Often people will cite Brahma Sahampati’s invitation after the Great Awakening as evidence that an invitation is required, along with Ananda’s failure to extend an invitation re the Buddha’s lifespan. But these are more mythic than direct and their meaning is debatable.
Also debatable are the cases where a monk didn’t teach what wasn’t asked for and then later the Buddha said something about it (e.g. Sariputta and the dying Brahmin, or the silent Uposatta monks). Are these examples of how we should be restrained? Or is the Buddha’s gentle admonishment proof that teachings should have happened there? The stories are, in my opinion, intentionally ambiguous.
One thing I have noticed is that while the Buddha is quick to reprimand the monastics, he’s usually quite hesitant to reprimand a lay person, usually requiring a triple invitation before giving negative feedback.
The Buddha himself compared his approach to a farmer: of course a farmer spends most of his time tending to the fertile field and only spends a little time planting seeds in the dry field. So too the Buddha spends most of his time teaching those who are eager to learn, and spends only little time on those who are not. [citation needed… can’t find the sutta now ]
It’s just as if a man, neglecting his own field, were to imagine that another’s field should be weeded. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another? This is a teacher who is worthy of criticism
When I’m asked, I explain to them
Tesāhaṁ puṭṭho akkhāmi
Which is admittedly quite weak, but is sometimes held up as evidence
It’s not just the foreigners in the Ajahn Chah branch. The Thai disciples on the Luangta Mahabua side of the Thai Forest Tradition also teach this way. Living in Thailand, I see why. There are many monks here who stalk around for people to teach in a very creepy and unproductive way. Like the anti-intellectualism in the Thai Forest Tradition, it serves a particular function in the Thai context and may be taken too far out of that context.
Plate nr 1 mentioned Dharmaguptaka. That’s why I believe Theravada current text comes from Thailand region. I saw one a Sinhala pali text it seems probably Sri Lanka used to have another version. Probably now lost.
King Senavarma inscriptions also mention Sahampati also datable @ 1 CE
I think you are taking this out of context. When Arahant Puṇṇa did her teaching to the Brahmin, she was merely sharing the Dhamma that she had learned. And it was to great effect. That’s my understanding.
16.1Truly, Cunda, if you’re sinking down in the mud you can’t pull out someone else who is also sinking down in the mud. 16.2But if you’re not sinking down in the mud you can pull out someone else who is sinking down in the mud. 16.3Truly, if you’re not tamed, trained, and extinguished you can’t tame, train, and extinguish someone else. 16.4But if you’re tamed, trained, and extinguished you can tame, train, and extinguish someone else.
The understanding of this passage that I prefer is that if you are sharing the Buddha’s teachings with someone, then it is the Buddha, in this case, who is pulling people out of the mud.
This would, in fact, be a good guide for those who believe that simply being a certain number of years in robes authorizes you to teach, and to teach from your own experience.
Otherwise, if one understands this passage in an extreme way it would lead to no one teaching unless they were arahants. But the Buddha never once said this directly. And in fact if that were the requirement, simply teaching would imply that you were enlightened, thereby leading to other problems.
We don’t need arahants to teach Sunday dhamma school for kids and teenagers.
My view is that there’s a certain level of organically formed hierarchy based on kamma and other conditionings.
People can come into Buddhism via many means. They might come into contact directly with enlightened masters and know it and stick to them directly. Or they might come into contact with more of the beginners who got the initial super excitement of the dhamma and eager to share all around. Or anywhere in between.
As we learn the dhamma, we don’t totally close off the possibility of introducing it to newcomers. Even if they are just friends and families, or simply the fellow spiritual friends in the Buddhist community. We might be able to bring them to our level of practice, by which they meet another higher level people who brings them higher, until they meet with enlightened ones who can enlighten them via personal guidance from experience.
Or we ourselves go through this transition. Maybe after may rounds, then we realize that the first teacher we are with are already enlightened and we just didn’t had enough kamma or knowledge to realize it yet.
I imagine this like web of roots of a tree. Each root branch brings up water to the centre of the trunk. So at each level, there’s certain dhammas which are more simplified, becomes more clear.
Eg. From Buddhism for beginners books to sutta studies, and further on.
Some levels I had been through before ordaining:
Vesak Buddhist, just go for parade float.
Student at Sunday dhamma school from primary class onwards.
Reading the dhamma on my own.
Joining university Buddhist society. Dhamma camps.
Become management committee of the university Buddhist society.
Explore many temples, organizations etc.
Organize youth events.
Gone for many many retreats, become retreat junkie. Including 3 times temporary novice, 2 times in Mahayana.
Work in a Buddhist temple (Mahayana)
Stay in monastery for months.
Actively participating in Buddhist forums.
Got a bachelor’s in Buddhism from Buddhist and Pali college of Singapore.
Done sharing/dhamma talks as the speaker for many events. (Remember as a lay person)
It’s not always vertical levels, there’s a lot of horizontal levels, so it can be more of spiritual shopping and materialism and not getting to the goal if one doesn’t have a strong sense of wanting to end suffering.
I listed so many activities above to show that there’s so many people and so many teachers who are putting in so many efforts to help spread the dhamma. Door-to-door spreading is not needed at all. And it’s not realistic to expect everyone I met as a lay person was enlightened if they are in position to teach, or even just as a senior to guide the newcomers.
… it seems very logical … the mud especially … people in quick sands need help outside there, not from someone who sunks too or a help from a silly heroes who prefer their own faster death to uselessly help other
There is one saying that I remember ie.: If you teach the wrong truth, your pupil will straight go to hell, & for those who teach the wrong truth will spend his life a deeper & longer stay in the hell itself
As I said in the OP, I’d like the discussion to focus on finding suttas and not so much about opinions. And, as you said, your comment has nothing to do with the topic.
Since it seems that nobody actually read DN 12… Permit me to quote at length here, as the entire sutta is about the Buddha refuting the very view that Buddhists shouldn’t proselytize:
[Some monks teach something the King doesn’t like, and so the King thinks to himself: “These Buddhists should keep their opinions to themselves.” Then:]
the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Lohicca, that an evil viewpoint to this effect has arisen to you: ‘Suppose that a brahman or contemplative were to arrive at a skillful doctrine. Having arrived at a skillful doctrine, he should not declare it to anyone else, for what can one person do for another? It would be just the same as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?’?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Lohicca? Don’t you reign over Salavatika?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“Now, suppose someone were to say, ‘The brahman Lohicca reigns over Salavatika. He alone should consume the fruits & revenues of Salavatika, and not share them with others.’ Would someone speaking in this way be a creator of obstacles for your subjects, or would he not?”
“He would be a creator of obstacles, Master Gotama.”
“And, being a creator of obstacles, would he be sympathetic for their welfare or not?”
“He would not be sympathetic for their welfare, Master Gotama.”
“And in one not sympathetic for their welfare, would his mind be established in good will for them, or in animosity?”
“In animosity, Master Gotama.”
“When the mind is established in animosity, is there wrong view or right view?”
“Wrong view, Master Gotama.”
Also a great sutta RE the Mahayana and Sravakayana: neither should disparage the other, lest they become a “creator of obstacles.”
“O Monks! Move around everywhere for the well-being of everyone,
for the happiness of everyone, showering compassion on the entire world;
for the good, for the welfare, for the happiness of divine and human”.
Vinaya pitaka I.23.
Also, Buddha preached to Angulimala who was coming to kill his own mother, as a result of being deluded by his teacher.
Therefore, it is obviously should be a noble a practice of Buddhist monks and nuns to talk Dhamma, involved in Discussions, whether invited or not.
On the other hand interactions with the society of such nature; the freedom/dedication/opportunity is not only unlimited to Buddhist monks and nuns, but also to musicians, popstars, philosophers, politicians, movie makers, etc. in today’s world.
Thank you very much for that approach, Venerable!
If I may ask you, what would you say about that topic? Sharing the Dhamma and problems with teachers
What I mean in it is a kind of “invitation to the Buddhism teaching” and pointing to better-trained teachers.
The best of gifts is the gift of the teaching. The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.
It all depends on what the Pali really means. Using the Pali Digital Reader (because SC dictionary is not currently working for me), it says:
atthika: desirous of; seeking for. (adj.)
2. (to [attha] 2) desirous of ( – ˚) wanting, seeking for, in need of (c. instr.) A ii.199 (uday desirous of increase); Sn 333, 460, 487 (puññ˚), 987 (dhan˚ greedy for wealth); J i.263 (rajj˚ coveting a kingdom); v.19; Pv ii.228 (bhojan˚ in need of food); iv.11 (kāraṇ˚), 121 (khiḍḍ˚ for play), 163 (puññ˚); PvA 95 (sasena a. wanting a rabbit), 120; DA i.70 (atthikā those who like to). – anatthika one who does not care for, or is not satisfied with (c. instr.) J v.460; PvA 20; of [no] good Th 1, 956 (“of little zeal” Mrs. Rh. D.).
The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.
This sutta is explicitly talking about the best kind of speech. It’s not setting limits on who Dhamma can be taught to.
I certainly appreciate that there are times when the meaning of a text should be expanded to cover more than the letter of what is written. But I think that is only wise when it relates to stopping bad behaviour. Not when it could be taken to stop good behaviour.
There are many suttas that say the best situation is when people are keen to listen. No question. However my point is that this notion that we shouldn’t spread the Dhamma or that we must get a formal invitation to teach is unsupported by the texts.
I think “unsupported” goes a bit too far (imo). “Unstated” yes, but there are plenty of hints in this direction, from the Sekiya rules to Brahma’s invitation.
]
↔ 
