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?
vinylyn, do you think we can reject his teachings from analysis or do you think we have to test them through experience? If the latter we have to entertain their truth. As in the example of the parachuter. Strictly speaking however you only land safely on the ground if it happens that the instructions are satisfactory. Analysis would play a role as if the instructor said not to use a parachute and that by focusing light thoughts you would be like dumbo the elephant. Even that has a possibility to be true. The parachute is a good example I think because the true gold standard is experience in my opinion.
vinylyn, do you think we can reject his teachings from analysis or do you think we have to test them through experience? If the latter we have to entertain their truth. As in the example of the parachuter. