… you are funny indeed, Bhante …
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.
1 Like
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.”
7 Likes
“Caratha bhikkhave Carikam
Bahujanahitaya bahujana sukhaya lokanukampaya
Atthaya, hitaya, sukhaya
Devamanussanam”.
“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.
Human beings accept what they want.
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.
AN 9.5
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.
1 Like
Not sure the point you are making.
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.
etadaggam, bhikkhave, peyyavajjanam yadidam atthikassa ohitasotassa punappunam dhammam deseti.
In summary, the verse from AN 9.5 about the “gift of Dhamma” seems to say this gift is only for those who desire/seek/have zeal for/care for it.
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.
But I think we’ve talked about this before, so…
Oh, I fully recognize that there may be circumstances where teaching should not be done.
I’m concerned when this gets changed to “Teaching should only be done when there is an invitation”.
1 Like
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 
If you read through the thread, you can see that I don’t think there is any requirement to be invited. That’s what this thread is about.
Of course for social or strategic reasons there are certainly situation where it doesn’t make sense to teach. But that’s for a different thread.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Excellent example, Venerable.
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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?