Attainment as Qualification to Teach?

[AdvaitaJ]

Greetings all,

I've recently discovered that one of the people from whom I've most enjoyed learning the dhamma has definitely not attained stream entry. I wasn't seeking to learn their level of attainment (or lack thereof), it was just casually mentioned during a recent dhamma talk. I now find that I'm thinking about this when I listen to other dhamma talks by this person.

To the point, should a teacher at least be someone suspected to be Sotapanna? Am I wrong to allow this unrequested knowledge of their lack of attainment to affect my view of the person as a teacher? I certainly feel I've learned a lot from their talks, but now I wonder if my time might not have been better invested listening to a teacher "a bit further along the path". Comments? Guidance?

AdvaitaJ

[jcsuperstar]

i know it wouldnt bother me, as long as theyre "a bit further along the path" than i am.

[Cittasanto]

well the suttas do mention this and from memory I elieve they need to beon the path, stream entry or above to teach what is dhamma as dhamma etc, ithout straying into teaching what is not dhamma as dhamma etc although how do you know they are not just trying to put you off the scent?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings AdvaitaJ,

You could listen to Dhamma Talks from the Buddha... he wasn't just a stream-entrant, he was The Arahant!

The Buddha is cool

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[poto]

If somebody is a Sotapanna, then surely they are well qualified to teach Dhamma. However, I do not think that stream entry is required to teach Dhamma. Many people including many monastics lack attainments, yet they are still able to teach the Dhamma effectively and benefit many.

If you no longer feel comfortable learning from a particular teacher, perhaps finding another teacher would benefit you. Or as Retro suggested, you could study the Buddha's teachings directly.

[DNS]

Five qualities (thoughts, in a teacher) for teaching Dhamma:

1. I will speak step-by-step
2. I will speak explaining the sequence of cause and effect
3. I will speak out of compassion
4. I will speak not for the purpose of material reward
5. I will speak without hurting myself or others

(from Anguttara Nikaya 5.159)

It is difficult to know what a teacher's attainments are (if any) and even if they report a certain stage they could be mistaken. Some may even have a calm and good disposition, but could be faking it while in public. In private they might be a different person. The best way to really know them is when living with them for an extended time, which the Buddha mentions in one discourse.

One thing that is a turn-off for me is when a teacher (usually a lay one) charges exorbitant fees for Dhamma programs (see #4 above) or routinely mentions other specific teachers for the point of disparaging them (see #3 and #5 above).

[DNS]

Three essential qualities in one who teaches Dhamma:

1. The teacher is able to penetrate the letter and spirit of the teachings
2. The one hears is able to do so too
3. Both teacher and listener are able to do both of these

(from Majjhima Nikaya 137, Digha Nikaya 12)

"Penetrating the letter and spirit" is a little vague, but I suppose could imply some attainment. Certainly a teacher should be at least knowledgeable about the Dhamma.

[Ben]

Dear AJ
Ummm....personally, and maybe this is just me, but I would be very cautious with any teacher claiming this or that attainment.
Within traditional Buddhist cultures in Southeast Asia, a lay person declaring they have a particular attainment invites scrutiny. And of course, it is a breach of vinaya for a monastic to indicate their attainment to a lay person. My experience has been that one indicator that a person has attained is their humility.
Anyway, they're just my thoughts.
kind regards

Ben

[cooran]

Greetings all,

I've recently discovered that one of the people from whom I've most enjoyed learning the dhamma has definitely not attained stream entry. I wasn't seeking to learn their level of attainment (or lack thereof), it was just casually mentioned during a recent dhamma talk. I now find that I'm thinking about this when I listen to other dhamma talks by this person.

To the point, should a teacher at least be someone suspected to be Sotapanna? Am I wrong to allow this unrequested knowledge of their lack of attainment to affect my view of the person as a teacher? I certainly feel I've learned a lot from their talks, but now I wonder if my time might not have been better invested listening to a teacher "a bit further along the path". Comments? Guidance?

AdvaitaJ

Hello Advaita, all,

These suttas may be of assistance:

Teaching the Dhamma.
The Buddha teaches only dukkha and its cessation: MN 22
The Buddha's simile on ~: SN 22.84
Three frames of reference for becoming a fit teacher: MN 137
Ven. Isidatta wisely declines a teaching invitation from his elders: SN 41.3
How to teach Dhamma: AN 4.111
Meditators and Dhamma scholars: Do not disparage each other!: AN 6.46
Don't teach what you don't know: AN 10.24
The Buddha doesn't hold back any esoteric teachings: DN 16
A skilled teacher is like a ferry-man: Sn 2.8
Dhamma should not be taught for the purpose of material reward: AN 5.159
Five prerequisites to teaching the Dhamma to others: AN 5.159
Teaching alone doesn't mean you're truly committed to the Dhamma: AN 5.73
How to recognize authentic teachings: AN 3.72, AN 7.80, AN 8.53, "Recognizing the Dhamma" (Study Guide)
Examples of lay Dhamma teachers: Anathapindika (AN 10.93); Citta (SN 41.7)
How to choose — and learn from — a teacher: MN 95
How to recognize a teacher: AN 4.192
Three kinds of Dhamma teachers: DN 12
Dhamma teaching compared to medical treatment: AN 3.22
The Buddha asks who is his teacher: Dhp 353
Teacher of the Devas (Jootla)
"How should I teach Buddhism to my children?" (Frequently Asked Question)
Technical Notes (Bullitt)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... l#teaching" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How to recognise a Lay Stream Winner -
AN 5.179 Gihi Sutta: The Householder
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How to recognize — and become — a person of integrity
MN 110 Cula-punnama Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Full-moon Night
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris

[Tex]

Aren't monks prohibited in the Vinaya from discussing their attainments with the laity?

