Sutra Club: Kalama Sutta

riverflow

Kalama Sutta

TEXT HERE: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

~ ~ ~

Also, some helpful background: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lostinquotation.html

~ ~ ~

Share your own thoughts!

BhanteLucky

I just had a quick read, and the first thing that jumped out at me was

"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...

(my emphasis and underline)
Don't go by logical conjecture, basically logical thinking!?
That's a big call from the Buddha. Why would he say that wasn't a good way to judge an idea?
Maybe because the teachings of the Buddha could be too deep to be analysed by logic...
or maybe that us humans need something more than logic to reach a good conclusion...
we are not computers...
Hmm... I dunno, I use logic... clear thinking... quite a lot. I gotta have a think about that.

Thanks for starting us, riverflow & zombiegirl.

riverflow

It appears I'm getting sick (earlier today I thought it was just allergies) so I'll save my thoughts for later. But what @JamestheGiant points out is a crucial point.

To put my own thought briefly for the moment: Wisdom and insight do not come 'from the outside' from anyone or anything else, including discursive reason--to be meaningful, insight must be experiential. This, for me, is the main point of this sutta.

fivebells

The translator's note helps to clarify this:

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.

BhanteLucky

Pah! But MY logic is PERFECT!
Thankyou @fivebells.

lobster

Why would he say that wasn't a good way to judge an idea?

It is a good idea and also a good idea not to judge.
In a sense it is better to apprehend, the truth beyond the potential of any idea for right or wrong.

A judge in a village court had gone on vacation. Nasrudin was asked to be temporary judge for a day. Nasrudin sat on the Judge's chair with a serious face, gazing around the public and ordered the first case be brought-up for hearing.
"You are right," said Nasrudin after hearing one side.
"You are right," he said after hearing the other side.
"But both cannot be right," said a member of public sitting in the audience.
"You are right, too" said Nasrudin.

Vastmind

I appreciate the section about assurances.
I have often heard it called a confidence.
That's what I feel and notice when I'm trying to
determine whether something is skillful/unskillful.
During the 'testing out' process is when I feel uneasy,
and not sure...confused. Diligence and built up confidence
keeps me truckin on. Refuge makes me feel safe, because
I know....
when I see the fruit be so sweet...
That shit is beautiful!!!

Here is my question on this one:
Blameworthy?
How is that different from judgement?
Do I use the blame for my own wisdom?,
as far as learning from others' unskillful
actions??...Is that how I keep it in my own
backyard, and not develope judgement?

Jeffrey

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Is this related to a meditative experience or is it meaning to be kind and compassionate to strangers and all beings?

fivebells

@Jeffrey: It's a description of four immeasurables practice. Those four similar paragraphs go together. Metta, Compassion, Joy and Equanimity.

BhanteLucky

Jeffrey said:

Is this related to a meditative experience or is it meaning to be kind and compassionate to strangers and all beings?

Yeah, think that part is about doing basically metta meditation, spreading the Metta, Compassion, Joy and Equanimity around the cosmos.
Metaphorically, in my opinion, since I don't think the metta goes anywhere apart from in your own head.

Jeffrey

@fivebells, did you read that somewhere or hear sutra where that is defined? Sounds good but I just wanted to check up on it,,, we are reading the kalama sutra so saying that is I guess ironic.

fivebells

JamestheGiant said:

think that part is about doing basically metta meditation, spreading the Metta, Compassion, Joy and Equanimity around the cosmos.
Metaphorically, in my opinion, since I don't think the metta goes anywhere apart from in your own head.

It's extending the immeasurables to everything which arises in experience. That includes the experience of strangers, as well as more abstract conceptions like "beings" and "the cosmos."

Jeffrey

with an awareness imbued with good will.

Yeah that supports your understanding. Ah yes now I see it's obvious. You can see it in the words to describe that go in a sequence of four paragraphs each dealing with a quality of the four immeasuribles.

Straight_Man

JamestheGiant said:

I just had a quick read, and the first thing that jumped out at me was

"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...

(my emphasis and underline)
Don't go by logical conjecture, basically logical thinking!?

