A Look at the Kalama Sutta

seattlegal

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,888
Reaction score
319
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
From the Where is Buddhism going? thread:
Vajradhara said:
Namaste citizenzen,

thank you for the post.

that period of time was during his practice with the ascetics and he, indeed, had a teacher. the Buddha had two teachers prior to striking out on his own, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. given that this period of time is prior to his Awakening and Lion's Roar of the Dharma i'm not sure how it's applicable to a Buddhists practice.

with regards to teachers and dharma companions the Buddha makes it clear that beings new to the Buddhist teachings will benefit tremendously from a teacher, indeed some beings make no progress along the path without such guidance.

is such applicable for all beings? nope and the Buddha made that clear as well. nevertheless, one of the most frequently cited Suttas of the Buddhas is the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) which is often taken to be a license for free inquiry into the Dharma however, this view fails to take into account the actual text of the Sutta past the oft quoted:

"...Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."

in this very same Sutta the Buddha indicates that the process of determining the correct teachings to follow, in addition to the process listed above, are those practices which are praised by "the wise". in the Buddhas parlance "the wise" refers to the primary group of monastics whom formed the initial Sangha.

the Maha-mangala Sutta (Sn2.4) also reinforces the idea that association with the wise is of paramount benefit:

Not consorting with fools,
consorting with the wise,
paying homage to those worthy of homage:
This is the highest protection.

the import of a teacher is also clearly indicated in the process of Going for Refuge as a Buddhist takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, the teacher, the teaching and the group of beings that put the teachings into practice.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

citizenzen said:
"When you know for yourself."

This is the key phrase here. Nobody can impart enlightenment upon you. It is self-realization that happens in its own time, of its own accord.

Teachers, wise friends, sanghas can provide support and counsel. I would never deny that. But they are not a necessary component to awakening.

And while I would never presume to tell anyone to not have a teacher (because I have had them and found the experiences quite rewarding) I think it's important to remember and embody the fact that we are responsible for our enlightenment, not sangha, not scriptures, not teachers, not saviors. When we know for ourselves.

Will it take me longer to reach enlightenment without a teacher? Yes, it probably will. Do flowers need to open faster than they do? Does fruit need a teacher to ripen? These things happen naturally, on their own and for now that is the path that I follow as well.

Here's a Buddhist story (paraphrased horribly) that you've probably heard before, but others may not have...

A teacher had all his monks line up and he went down the line assaying each of his charges. To every monk the teacher said, "You will experience enlightenment in this lifetime," until he came to the last monk in line. To that monk he said, "You will experience enlightenment in 100,000 lifetimes." To which the monk responded with great joy, "I'm going to be a Buddha in 100,000 lifetimes! I'm going to be a Buddha in 100,000 lifetimes!"

The point isn't how soon we get there, but that we practice with both joy and diligence no matter how long it takes. That is how I hope to live my life and how I hope to become a Buddha.
Click to expand...

Vajradhara said:
Namaste citizenzen,

thank you for the post.



i'd be more than pleased to have a conversation on the purpose and scope of the Kalama Sutta with you at some time however this thread doesn't seem to be the place for it :)

i would suggest, however, that the Buddhas instructions in this regard are specific to the Kalamas and their situation.

Awakening has factors which can be developed through practice though each fruit is ripened at its own pace.



indeed, this is so.. for some beings. it would be a mistake to presume that this is true for all beings, however. indeed, a being can Awaken without even the Dharma being present on a world system so Awakening, in and of itself, is something which is a natural process available to all beings at some point or another.



all beings are responsible for their actions, even their Awakening. the Buddha frequently makes mention of the fact that he is a guide that can lead a being to the door but the being must be the one to walk through.

many times beings which advocate the Dharma path without guidance or teachers seem to have an idea about wise companions which is a product of a different philosophical paradigm. one which often sees the spiritual development of a being as an accomplisment or feat of some other agency than the particular being in question. i've read many influential Western Buddhists writings regarding the lack of a need for teachers or wise companions and i, personally, think that reflects a serious deficiency in their grounding in the Suttas.

of course and we must needs be clear here since dispite years of saying it, it seems like it must be said in every thread... these are my thoughts only based on my own limited understanding of the Suttas and Shastras.



i'm not sure that having a teacher or wise companions decreases or increases the amount of time it would take to Awaken or become a Buddha.. i actually think that they have little to do with it one way or the other as my view is more akin to the Sudden Awakening schools of thought.

of course as the Ch'an schools would explain practice is Awakening, there is no difference ;)

metta,

~v
Click to expand...
I think a discussion on the Kalama Sutta would make a great thread.