If this is correct, wouldn't it be impossible to seek out only monks with particular levels of attainment to learn from?

I've always wondered if this was among the reasons for that rule -- if monks disclosed their attainments, surely all or most of the laity would flock to learn from the ones who have reached sotapanna or beyond, and they might miss out on a chance to learn from a monk who has not yet reached sotapanna but whose teaching style might be better suited to their learning style.

[meindzai]

I've always wondered if this was among the reasons for that rule.

Good question! The Vinaya is always interested with regards to the origin stories of these rules:

To report, says the Vibhaṅga, means to speak directly of one's own attainments, as explained under Pr 4 — i.e., to claim that the state is present in oneself or that one is present in the state. To speak indirectly of one's own attainments — e.g., "The bhikkhu who lives in this dwelling enters jhāna at will" — entails a dukkaṭa. According to the Commentary, gestures fall under this rule as well. Thus, if a bhikkhu who has attained stream-entry nods when asked by a lay person if he has any noble attainments, his nod would fulfill the factor of effort here. As under Pr 4, the use of idioms to express a superior human attainment would fulfill the factor of effort as well.

The origin story to this rule deals with bhikkhus who, as a tactic for getting almsfood in a time of scarcity, had agreed to speak of one another's superior human states to householders. This would seem to suggest that to speak of another bhikkhu's actual attainment of superior human states with such motives in mind — e.g., hoping to get a share of the increased gains he might receive — should entail a penalty too, but none of the texts mention this point, so it is not an offense. Still, any bhikkhu who plans to act in such a way, on the grounds that whatever is not an offense is perfectly all right, should remember that the Buddha criticized the bhikkhus in the origin story in very strong terms.

Buddhist Monastic Code
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AdvaitaJ]

You could listen to Dhamma Talks from the Buddha... he wasn't just a stream-entrant, he was The Arahant!

Retro,

Right you are, but listening to the Buddha is beyond me. However, I absolutely value reading the suttas and have begun to realize the limitations of not being at least a little more versed in Pali. That's why I still also need someone who's "in the know" on all the inside meanings behind the translated words.

AdvaitaJ

[AdvaitaJ]

All,

Thanks for the quick responses.

I would almost certainly be skeptical of anyone who publicly claimed any level of attainment so I can't imagine ever "knowing" about a teacher.

The issue for me is that I now know the opposite. This means that despite years and years of practice and having been ordained in SE Asia, this particular teacher may have missed something along the way and could unintentionally cause my practice to likewise not progress as it might. I am not elderly, but none of us has time to waste! It's probably a poor analogy, but would you want to take pilot lessons from someone who hasn't got their own pilot license?

Regards: AdvaitaJ

[Cittasanto]

You could listen to Dhamma Talks from the Buddha... he wasn't just a stream-entrant, he was The Arahant!

Retro,

Right you are, but listening to the Buddha is beyond me. However, I absolutely value reading the suttas and have begun to realize the limitations of not being at least a little more versed in Pali. That's why I still also need someone who's "in the know" on all the inside meanings behind the translated words.

AdvaitaJ

Your fairy god-Manapa is here to grant you one wish
http://www.suttareadings.net/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ben]

Hi AJ

All,

Thanks for the quick responses.

I would almost certainly be skeptical of anyone who publicly claimed any level of attainment so I can't imagine ever "knowing" about a teacher.

The issue for me is that I now know the opposite. This means that despite years and years of practice and having been ordained in SE Asia, this particular teacher may have missed something along the way and could unintentionally cause my practice to likewise not progress as it might. I am not elderly, but none of us has time to waste! It's probably a poor analogy, but would you want to take pilot lessons from someone who hasn't got their own pilot license?

Regards: AdvaitaJ

I think its important that you have confidence in the person who is teaching you and that you can see for yourself the results of efforts from their instruction - whether it be your efforts, their efforts or the efforts of their students. Some of the references that Chris has listed are excellent in this regard in determining who is a fit and worthy teacher. I actually don't consider a teacher's attainment of stream-entry as important as being able to instruct in a manner that suits you and that is also in concord with the Buddha's teachings. But then, I would never ask that question of anyone teaching Dhamma. Instead, I would be looking at their moral conduct, whether there was any controversy surrounding their character or their teaching, etc. At some point AJ, a good teacher will lead you to become completely independent rather than dependency.
Anyway, they're just my thoughts!
kind regards

Ben