Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Implications of the Kalama Suttra for Modern Buddhism
compassionate_warrior
Veteran
Does the Buddha's exhortation to test all teachings by our own logic and insight mean we can pick the elements of the teachings we agree with, and leave the rest behind? Does it mean we can fashion our own version of the Dharma, or does following the Dharma mean following the teachings the Buddha laid out? Are all traditions faithful to the Buddha's teachings, anyway?
0
Comments
So if picking some elements of Buddhism and ignoring others produces good results, _and_ wise people are in agreement with you, then the Buddha says to go right ahead. :-)
/Victor
So all in all IMO if someone wants to pick and choose parts of the Buddha's Dharma that is fine, everyone is free to choose what they believe in and I respect them for it, and I sincerely hope that the teachings they do accept can change their life for the better.
But I would say that when the Dharma is cherry picked its the persons own customized Dharma not the full Dharma the Buddha taught, hence, I think people who cherry pick parts of the Dharma are missing out on the insight that Buddha experienced, and wanted to share with us.
P.S Thanks for starting this thread CW, I was going to take your advise in your other thread but forgot about it.
Metta to all sentient beings
/Victor
We need to keep an open mind but at the same time only when we understand do we realize the benefit.
http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2011/02/tearing-down-buddhism.html
Metta to all sentient beings
So I would say no, we can't pick and choose and stick with whatever we think is fine. We have to look at every word the Buddha said and test it out for ourselves. Well, of course, we can pick certain parts and discard the rest but it wouldn't be wise. That would be like following a 3-fold path instead of the 8-fold path.
I have relied to some extent on online communities, but mostly on Dhamma books for guidance. But I kinda feel it strange to think that these will represent the Sangha in terms of Refuge in the Triple Gem - "I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha". I suppose we must change with the times....
Think of the Kalama Sutta as a lesson in practical critical thinking. Like any good preacher, the Buddha wasn't trying to get his audience to change their beliefs. He was showing them how to apply their values to new circumstances; evaluating religious teachers. He doesn't need to tell them that greed, aversion, and delusion lead to harm. He doesn't need to tell them that killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying lead to harm. When he asks, _they_ tell _him_ that these things are harmful. When he tells them to do that which has good results and avoid that which has bad results, he's telling them what they already know. As villagers, they knew who the wise were. They were the older people who had more experience of good and bad results.
Imagine a guy alive today, someone with a problem. Maybe the problem is anger. He reads a book that seems to describe his problem accurately for him. In other words, it tells him what he already knows. It also seems to describe a solution. Based on what the guy already knows, the solution seems within reach. So he seeks out a person who is "wise", i.e. a person who has experience with solutions and with good and bad results. He follows a procedure recommend by this "wise" person, relying on his own experience but also putting a certain amount of faith in the "wise" person's experience of good and bad results.
Is it a bad thing that the Kalama Sutta forces a questioner to figure out for themselves who is "wise"?
Anyway, is monasticism necessary to Buddhism? that seems to be the crux of the question.
Look for them and ask for them. It might take a while to find one but they are there.
/Victor
Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant.
The word Ariya means Noble in my language. Has nothing to do with caste or race in Buddhism.
/Victor
And the Hitler got hold of it...
There is no scientific evidence to my knowleadge that there is such a ethnicity as Aryans.
If you know of any I would be much obliged...?
Cheers.
I'm aware that in India it's unpopular to discuss a "superior" culture coming in from the NW, but I don't see why; this doesn't negate the brilliant ancient cultures India already had, long prior to the arrival of these foreigners. Maybe in the past people with a political agenda misused the history of these people to put others down. And there's the caste system......:(
I can see if I can come up with the name of that documentary film, if you're interested. I haven't actually read much specifically about archaeology in NW India, mainly come across references to and some discussion of it embedded in books about these related peoples. Just because Hitler twisted history out of shape and misused the name "Aryan" doesn't mean we have to fall into the same trap. It's just a tribal name, like Lakota (Sioux), Zulu, Quechua, etc. Not a big deal, unless someone chooses to make it one.