Well, my dad used to say, and he was a linguistic legalist, that conjecture is baseless speculation. PROPER Logical thinking, he taught me, was logical analysis. Help? HTH.

fivebells

Jeffrey said:

You can see it in the words to describe that go in a sequence of four paragraphs each dealing with a quality of the four immeasuribles.

Yes. Further support for the notion that this is a meditative activity can be seen in the Dhanañjani Sutta. Here Sariputta is using the same formulation, and explicitly presenting it as a meditative exercise which will lead to a more pleasant rebirth.

"Dhanañjani, I will teach you the path to union with the Brahmas. Listen and pay careful attention to that. I will speak."

"As you say, master," Dhanañjani the brahman responded to Ven. Sariputta.

Ven. Sariputta said: "And what is the path to union with the Brahmas? There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He keeps pervading the first direction with an awareness imbued with compassion ... appreciation ... equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with equanimity — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. This, Dhanañjani, is the path to union with the Brahmas."

(Not really familiar with this sutra, just googled for "site:accesstoinsight.org good-will appreciation compassion equanimity," found Thanissaro's essay on Educating Compassion, and added Sariputta to the google search terms, because Thanissaro mentions him in the story there. So there is a small possibility that I'm cherry-picking, but I am confident that this is how Thanissaro understands this formulation.)

Lee82

JamestheGiant said:

Don't go by logical conjecture, basically logical thinking!?

My understanding of the use of the word conjecture is when you are filling in the gaps of knowledge based on what you think, rather than know, to be correct. Conjecture is influenced by your own knowledge, thoughts and experiences and is logically what your mind expects to be in that gap. It is not something you have proven or tested to be true by your own experiences, as he encourages you to do, and therefore you should not allow conjecture to fill in those gaps without knowing that the gap is being filled correctly with something you know to be correct and can be tested by you to be correct.

lobster

Blameworthy?
How is that different from judgement?
Do I use the blame for my own wisdom?,
as far as learning from others' unskillful
actions??...Is that how I keep it in my own
backyard, and not develope judgement?

In Sufism this condition is described as the 'accusing self'.
In other words we develop either an external friend or an internal friend able to differentiate between skilful and unskilful tendencies . . .

lobster

I have started a stub on a wiki page that anyone can edit/improve

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Buddhist_Philosophy/Sutra

zombiegirl

I really appreciated the commentary attached with this. Nice work @riverflow

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

Notice the words in bold face, the ones that usually get dropped from the quote or sloughed over when they're included. When the Buddha says that you can't go by logical deduction, inference, or analogies, he's saying that you can't always trust your sense of reason. When he says that you can't go by agreement through pondering views (i.e., what seems to fit in with what you already believe) or by probability, he's saying that you can't always trust your common sense. And of course, you can't always trust teachers, scriptures, or traditions. So where can you place your trust? You have to put things to the test in your own thoughts, words, and deeds, to see what actually leads to suffering and what leads to its end.

This very succinctly sums up the problem of why the Kalama Sutta is so often misinterpreted. On the one hand, it DOES tell you to use your own sense of reason, but on the other hand, it says that you can't always trust that either. People so often use this sutta to justify previously held notions. But as we all know, if your mind is deluded, you're not going to see reality as it really is. I think, in a way, the Kalama Sutta also really emphasizes the need for a teacher/sangha.

lobster

Blameworthy?

There is also another use of spiritual worthiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamatiyya
which is partly similar to aghorhi practices, some practices which the pre-Buddha may have engaged in, having a skull for a pillow for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori

Vastmind

^^^
I assure you, I won't be peeing on anyone's parade, hahaha.

I understand the point.
Gratitude.

riverflow

For the moment, I just want to address the first portion of this sutta. Here's the Buddha's list of things to not rely upon:

Reports from others
Legends
Traditions
Scripture
Logical reasoning
Logical inference
Analogies
Agreeing with other views
Calculating probability
Or relying on what a teacher says

Three questions:
(1) What do all these things have in common?
(2) What one thing is not on that list?
(3) What makes that one missing thing different from all the other things listed above?

