Post reply


Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Johann
« on: August 22, 2014, 06:41:50 AM »

There is a ongoing discussion on DW and I feel that it is not so good commented:

Quote from: pubba
Dear All,

I heard a nun who recently said that the Buddha forbade monks and nuns to talk about Dhamma with someone, unless that person asks a question or the monk/nun knows that the person is interested.
Is that true? If yes, could you please point me to the Sutta reference? I did a quick search myself, but couldn't find anything about it...

Thank you very much!

Quote from: Ven.Pesala
The Sekhiya rules are about not teaching the Dhamma to one who is not showing due respect.

There's also a Pācittiya rule about not teaching the Dhamma to a women unless a male person is present. However, if a woman asks a question, the monk can explain the Dhamma at length.

I don't know of any rule about teaching the Dhamma only to those who are interested. When we give public talks, it seems quite obvious that at least some in the audience are not interested, but how could we know for sure? If we try harder, perhaps they will become interested.

It just doesn't seem like a practical rule at all, but it's not wise to just approach any stranger and try to teach them the Dhamma. One has to assume that anyone who greets a monk or visits a Buddhist Internet forum, a monastery or public talk, is at least slightly interested in the Dhamma, or might become interested.

Anāthapindika's son was not the least bit interested in the Dhamma, so his father promised him some money if he could learn one verse. The Buddha contrived that the young man would not be able to remember it easily, so he had to go repeatedly. Eventually, he understood and became a Stream-winner. Then he was too embarrassed to accept the money from his father.

I dont see any justification for offensive teaching here but being aware that this post comes from my own intention, not assuming that somebody here likes to talk about it others than on DW. Yet, it could reach them and it could be that somebody likes to pick up a very hot topic critical here as well and it was not requested by the people how originaly talked about it.

Did the Buddha allowed to teach unrequested?
Is assuming, and knowing that it is just assumed basic for acts or even a fault it self.

Here also a topic related to this issue: