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.
Is there a contradiction when someone quotes the Kalama sutta?
hermitwin
Veteran
Kalama sutta.
This must be one of the most often quoted passage
in the forum. Some people dont know its called kalama sutta
but agrees totally with its message.
Have you ever wondered where it came from?
It came from the pali canon. Buddha said it.
So, when some one says I reject a Buddhist sutta because kalama sutta
says I can/should, is there a contradiction? since the kalama sutta
itself is a sutta.
What if I reject the kalama sutta? How do we know Buddha actually
said it?
This must be one of the most often quoted passage
in the forum. Some people dont know its called kalama sutta
but agrees totally with its message.
Have you ever wondered where it came from?
It came from the pali canon. Buddha said it.
So, when some one says I reject a Buddhist sutta because kalama sutta
says I can/should, is there a contradiction? since the kalama sutta
itself is a sutta.
What if I reject the kalama sutta? How do we know Buddha actually
said it?
0
Comments
For example, does the person believe that the Dhamma is the exact words of Buddha? Frankly, I just don't think that is logical when you look at the history of the Dhamma.
But beyond that, does one look at the Buddha's teachings as "rules and regulations" or "guides"?
And let us not forget the pearl of truth embedded in The Life of Brian:
You're right: its provenance is just as suspect as the rest of the tipitaka. But for anyone with the courage to accept this obvious fact, its message regarding scriptural authoritarianism is already clear.
One's own preferences are NOT to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings.
But if you have no faith in your own discernment, it might be best to abdicate responsibility to some parental figure, I suppose.
.
The Buddha never stated nor implied anywhere in that teaching, that his wordss would or should be exempt from such scrutiny. He was an Authentic teacher, not a charlatan, but he exhorted them to discern this for themselves. They could just as easily have dismissed his teachings, but discerned that it would not be a good idea to do so.
Doubtless he does give his followers different teachings - but they are already his followers, through personal choice and discernment.
He generalised and taught that they should use intelligent discernment at all times.
Not "particularly with me" nor "except with me".
If he had meant either option, I'm sure there would be reference.
So yes in a way there is some contradiction when quoting this sutta.
The good points you make include:
1. I agree with your point about "radical skepticism" (good phrase!). Despite the length and depth of the Dhamma, I don't think it answers all questions that one might have. We have to interpret with the Dhamma's guidance. And yet, I see some posters on the forum bringing up such "way out" ideas about Buddha's teachings to justify almost anything (for example the use of drugs). It's not that they can't have their own views or even bring them up for discussion, but some of the things I see being attributed to Buddhism is just waaaaay too far out.
2. I also think you are right -- whether one looks at Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy (or both) -- that there are discussions/arguments that will never be resolved.
The question that comes to my mind (and I already know what my view is) is -- does Buddhism have the answers to all that is important in life?
How can we say in this day what other teachers may have been teaching?
I really dislike that you have Buddha taking a stance that is similar to the Catholic Church about its teachings.
Let's look at it section by section, using Access to Insight translation: http://bit.ly/LDkIy
Part 1 - Buddha vists "Kesaputta, a town of the Kalamas". These people, acknowledging Buddha's "fine reputation", come to hear him. They explain how different teachers have come previously, and each one seems to discredit the other. In the light of this they ask him: "Which of these venerable priests & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"
Part 2 - Buddha empathises then replies that, in judging the worthiness of teachings, they should not go “by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability" or simply because they are your teacher. Instead, one should judge one's action according to whether "when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering".
Part 3 - Buddha now details what qualities and activities specifically lead to harm and suffering. In short, they are: greed, hatred & delusion.
Part 4 - Buddha now explains that the practictioner who is “devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute” will attain “an awareness imbued with good will … compassion … appreciation … and equanimity” and which is “abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.”
Part 5 - Buddha now discusses the “four assurances” that result when one's mind is “free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure”. These are that 1. If there is a world after death and one does well, one goes to heaven, OR 2. If there is no world after death (an interesting comment for the rebirth debate - but let's keep it on topic!) then one still enjoys the benefits in this life. 3. That even if my actions cause harm, I will not suffer because my intention were good, OR 4. If my actions do not cause harm, I remain pure in intention and result.
So:
Is the Kalama Sutra a carte blanche to simply “do what you feel is right” and call it Buddhism?
No.
Far from it, the Kalama Sutra is in fact a beautifully concise Buddhist teaching on suffering and the attainments one may gain by eliminating qualities which lead to suffering. According to Buddha, it is by this yardstick (suffering) that ALL teachings must be judged.
Namaste
And yet, even in the passage you highlight it is quite clear that Buddha makes suffering the ultimate yardstick - as he does throughout his teachings. In so doing, he is both urging a healthy skepticism of false teachings (ie, those that do not use suffering as their measure) and also very much giving a classic Buddhist teaching at the same time. Never does he suggest that his (Buddha's) teachings should be doubted.