There is an important aspect of Socrates which helps my own understanding here... Socrates (via Plato's earliest dialogues) makes an important distinction between 'opinion' (doxa) and 'knowledge' (episteme). For Socrates, most people live by opinion and rarely (if ever) possess actual knowledge. It is important not to misunderstand Socrates here though--generally accepted facts, such as 'The sky is blue,' or 'The speed of light is 186,000 per second' etc. are opinion, not knowledge. Socratic knowledge means direct insight--it isn't having information about something else 'out there' somewhere. In other words, Socratic knowledge is direct insight gained by one's own experience, not just agreeing with a set of propositions. This is why Socrates says (in Plato's Symposium): 'How nice it would be if wisdom were the kind of thing that could flow from what is more full into what is more empty.'

In this respect, there is some degree of commonality with the Kalama Sutta.

The fundamental problem is to mistake a concept about something for unmediated experiential insight (even if those concepts are 'objectively' true!). We commonly make the mistake that when one possesses a correct idea about something, the problem is resolved, and therefore there is no reason for further inquiry. This might be true for limited problems, such as fixing a car, building a house, handling a budget--but the problem of suffering is not so straightforward.

The Kalama Sutta, in context, goes much further than the commonly bandied notion that Buddhism allows for a free-for-all just believe what you want to and chuck out the parts that don't fit in with a modern western scientific viewpoint. That sounds very appealing, especially to westerners who are sceptical of religious metaphysical claims that don't square away with science. But such a narrow interpretation misses the point which is this: anything less than your own experential insight is insufficient to lessen suffering.

You can't rely on anyone or anything else in this, even if it were true. You have to give birth to your own insight--it cannot be reproduced or duplicated. (Incidentally, this explains much of the stick-hitting in Zen--your response to a given situation indicates that it is not authentic, but still reliant on logic or scripture or the teacher, etc.) Buddhism isn't about believing its doctrines provide a true picture of reality. Rather, the doctrines of Buddhism are methods designed to help cultivate insight and so end suffering. Anything less is to get caught up in a thicket of views, from creationism to evolution and a wide range of other topics. Even if the Big Bang theory were true and the fundamentalists were wrong, what good does that do in terms of the Four Noble Truths?

The point then is not to replace incorrect concepts with correct concepts, but that hanging onto any concepts itself is ultimately an obstacle to wisdom. No matter how crude or refined, true or false, conceptual thinking is inadequate and superficial--it is a cheap substitute for wisdom. Clinging to concepts may even preempt necessary self-inquiry. If I already possess the right answers, why should I bother to ask myself any other questions?

The Buddha is inviting the Kalamas to look in their own experience to determine what is harmful and what is not. Wisdom is not information about something 'out there,' but something discovered in oneself. 'To study the Buddha way is to study the self...' (Dogen)

Tosh

riverflow said:

Wisdom is not information about something 'out there,' but something discovered in oneself. 'To study the Buddha way is to study the self...' (Dogen)

And I'm sure the quote goes onto say, "and to study the self is to forget the self".

Nice post, @Riverflow, I really enjoyed reading it, though I think I've just updated a few concepts.

zombiegirl

riverflow said:

You can't rely on anyone or anything else in this, even if it were true. You have to give birth to your own insight--it cannot be reproduced or duplicated. (Incidentally, this explains much of the stick-hitting in Zen--your response to a given situation indicates that it is not authentic, but still reliant on logic or scripture or the teacher, etc.) Buddhism isn't about believing its doctrines provide a true picture of reality. Rather, the doctrines of Buddhism are methods designed to help cultivate insight and so end suffering.

This seems sort of simple, and maybe it should be obvious, but it was quite insightful for me. Thank you.

Sabre

Nowadays, I guess even much more than in the time of the Buddha, people trust that what their thoughts say is true. They are attached to thought, identify with thought. So when people have certain thoughts about things, they may think that counts as an insight. It's just a thought. A thought is always a description of reality that doesn't really describe it. Just as a description of a visual view doesn't hold a lot of information of that view - actually very little. Let alone subtle things such as view of the Dhamma.

