Hi again. Could you kindly offer some examples of what kinds of teachings need to be done when there is not an invitation? Thanks
For example, I recall a few years ago when someone in our local community passed away the one or two local Western Tibetan Buddhists in a non-Buddhist social context were sort of ‘celebrating’ the deceased would have a good rebirth while most of the other people were attempting to express ordinary sympathy. In the social context, the actions of these Buddhists was sort of weird.
Otherwise, for circumstances that are more secular, we can speak Dhamma without referring to Buddhism, such as I have said to people struggling to deal with their grief: “you must have loved her/him”, which is merely a paraphrase of “separation from the loved is suffering”.
At least in my experience, I cannot ever recall needing to try to help another with their suffering by using the word ‘Buddha’ or ‘Buddhism’.
Therefore, again, please explain what kinds of teachings need to be done when there is not an invitation? Thanks
Bhante I have to say I admire the commitment you’ve displayed here to investigate a specific point and not be sidetracked!
Such unwavering, razor-like precision is great to see in any case, but especially so when there is a desire to uncover more about something that’s usually just taken for granted or accepted unthinkingly.
Pertinent point, which reminds me of the following account from the Vinaya where Assaji showed hesitation in teaching:
As he was standing at a respectful distance, the wanderer Sāriputta spoke thus to the venerable Assaji: “Your reverence, your faculties are quite pure, your complexion very bright, very clear. On account of whom, your reverence, have you gone forth, or who is your teacher, or whose dhamma do you profess?”
“There is, friend, a great recluse, a son of the Sakyans, gone forth from a Sakyan family. I have gone forth on account of this Lord and this Lord is my teacher and I profess this Lord’s dhamma.”
“But what is the doctrine of your reverence’s teacher, what does he point out?”
“Now, I, friend, am new, not long gone forth, fresh to this dhamma and discipline. I am not able to teach you dhamma in full, but I can tell you its purport briefly.”
Indeed, another pertinent consideration, namely, what kind of Dhamma could be spread? It is a pertinent point searching the Suttas for authorization to teach when often it cannot even be agreed upon what the Suttas actually teach.
Indeed, the same pertinent consideration as the previous. For example, DN 31 seems to limit the scope of Dhamma teaching towards most people to only morality.
Thanks. Along those lines, @CurlyCarl, if you like to discuss who is qualified to teach, etc. please start a new thread.
ETA: Unless you find suttas where the Buddha said that specific teachings should not be spread or must only be taught when invited. (I seriously doubt there are). Or that certain people must be invited by the listener to teach.
I’d like to examine AN 9.5 further, which is subject to diverse translations of the term “saṅgāhabalaṃ”. Sujato has translated “saṅgāhabalaṃ” as “power of inclusiveness”; Bodhi as “power of sustaining a favourable relationship”; and Nyanaponika Thera as “power of benevolence”.
So my impression is a favourable relationship must already exist before the Dhamma can be taught.
For example, MN 95 says:
Here, Bhāradvāja, a bhikkhu may be living in dependence on some village or town. Then a householder or a householder’s son goes to him and investigates him in regard to three kinds of states: in regard to states based on greed, in regard to states based on hate, and in regard to states based on delusion… When he has investigated him and has seen that he is purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him; filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the Dhamma…
The impression is MN 95 is a sutta that places the onus upon the student to approach the monk.
Another suttas that seem to place the onus upon the student are:
Thus associating (saṃseva) with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing the good Dhamma. Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. AN 10.61
The layperson neglects (hāpeti : omits; neglects; reduces; delays) seeing the monks. AN 7.29
I’m more that happy to have you question things I have said. I just don’t want the conversation to switch to other topics. Those can go in a new thread. It’s free!
It’s true though that I’m only interested in clear instructions from the Buddha or his disciples on this topic. Not texts that hint or could be interpreted to mean this. There is no end of interpreting things. Because when it comes to something as serious as spreading the Dhamma, I don’t think we should leave it up to interpretation if it means limiting the spread.
This is the main point that everybody should consider carefully. My own experiences show that not every so called ‘Dhamma’ is The Buddha Dhamma. Some bhikkhus or panditas analyze on their own, and made their own interpretation, luckily they add-up from other concept ( religions, taoism, martial art chi-kung, etc.) Spread it to the unlucky blind lay-followers under the name of The Buddha. Is it a real Buddha-Dhamma?
And, the question remains, who authorized to teach The Buddha Dhamma?
LOL, what exactly is my theory? Please read again what I stated very clearly I was interested in finding:
I have no interest in “impressions,” “implies,” “we can assume,” etc. etc. The Buddha was very capable of telling people not to do things. And so far no one has given suttas where he gave the monks, or anyone, instructions not to teach or that they needed an invitation to teach.
The suttas you are quoting indicate that people should go and listen to the Dhamma. Great! People should go listen to the Dhamma. It’s not on the monks to track people down and force them to listen. But the fact that the Buddha told people to go listen to the Dhamma has zero to do with the request I made in my OP.
Householder, it does not occur to us to teach such a Dhamma talk to white-clothed laypeople. Rather, we teach like this to those gone forth.
MN 143
Then there is this:
Ascetics and brahmins served by a gentleman in these five ways show compassion to him in six ways. They keep him from doing bad. They support him in doing good. They think of him with kindly thoughts. They teach him what he does not know. They clarify what he’s already learned. They explain the path to heaven.
DN 31
So the above gives the impression of forbidding bhikkhu/bhikkhuni to evangelize the supramundane dhamma but, instead, merely places the Buddhists in a position to compete with the Christian & Muslim evangelists for promoting places in heaven.
Yes, that’s a good example of how an invitation is not necessary.
Again with the “impressions.” If you are talking about impressions, I’m really not interested (although I do appreciate that you label them as such). Those are just opinions and, again, as I’ve tried to say before, I’m not interested.
Of course opinions can be right sometimes. But I’m more concerned with what the Buddha had to say or didn’t say.
Are you sure? The impression of the DN 31 example is of mutual duties/obligations; but where the impression is the primary (initial) obligation falls upon the layperson. Again, similar to AN 9.5, MN 95, AN 10.61, etc, etc, etc, its seems an existing relationship is required prior to teaching and that the onus of establishing that relationship falls upon the layperson/student. In full, DN 31 says:
A gentleman should serve ascetics and brahmins as the upper quarter in five ways: by loving deeds of body, speech, and mind, by not turning them away at the gate, and by providing them with material needs. Ascetics and brahmins [thus] served by a gentleman in these five ways show compassion to him in six ways. They keep him from doing bad. They support him in doing good. They think of him with kindly thoughts. They teach him what he does not know. They clarify what he’s already learned. They explain the path to heaven. Ascetics and brahmins served by a gentleman in these five ways show compassion to him in these six ways. And that’s how the upper quarter is covered, kept safe and free of peril.”
This is a lovely sutta. However it is not saying who is ready to be a teacher. It is saying the intention we should have when teaching. This is completely different.
But if you had taken the time to at least read the first post you would see, as wonderful as this sutta is, it does not relate to the topic of this thread.
Maybe it’s time for the @moderators to close this thread since I think the question has been answered.
Please try to keep on topic when posting. In this case, the discussion is about EBT evidence where the Buddha mentions to either spread or not the Dhamma.