Here's a place to start:
A Look at the Kalama Sutta
 
I think the point under discussion maybe hinges around the translator's note on the actual Sutta page itself:

"Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise."

Also, as ever, the Buddha takes into account his audience. His answer to their query is the one appropriate to them at that time - upaya (expedient means).

s.
 
Snoopy said:
I think the point under discussion maybe hinges around the translator's note on the actual Sutta page itself:

"Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise."

Also, as ever, the Buddha takes into account his audience. His answer to their query is the one appropriate to them at that time - upaya (expedient means).

s.
Click to expand...
Jesus said much the same thing: "You'll recognize them by their fruit." (Matt 7:16)
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/comparing-the-messages-in-matthew-10222.html
 
Snoopy said:
Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that.
Click to expand...

I would completely agree with this. Going with the flow or doing whatever feels good is not what the Buddha was advocating. The Eight-Fold Path is not an option, it is a manifestation of a Buddha. A Buddhist must adhere to the Eight-Fold Path and understand the Four Noble Truths before they can trust their feelings about what is wholesome and what is good.

Without this support structure we would trade wholesomeness for hedonism, and nobody here is advocating that.
 
Hi everyone!

There is one point that must be said about the Kalama Sutra. Some people say that the Kalama Sutra was given as advice to non-Buddhists. (The Kalamas were non-Buddhists, if I remember correctly.) Some people say the Kalama Sutra is not intended for Buddhists. Other people disagree, and say that the Kalama Sutra is intended for everyone.

Everyone must decide for his or herself which side of this interpretation to choose. (I choose the second interpretation.) It must be noted that the first interpretation removes the idea that Buddha gave any type of carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong.
 
This is the part of the sutta that resonates most with me:
"What do you think, Kalamas? When {greed, hate, or delusion} arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this {greedy, aversive, or delused} person, overcome by {greed, hate or delusion} his mind possessed by {greed, hate, or delusion} kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"
"Unskillful, lord."
"Blameworthy or blameless?"
"Blameworthy, lord."
"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"
"Criticized by the wise, lord."
"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?"
"When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us."
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities {the fruits greed, hate, and delusion?} are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, {greed, hate, and delusion} when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.​
Many will create some pretty convincing arguments to cover up and/or justify greed, hate or delusion. It is the arguments that lead to greed, hate or delusion that should be abandoned--as they lead to harm and suffering. This is how you separate what to accept from what to reject. It was the qualities of greed, hate, and delusion among the preachers and contemplative that were causing the kalamas to be confused:


As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some priests & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other priests & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable priests & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"​
You can see the fruits of greed, hate, and delusion being reported by the Kalamas regarding the preachers and contemplatives. The Buddha recognized this, and told the Kalamas not to be taken in by appeals to authority and conjecture when they lead to greed, hate, or delusion, or the practice of the fruits of these defilements:

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These [following?] qualities {greed, hate and delusion} are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.​
Simply abandoning things that will lead to greed, hate, or delusion is the obvious path that leads to harm and suffering, but we humans can be prone to cling to them, and we can be quite clever in our arguments to obscure our greed, hate, or delusion. (Today, this is seen as the negative application of political correctness, imo.)
 
Oops! Major typo! :eek: substitute "as" for "is"!
Simply abandoning things that will lead to greed, hate, or delusion as (instead of is, as was written above)the obvious path that leads to harm and suffering (is the correct thing to do,) but we humans can be prone to cling to them, and we can be quite clever in our arguments to obscure our greed, hate, or delusion.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
Tao_Equus said:
Never heard of it. Now when you get to Kama Sutra I might chime in :D
Click to expand...
I can see it now: a question on a quiz show: Which sutra serves as the guideline for accepting or rejecting doctrine?

**Tao_Equus buzzes in** "The Kama Sutra!"

{It brings in a whole new twist to the phrase, "By their fruits you shall know them!" :eek: }
 
Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

Snoopy said:
I think the point under discussion maybe hinges around the translator's note on the actual Sutta page itself:

"Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise."