I'm not saying thoughts are all bad, but their value is only very little. All insights that are of real value are beyond thoughts. Even thoughts in line with the Dhamma are not that useful and the Buddha stilled them, as we see in various places in the sutta's. Perhaps most notably here:

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

So with reasoning you can't get there, because thoughts and words are always wrong in a way. Describe to me the taste of your favorite food.. You won't come very far. I will probably have no clue what you are talking about. Same with insights, the Buddha did as good as a job as he could describing his insights into reality in words, but unless we taste ourselves, we won't know what he was talking about. Thinking about it just won't do. All real valuable insight doesn't start with a thought, it comes from silence. That's why it's so valuable to learn how to still the thoughts in the mind. And that's also why he restated this very important thing in the Kalama Sutta. "by logical conjecture, etc, etc" means by thought.

With metta!
Sabre

zombiegirl

On thoughts and our opinionated mind assigning value, this quote has been rolling around in my head for a while:

"Flowers, though we may be attached to them, still fall while weeds, though we may hate them, still flourish."
-Dogen

karasti

I found what the commentary said about cut and paste Buddhism in the West to be interesting. It does seem as if Buddha knew quite well the delusions and other problems his followers would face, and set everything up ahead of time to counter those problems so that people could learn what they needed to gain the insight to make changes in their lives and the world around them. But it seems like in the West, we feel we already know so much and we're so smart that we don't need all the details, we poo poo some things, completely bypass others, and latch onto yet others. I like the idea that the Sangha was set up the way it was to counter these predictable habit patterns of humans and I think most people in the West will be pretty hard pressed to gain true insight because they are still using conjecture to fill in the gaps and taking that as their truth without having any teachers to guide their way and help correct their thinking by being able to use their vast amount of study of Buddhist philosophy, writings, history, and everything else.

Really, I'm rambling to myself, lol. I don't even know if what I said makes sense to anyone else. I just think it's pretty hard to take something like even the Kalama Sutra and understand it well without inserting our own take on it, which is exactly what we aren't supposed to do. I think we need teachers to help us with this. And I think you guys are a great bunch of teachers to work with it on. I think the study club will be great for that.

BonsaiDoug

Wow! What a great thread! My personal thanx to all who contributed.

@riverflow - you said: "anything less than your own experential insight is insufficient to lessen suffering." My main take-away from this Sutta. Might this also be expanded to say, insufficient to true understanding of pretty much anything?

seeker242

It should be noted the context in which the Buddha spoke these words. He was speaking specifically to the Kalamas, people who were doubtful or had "skeptical doubt" as to who or what to follow. To his disciples, the Buddha said quite different things! Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a good article on it.

A Look at the Kalama Sutta
by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context — with a particular audience and situation in view — and thus must be understood in relation to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds.

The Buddha begins by assuring the Kalamas that under such circumstances it is proper for them to doubt, an assurance which encourages free inquiry. He next speaks the passage quoted above, advising the Kalamas to abandon those things they know for themselves to be bad and to undertake those things they know for themselves to be good. This advice can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped, and we can thus assume that the Buddha regarded the Kalamas as people of refined moral sensitivity. In any case he did not leave them wholly to their own resources, but by questioning them led them to see that greed, hate and delusion, being conducive to harm and suffering for oneself and others, are to be abandoned, and their opposites, being beneficial to all, are to be developed.

...

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them.

...

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when they lie beyond one's own capacity for verification. This, in fact, marks the acquisition of right view, in its preliminary role as the forerunner of the entire Noble Eightfold Path.

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.

To his monks, he said things like this:

At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

...

