Upvote:0
How about this?
If the teacher understands the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach.
If the audience understands the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach. Here, whether the teacher fully understands the teaching, appears to be optional.
If both teacher and audience understand the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach.
“Mendicants, taking three reasons into consideration provides quite enough motivation to teach Dhamma to another. What three? When the teacher understands the meaning and the teaching. When the audience understands the meaning and the teaching. When both the teacher and the audience understand the meaning and the teaching.
Taking these three reasons into consideration provides quite enough motivation to teach Dhamma to another.”
AN 3.43
Upvote:1
There is this
For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." SN 6.1: Ayacana Sutta: The Request
Also this
“Monks, if others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, neither hatred nor antagonism nor displeasure of mind would be proper. If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, and at that you would be upset and angered, that would be an obstruction for you yourselves. If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, and at that you would be upset and angered, would you know what of those others was well-said or poorly said?”
“No, lord.”
“If others were to speak in dispraise of me, in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Saṅgha, you should unravel and explicate what is unfactual as unfactual: ‘This is unfactual, this is inaccurate, there is nothing of that in us, and that is not to be found in us.’
“If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, neither joy nor gladness nor exhilaration of mind would be proper. If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, and at that you would be joyful, glad, & exhilarated, that would be an obstruction for you yourselves. If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Saṅgha, and at that you would be joyful, glad, & exhilarated, would you know what of those others was well-said or poorly said?”
“No, lord.”
“If others were to speak in praise of me, in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should unravel and explicate what is factual as factual: ‘This is factual, this is accurate, there is that in us, and that is to be found in us.’ DN1: Brahmajala Sutta: The Great Net
Upvote:1
MN 137 https://lucid24.org/mn/mn137/index.html#7 7 - (The teacher -buddha- uses 3 types of sati, to illustrate upekkha reaction) 7.1 – (bad disciples) 7.2 – (some good some bad disciples) 7.3 – (all good disciples)