If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.
What did you think of my MN 95 quote? Also, AN 10.61 and AN 7.29? Have these suttas debunked your theory?
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.
OK. What about this:
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.
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.
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.
That’s not a prohibition either.
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.”
Sorry. Not interested.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Sigh. This is off topic. Please start a new thread. It’s free! Anyone can do it.