"Whatever beings there are, whether footless or two-footed or four-footed, with form or without form, percipient or non-percipient or neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient, of these the Tathagata is reckoned foremost, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. Those who have faith in the Buddha have faith in the foremost, and for those with faith in the foremost the result will be foremost.

blu3ree

Seems like a people that listened to many "enlightened" ones before buddhas arrival. Then he reassured them to trust themselves so that they could avoid " tripping up" when an ignorant one came along. Seemed like a people that treaded a middle way path and didnt want to be told what to do but rather be able to tell themselves what to do so they could "attach a line to the kite so it wouldnt fly away".

fivebells

@seeker242, are you speaking to anyone in particular? Bringing Bhikku Bodhi into it at this stage seems pointlessly inflammatory, as no one in the thread has claimed that the sutra carries the implications he argues against.

seeker242

fivebells said:

@seeker242, are you speaking to anyone in particular? Bringing Bhikku Bodhi into it at this stage seems pointlessly inflammatory, as no one in the thread has claimed that the sutra carries the implications he argues against.

No one in particular. Just pointing out my thoughts on the sutta that no one has mentioned so far. AKA the context in which it was spoken. But, I was a bit perplexed when you said it was inflammatory as that was not the intent! The intent was simply to point out the context. If one really want to understand a sutta, I think it helps to know the particular context.

karasti

@seeker242 I enjoyed that being included, so thank you for doing so. I don't see what was inflammatory about it. It sets up the foundation for the sutra well, I thought, and after I read that, I went back and read the sutra again and understood it a bit better. Context is always important.

fivebells

But the context was already clear. As with most sutras, the context is laid out explicitly at the start. What Bodhi's essay actually adds is speculation based on that context as to the intent of the instructions it contains, along with the demolition of a few straw men based on those instructions. The essay is a poorly-reasoned riposte in a debate which is not going on here.

riverflow

Is there really a strawman presented here? Something I come across far too often (online, though not here) who use the Kalama Sutta to justify rejection of Buddhist doctrines that one doesn't care for. I think it is important to understand what the Kalama Sutta is not, and Bhikkhu Bodhi does a good overview of it.

I like it too that he even dares to use the dreaded F-word (faith) which is all-too-easily overlooked by western Buddhists which doesn't fit so nicely with the notion that Buddhism is 'just a philosophy.' Of course the role of faith is quite different in Buddhism than from, say, Christianity--but without trust even in the Dharma (which is ultimately a method), why bother taking even the first steps?

While this may not be something seen here, it is commonly seen amongst those who are less familiar with Buddhism. But if they hear a sutta quoted ever, it is likely to be this one--and quoted out of context. Its good to such potential pitfalls in order to address someone who could ask about this very issue. If for that reason alone, I think these they are worthy points to bring up here (as a discussion--there is no debate here that I am aware of?), especially in connection with this sutta.

fivebells

I haven't come across anyone seriously suggesting that the Kalama Sutra implies that "a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it."

riverflow

Get on Tumblr!

Just randomly picking a post presumably quoting from the Kalama Sutta:

Do not believe anything on mere hearsay. – Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places. – Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it. – Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage. – Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being. – Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true. – Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests. – But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

Notice what is missing here? '...by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability...' That omission is a radical alteration of the text.

And this, as represented in this (mis-)quotation of the Kalama Sutta, is very common notion perpetuated by those who don't have a lot of familiarity with Buddhism. They are usually the ones who get shocked when chanting, prostrating, etc. are a common Buddhist practice which runs counter to their notion of Buddhism as a purely empirical western endeavour that conveniently fits with their modern, western, scientific and secular worldview. It is almost trendy even.

Of course, these people may or may not be 'serious.' But it nevertheless perpetuates a serious misunderstanding of Buddhism.

seeker242

fivebells said:

But the context was already clear. As with most sutras, the context is laid out explicitly at the start. What Bodhi's essay actually adds is speculation based on that context as to the intent of the instructions it contains, along with the demolition of a few straw men based on those instructions. The essay is a poorly-reasoned riposte in a debate which is not going on here.

You are annoyed by Bhikku Bodhi. Ok, that's fine. But that sounds like a personal problem if you ask me. Not that this is on topic, but anyway. You sound like you are in the mood for an argument. I would prefer to not get into a tit for tat debate about Bhikku Bodhi or what he says and derail the thread. If you don't like him then just don't listen to him...

Invincible_summer

I've always had the feeling that the Buddha was being a bit snarky with the Kalamas.

