a possibility. We should approach to the best posibility of how it is what it is.