Also, as ever, the Buddha takes into account his audience. His answer to their query is the one appropriate to them at that time - upaya (expedient means).

s.
Click to expand...

irrespective of the particulars of the sutta under consideration this particular aspect of the Buddhas method of teaching is, in my opinion, vastly underemphasized if mentioned at all.

one of the more difficult things about reading the Suttas in English is, until fairly recently, they left out the setting details, to whom, where and why the teaching was given. without this critical information a reader may incorrectly think that a particular teaching is applicable to them.

the Buddha gave different answers to the same questions based on the being to whom the teaching was given which can and has led to varying ideas about what is being taught and why.

in the Kalama Sutta the Buddha refers to "the wise" as the being the sorts of beings that a being should check with regarding both positive (activities they praise) and negative (activities they critisize) actions however the Buddha does not, in this Sutta, explicate who "the wise" happen to be. this information was part of the cultural knowledge of the time and needed no particular explanation as such terms were widely used in all the Dharma traditions to refer to the senior most members of the group, those that had attained some level of awareness/moksha etc.

thus the Sutta advocates two things to non-Buddhists, test the teachings for yourself and judge the fruit they produce and seek the guidance of the wise.

to make a bit of a poor analogy...

the Buddha never takes a being to the river and says "well buddy, there it is.. i'll see you on the otherside when you get there." rather the Buddha says "well buddy, there it is.. here's the awesome raft that i built which you can use if you'd like but you don't have to. you can find some knowledgeable raft builders to help you build one so you can cross over. i'll see you on the Other Side."

:eek:

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Nick the Pilot said:
Hi everyone!

There is one point that must be said about the Kalama Sutra. Some people say that the Kalama Sutra was given as advice to non-Buddhists. (The Kalamas were non-Buddhists, if I remember correctly.)
Click to expand...

your memory serves you correctly, the Kalamas were a group/tribe of people that were regularly visited by spiritual beings/holy men and often preached to about why they should adopt a certain religious point of view. the Suttas don't specifically mention which other school(s) of thought were practiced there, if any.

Some people say the Kalama Sutra is not intended for Buddhists. Other people disagree, and say that the Kalama Sutra is intended for everyone.
Click to expand...

i've heard the first one many, many times but have not heard the second one very often.

Everyone must decide for his or herself which side of this interpretation to choose. (I choose the second interpretation.) It must be noted that the first interpretation removes the idea that Buddha gave any type of carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure that's a very good plan... i'm pretty sure that's a bad plan but, alas, my views on bad plans do little to dissuade them from happening. the Buddha was not a universalist in that the teachings are given to specific groups or individuals based on the Buddhas cognition of where they were along the path. the Buddhist term for this is "upaya" which is loosely translated as "expedient means" and basically indicates that before we can apply a teaching to ourselves we need to ascertain if we are the sort of being to whom the teaching was initially given.

the Sutta we are discussing actually says that it is a combination of what a being has personally verified and the views of the wise which would help a non-Buddhist determine if what the Buddha taught has any merit.

once a being has Taken Refuge in the Triple Jewel there is a whole other set of Suttas which apply to how a being approaches the Dharma and questions the teachers and so forth though it varies betwixt the monastics and laiety.

metta,

~v
 
In one sense, it doesn't matter who the audience was or how he tailored his message. We have the luxury to study these sutras and compare then to each other. But if we were listening to the Buddha as he spoke to the Kalamas, we would have heard Buddhadharma.
 
seattlegal said:
I can see it now: a question on a quiz show: Which sutra serves as the guideline for accepting or rejecting doctrine?

**Tao_Equus buzzes in** "The Kama Sutra!"

{It brings in a whole new twist to the phrase, "By their fruits you shall know them!" :eek: }
Click to expand...


Q:Which sutra serves as the guideline for accepting or rejecting doctrine?


BZZZZZZZZZZZZ


A: Erm..... the reverse butterfly?:rolleyes:
 
Tao_Equus said:
Q:Which sutra serves as the guideline for accepting or rejecting doctrine?


BZZZZZZZZZZZZ


A: Erm..... the reverse butterfly?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hmm, if the butterfly symbolizes transformation and evolution, then the reverse butterfly would symbolize what? Devolution? :eek:

{Alright, this is just getting tooooo fruity...}
 
There is an interesting essay on the Kalama Sutta by Bhikku Bodhi here:

A Look at the Kalama Sutta

Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been put into brackets.
What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering.
Click to expand...

Also, I have found the book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi to be quite helpful in terms of reading the sutras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top