Teaching Dharma

Discussion
1

I have a question that I would appreciate some guidance on. In presentations or teachings of Dharma there is a structure where someone in the audience requests the teaching. The presentation proceeds, typically prefaced with an articulation of the lineage, establishing the authority and reliability of the teachings. There is usually an invitation by the teacher, to the audience, to establish one’s intentions, what one wants to get out of hearing the teachings and how one intends to implement the teachings. There is the teaching, some time for questions, some time for reflection, and some form of benediction to end the teachings.

What is the canonical basis for this? Is there vinaya that structures Dharma teachings? Certainly there are cultural, sectarian, and personal variations, that I’m interested in learning about. But my guess is that there’s a canonical basis for this structure.

Please advise.

2

Not to pry, but were you planning on teaching? I only ask because there are some very thought-provoking suttas about representation of the Buddha and Dhamma if you’re interested. Though perhaps that’s a different topic.

1 Like
3

That’s a great question. But, yes, orthogonal to my topic. My interest is in the structure and process of the teaching. I wonder what pedagogical structure is built into or guides teachers in the Buddhist tradition. It is striking. Regardless of tradition, Theravada, Tibetan, Pure Land, Zen, the presentation of Dharma is relibly consistent in form. There are content variations, obvious cultural differences, etc., but the process seems consistent to this untutored eye. I was hopeful that someone with more knowledge than myself could help me explore this question.

1 Like
4

My guess is that a lot of that similarity is a modern thing in the West.

At my monastery here in Thailand the Dhamma talks do not start with a request or setting intentions and the lineage is obvious. Sometimes there will be a bit about “listening” at the beginning of the talk, but only if the audience is not paying attention (i.e. it’s done pedagogically not formulaically). The one thing we do is a “benediction” at the end. But that’s just a nice, human thing. Even at the end of e.g. commencement speeches there’s a “benediction” wishing the audience well. And it’s not very Buddhist to have a round of applause! :laughing:

Every ritual has to demark time and space somehow. Set expectations and indicate how to participate. When a ritual is more deeply a part of that culture, the signifiers become more symbolic. When it’s a relatively new thing (e.g. experimental theater) the information given to the audience needs to be more explicit.

So when Western Buddhist teachers see teachers from different traditions prefacing their teachings in different ways, there’s good reason to copy and borrow, as more of that work is necessary for the new audience (and new teachers!) to demark the space of the Dhamma talk as something special and sacred and get everyone on the same page.

Hope that helps!

1 Like
5

That is helpful. I had similar thoughts but wondered if there was something in vinaya or oral tradition that I didn’t know about. And, you would know.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I had a vague sense, like you, that it was more of a social convention.

As a lay Buddhist I have lived and studied in Taiwan and in India at times in my life and attending teaching in the US all of my life. Lately something has been “clicking.”

Likely it is all the Dharma talks I listen to on Dharmaseed.org!

Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu

:hugs: Thank you

1 Like
6

I am not from US or western, and I never see this kind of style in my place. My country more or less retain the traditional format.
But I have seen the similar elements

In presentations or teachings of Dharma there is a structure where someone in the audience requests the teaching.

In Theravada tradition, this is done through chanting a paritta called aradhana dhammadesana (requesting dhamma sermon). Before that, usually there is requesting refuge and sila.

In Tibetan tradition, this is done through the ritual of offering mandala. Followed by offering symbols of the Buddha mind, speech, and body (small stupa, a scripture, small Buddha statue).
If you want to see the example, search for Dalai Lama 14 public Dharma talk.

I have not seen Eastern Mahayana tradition doing this. Usually they just directly give the teacher the time to talk.

The presentation proceeds, typically prefaced with an articulation of the lineage, establishing the authority and reliability of the teachings

I have never seen this.
The most similar thing I know is the Lamrim four outline. Lamrim is Gelugpa sect curriculum, stages of the path to enlightenment. This structure is said to be copied from ancient India university Vikramasila
The outline:

  1. Establishing the purity of the source (biography of Buddha and the subsequent teachers that passing down the teaching. Usually only cover the most important one)
  2. Establishing the purity of the teaching itself
  3. Correct method to teach and listen to Dharma
  4. The actual instruction.

Because teacher usually repeat the structure (mentioning 1 2 3) before going into detail of the teaching which is contained in point 4, this could be mistaken as above.

The tradition that emphasize lineage usually came from Tibet or Zen tradition.

There is usually an invitation by the teacher, to the audience, to establish one’s intentions, what one wants to get out of hearing the teachings and how one intends to implement the teachings.

I have only seen this in Mahayana sutra.

In my experience, the topic is either set beforehand, or left undetermined - up to the teacher to choose.

There is the teaching, some time for questions, some time for reflection, and some form of benediction to end the teachings.

This one is very general and happen in all tradition.

7

Thank you. This is very helpful and 100% consistent with my experience in both Theravada and Tibetan traditions where I have spent the majority of my time.

This question came from my recent “perception” that there could be some canonical or vinaya basis for the commonality I was experiencing.

But, like most perception, it is constructive and like making out constellations in the night sky.

Metta,

8

No, I’m not aware of anything like this in the canon. What you presented sounds Tibetan, in my very limited experience.

“Lineage” isn’t a thing in the Pali suttas.

This never happens in Sri Lanka as far as I know. Most of what you describe does not sound like what is done in Sri Lanka. Except for the benediction.

9

Someone in the audience requesting the teaching hardly happen modern days.
Apart from that, modern teachers even use White-board or Smart-board when they teaching.

For instances:

10

If you one to teach Dhamma to pass you need to be Ariya so at least Sotapanna, if you just want to make “exposure” or academic teachings just follow the regular guide.

11

Is this a personal opinion or is this found somewhere in the suttas? Thanks.

12

If in the suttas there is no example of a person who teaches Dhamma who is not at least Sotapanna. There are only people who chant suttas (who are not Sotapannas) for others.