Yes, but if a mother tells a child, who does not know any better, to not run out in the middle of the street, is that dogma? It just seem like pretty good advice if you ask me. Of course, you can try it out for yourself and run out into the street, but you might get hit by a car and killed.
Metta to all sentient beings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
That's the most sound theory that's currently out there, AFAIK.
What's the big deal about kalama sutra? It's right there that your own bias, opinions and reasoning don't make things true. It's the right to free inquiry not to "pick and choose". What is this "pick and choose" that everyone brings up anyway? Seems like a non-issue some people get very serious about.
First, all Buddhism is "modern Buddhism" as distinguished from what previous generations practiced, at least to the people who practice it, for whatever place and time they are in. When Buddhism spread to China, there was a huge argument at the time as to whether or not this modern "Chan" stuff was ignoring tradition and what, exactly, was the original core of the Buddhist message. And Buddha and the first monks would barely recognize Tibetan Buddhism as bearing any relation to what they were doing, on the surface. So yeah, join the club. Buddhists have always done some selecting of what is and is not important in their practice, and that derogatory term "picking and choosing" really should not apply.
Second, Buddhism is not all about what the ancient prophets had to say. The direct transmission and taught Dharma from today's great Teachers are supposed to have as much weight as that entire library of what yesterday's Teachers cared to write down. The Dharma is a living thing. The Kalama Sutra is a unique statement of this core principle of Buddhist practice. It states, in breathtaking honest language, that free inquiry is the correct attitude to take with the Dharma. Dogmatism and the tendency to worship tradition will stiffle any human activity, if allowed to become the guiding principle.
Contrast this with the lesson of Doubting Thomas, in the Christian teachings. There, a dead man is supposed to be walking around again. Thomas wants to prove to himself that it's not some sort of trick, by closely examing the nail holes in Jesus' hands. And for this, he's scolded for not just taking their word for it, and we're told having an inquiring mind is wrong.
So inquire the heck out of the Sutras and teachings. Eventually, your mind with tire itself out and you'll focus on your own practice. If the Dharma is authentic and true, it will survive an inquiring mind.
Of course, everyone here is restricting themselves to one meal a day, so there's no problem.
The "pick and choose" issue seems to come up mainly in the context of rebirth. And some members have said they take elements from different Buddhist traditions and mix-and-match to create their own practice. The issue has also come up in critiques of Stephen Batchelor's books. By "the suttra", above, I meant the Kalama Suttra. Some consider it a misinterpretation of the suttra to say that it advocates testing any or all teachings. A careful reading of it seems to indicate that the Buddha intended a very specific and narrow application of the "testing" principle. But so much of what the Buddha said is open to individual interpretation...this is what keeps discussion boards like this one in business.
Faith much like knowledge, shouldn't stand in the way of truth.
try ajahn brahm...........
I don't really follow the rebirth threads anymore, so I maybe that's why I don't come across it. There was a thread asking what school people follow and if I recall correctly most people said their own. Is that what you're talking about?
it gives us the opportunity to listen to whatever comes our way (and the kalamas were not Buddhists, neither were they followers of the Buddha, so the Buddha is not referring solely to his teachings here.... let's not forget that....)and to evaluate ALL information, on a wide range of subjects taught by so-called teachers and preachers, and take everything on board.
Then to test it to the nth degree by attempting to live by it as our truth.
If we can do so comfortably, with complete Confidence (ie, faith) in these words and teachings, then we should adhere to that truth (truth we have decided to adopt for ourselves) 100%. If it doesn't sit well with us, and we feel uncomfortable and uneasy about the information, teaching or direction, then to leave it aside, knowing that perhaps, it works really well for someone else (and that's ok....) Finally, if we cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion ourselves, then we should simply lay the matter aside as a current and personal "unconjecturable" and maybe await another opportunity to re-examine the matter, at a time when we might feel more able to discriminate in a more experienced way..... From here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
I have seen it used as an excuse or rationalization to take psychedelic drugs like pot and LSD, DMT, etc. etc. and think that it's not breaking the percepts because of what is said in this sutta. For example, some people say things like "I mediate better when I smoke pot" falsely believing that Buddhism endorses this type of activity because of "free inquiry".