Here from the buddha I assume the reference refers to a sutra:
O monks, just as a goldsmith tests his gold by melting, cutting and rubbing,
sages accept my teachings after full examination, and not just out of devotion.
Tattvasamgraha
These teachings are like a raft, to be abandoned once you have crossed the flood.
Since you should abandon even good states of mind generated by these teachings,
How much more so should you abandon bad states of mind!
~Buddha not referenced
Even is he is fond of quoting appropriate texts (and scriptures), the thoughtless man who does not put them into practice himself is like a cowherd counting other people's cows, not a partner in the holy life.
The Buddha (Dhammapada)
Suttas are not meant to be 'sacred scriptures' that tell us what to believe. One should read them, listen to them, think about them, contemplate them, and investigate the present reality, the present experience with them. Then, and only then, can one insightfully know the truth beyond words.
Venerable Sumedho
He doesn't say "question everything". He says "the way to judge actions/qualities is on the basis of suffering". In other words, he is giving a version of the 4 Noble Truths. Like i said, this is simply Buddha teaching Buddhism.
"Try my system for 30 days, and if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get your money back".
Sounds corny, but it works. And that's what Buddha wanted more than anything (for people to actually try his teachings, instead of just talk about them).
"Four conditions, Vyagghapajja, conduce to a householder's weal and happiness in his future life. Which four?
"The accomplishment of faith (saddha-sampada), the accomplishment of virtue (sila-sampada), the accomplishment of charity (caga-sampada) and the accomplishment of wisdom (pañña-sampada).
"What is the accomplishment of faith?
"Herein a householder is possessed of faith, he believes in the Enlightenment of the Perfect One (Tathagata): Thus, indeed, is that Blessed One: he is the pure one, fully enlightened, endowed with knowledge and conduct, well-gone, the knower of worlds, the incomparable leader of men to be tamed, the teacher of gods and men, all-knowing and blessed. This is called the accomplishment of faith.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html
And other similar teachings. Skeptical doubt is considered one of the ten fetters and is something to eventually be abandoned.
This is a very good commentary on this sutta I think, with an excerpt below:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
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.
They way I see it, once a person has accepted the Buddha as the fully enlightened one who speaks the truth and nothing but the truth, the doubting that the Kalama sutta suggests is no longer necessary and actually becomes a hindrance from that point on. AKA the 2nd fetter.
Anyway this is speculation, who knows what Buddha's intentions were when giving this teaching. I do know however that Buddha is cited as saying this
"Bhikkhus, do not address my by the name Gotama nor as friend. I have become a Perfect One, worthy of the greatest reverence. Supremely accomplished like the Buddhas of yore, fully Enlightened. Give ear, Bhikkhus, the Deathless has been gained, the Immortal has been won by me. I shall instruct you and teach you the Doctrine. If you practise as instructed by me, you will in a short time, and in the present life, through your own direct knowledge, realize, enter upon and abide in Arahatship, the Nibbãna, the ultimate and the noblest goal of the Holy life for the sake of which clansmen of good families go forth from the household life into homeless one."
in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/damachak.pdf
http://www.buddhanet.net/wheeld01.htm
which suggests to me that he thought by following his all of his teachings and not only the one's you agree with you could achieve Nibbana. Of course I might be wrong.
With Metta
Or what? We'll be punished? Sent to hell? That's issue number 1, in my view. when people talk about this sutta. People like you saying "must" as if it's a absolute command.
And although you don't say it here, many people with your view of the sutta say we MUST consider, test, contemplate...and then accept every word of Buddha's teaching. Which is a false promise -- feel free to debate within yourself the teachings, THEN you MUST accept them 100%.
Isn't it stupid to not have faith in the words of the Buddha and yet call yourself a Buddhist or student/practitioner of Buddhism?
It's like doubting your flying instructor's teachings and still calling yourself a trainee pilot.
What you're saying is sort of like an American loving his country, but saying he doesn't agree with the war in Iraq, so therefore he's not an American. A very Nixonian way of looking at things. Love it or leave it.
I respect Buddha's teachings and accept a vast majority of what he taught. But his teaching aren't commandments. They're guides to achieving nibanna/enlightenment. As I have read sections of the text of the Dhamma, I try to keep in mind that these "words of Buddha" were not written down until almost 500 years after his death. Ever play the rumor game?
Your viewpoint, which almost seems to be "all or nothing at all" is not much different than that of many Born Again Christians or the Branch Davidians. It's your right to think as you do. But it seems to me that you have placed Buddha on a holy throne, and I've never seen that as the purpose of Buddhism. I can accept Buddha as one of the wisest people in world history. I don't feel the need to turn him into an infallible pope.