What defines a good teacher?

[Alobha]

I was reading the Lohicca Sutta and i'm not quite sure what the implications of the Sutta actually are.

If I understood the Sutta correctly, the Buddha only deemed very few teachers "not worthy of criticism in the world"; namely..
- a Tathagatha
- someone who has at least one disciple who attained the four jhanas
- someone who has at least one disciple who attained a high level of insight knowledge (?)
- someone who has at least one disciple with supranormalpowers (iddhi, not bala)
- someone who has at least one disciple who's reached arahantship

And teachers who don't fall into one of these categories are worthy of criticism.

1.) Did I understand the Sutta about right so far?
2.) Does this mean that this is a standard to measure whether people should teach or not teach Dhamma at all?
3.) If a teacher is "worty of criticism in the world", does it mean that he should not teach? If not, what are the consequences of this?

I struggle with the perception that this approach seems very restrictive to say the least. I assume the Buddha acknowledged that, realizing the Dhamma being a gradual path, there may be plenty of teachers who have teachings that are partially useful and helpful when heard by others and that there are teachers who have teachings that are better than offering non advice at all.
After all, Siddharta Gautama got some good advice on samadhi from teachers that may be categorized as "worthy of criticism in the world" by this standard. Sooo... not sure what to make out of this Sutta.

I'd appreciate input on this sutta and general commentary on what qualifies a Dhamma teacher as worthy and capable of teaching.
Thanks!

Alobha

[Dhammanando]

1.) Did I understand the Sutta about right so far?

Yes, but with the qualifier that for "teacher" the Buddha in this context is using the word satthā, not ācariya. A satthā is a teacher in the sense of being the founder of a religious dispensation (sāsanā). An ācariya is a teacher within such a dispensation. And so the Buddha, Makkhali Gosāla, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, etc. are all satthās. Sāriputta and Moggallāna are ācariyas but not satthās.

2.) Does this mean that this is a standard to measure whether people should teach or not teach Dhamma at all?

No, it's a standard for judging the teaching competence of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Ron Hubbard, or anyone else who founds a sāsanā.

3.) If a teacher is "worthy of criticism in the world", does it mean that he should not teach?

It means that from the Buddha's point of view it was a mistake for him to start a sāsanā. For the qualifications that would render a Buddhist competent to teach one must consult other sources.

[Mkoll]

For the qualifications that would render a Buddhist competent to teach one must consult other sources.

The Canki Sutta (MN 95) probably qualifies as a qualifiable source for the qualities and qualifications of a qualified teacher.

[Mkoll]

Here's another one with requiring far fewer qualifi...erm, requirements for the teacher. It also says the student has something to bring to the table, too.

“Bhikkhus, when one sees three advantages, it is enough to teach others the Dhamma. What three? (1) The one who teaches the Dhamma experiences the meaning and the Dhamma. (2) The one who hears the Dhamma experiences the meaning and the Dhamma. (3) Both the one who teaches the Dhamma and the one who hears the Dhamma experience the meaning and the Dhamma. Seeing these three advantages, it is enough to teach others the Dhamma.”

The sutta directly following this one is basically a repeat of that one but starts with, "Bhikkhus, in three cases talk flows smoothly. What three?..."

[Alobha]

Thanks Bhante for the Pali clarification, the Sutta makes much more sense when when sattha is used
Also thanks Mkoll - AN 3.43 is just what I was looking for then