He was basically telling them "Hey guys, you shouldn't follow ideas just because it's tradition or because they're logical or things like that. You really need to test out these philosophies in your own life and see what works..." but the subtext is: "... and I think you'll see that my philosophy probably works the best!"

What a guy.

fivebells

riverflow said:

Notice what is missing here? '...by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability...' That omission is a radical alteration of the text.

You're mixing your Bhikkus up. Thanissaro was the one arguing against misquoting the sutra. Bodhi was the one saying that the sutra's teachings do not apply to Right View with effluents, i.e. that the instruction

...whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it

should not be applied to the question of "the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds," if you want to successfully practice Buddhism.

fivebells

seeker242 said:

If you don't like him then just don't listen to him...

It's not just a childish dislike. The position he takes is harmful to the dharma in the West.

seeker242

Ok. But, I don't think I have ever seen the Buddha, saying to his monks, "Don't believe what I said just because I said it", etc,etc.

BhanteLucky

@seeker242, I read your post the way you meant it and I think it was a valuable contribution. Keep up the good work.

karasti

Nothing can harm truth. It just is. That's what is so nice about Buddhism.

fivebells

No, but it is harmful to potential Westerners practitioners to assert that traditional Buddhist beliefs (kammic retribution, post-mortem rebirth) are essential to effective Buddhist practice, and that is the context in which Bodhi wrote his essay.

vinlyn

I'd question the use of the word "harmful".

karasti

That's why it's up to each of us who chooses the path of Buddhism to discern what is truly important to learn and to discern who is a worthy teacher for us etc etc. That's why we have to investigate everything. If someone runs across a teacher who insists you believe in those things, and they aren't so sure, then perhaps it is best for them to seek a more open-minded teacher who can work with them on their questions. Not all teachers are for everyone. That doesn't mean their methods are harmful.

fivebells

@vinlyn: Harmful in the sense that it drives away people who could potentially benefit from the practice.

karasti

If someone is far enough along to be attempting to read and decipher sutras/suttas, I would hope they would not be driven away by one teacher's interpretation.

vinlyn

fivebells said:

@vinlyn: Harmful in the sense that it drives away people who could potentially benefit from the practice.

Then we'd all better stop posting on this forum, since the frequent disagreements in viewpoints here might "harm" Buddhism.

If Buddhism (or democracy, or Christianity, or conservatism, or liberalism, etc.) is too fragile for differences of viewpoints, then it doesn't deserve to flourish. It's been around for two-and-a-half centuries. I really doubt it's in much danger for someone interpreting something differently.

Sabre

I can see where Venerable Bodhi is coming from, and it is not too bad a stance. But I dare to say that anyone who follows the Buddha out of faith is not understanding the teachings, really. Because the Buddha said we should be our own refuge, understand the teachings for ourselves. Although some sort of faith may still be needed, at that point a better translation I think would be 'confidence'.

I don't need to have faith that when I go to bed tonight, I'll rest. I just know this is the case. And I suppose, if we totally walked the path all the way to the end, even the slightest faith is not there anymore. Because why have faith for something you fully realized? That's like me waking up tomorrow, having faith that I rested. That would be silly. So, if anything, the translation 'faith' may need a review. And it has had a review by others also.

The Buddha taught not something to one, and something opposite to another. If those who don't fully follow the Buddha's teachings have to rely on their own understanding, so should those who follow his teachings.

Of course, faith can be useful. But it should be moderate, because if we have too much faith when we are still deluded, we can have faith in the wrong thing. Like having faith in a wrong understanding of nirvana, I can see taking people totally off the path instead of on it.

Don't take this as a piss at Ven. Bodhi's essay or against anyone who has lots of faith. I can see how approaching the teachings that way can be a beautiful way. However, we don't all have that faith naturally. And you can't just choose to have it, either. I for one was never blessed with too much faith. Didn't make a difference, I used the enlightenment factor of investigation instead. (Faith, by the way, is not one of these factors that lead to enlightenment...). And now I have some more confidence, I can rely on that when I have to. Preferably not too much, though, shouldn't become lazy. We have to investigate how this mind works and how we can change it.

Different people, different ways.