True, but not helpful: The Buddha's first encounter with teaching

 Right Speech is characterized as having 3 qualities: it is true, it is beneficial, it is well timed. The first time the Buddha tried to "teach", he was truthful, but not helpful.

In Pañcavaggiyakathā (Mv.I.6.1) (https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/Mv/MvI.html), the Buddha is a few weeks after his moment of full awakening. Upaka the Ājīvaka meets him on the road and asks him who his teacher is and what his teachings are."Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”

When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:

“All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.


All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?"

etc.

And the Buddha goes on for a bit. It's all "true", but isn't very helpful or persuasive. It directly answers the question of who the teacher is, but doesn't give any flavor of what is being taught.

How is Upaka supposed to differentiate the Buddha from another person claiming great attainments? What wisdom has the Buddha shared? None.

It continues:

Upaka: “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”


Buddha: “Conquerors are those like me
who have reached fermentations’ end.
I’ve conquered evil qualities,
and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”


When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.

I bolded the "shaking his head" to emphasize that the Buddha didn't impart any knowledge. He didn't teach any Dhamma. Upaka couldn't discern the Buddha from just another mendicant hopped up on their own sense of accomplishment.

And hence, the first "teaching" was a failure. I say this with caution, because it may very well be that the Buddha wasn't actually trying to teach, so no real failure occurred. He met a traveller on the road, and then answered his questions. But, it's undeniable that based on what was said, Upaka was not persuaded. The Buddha would have had to change his tack.

I find it interesting why this story is included in the Pali Canon. The Buddha would have been the only person to know this story besides Upaka. The Buddha could have skipped this story in his telling and gone straight to his (successful) turning the wheel of dhamma with the five monks. But, I find it helpful to see the contrast. To Upaka, he seems to boast, which gets nowhere. And with the 5 monks, he points to patterns of experience which the monks could understand and know (in their bones, in their own experience). The contrast illustrates a bit that the reasoning matter a lot in the teaching. Not the stature of the teacher. In fact, in the Kalama sutta, the way to evaluate what is genuine dhamma cautions about following a teaching just because the stature of the person who said it.

For me, this is a warning to watch out for grandiosity. I feel that I need to talk less and listen more. I do have this attitude that I am smart and know a lot. That other people should listen to me. But I want to be careful so that that doesn't slow down my development. Or, worse yet, I turn into a Devadatta.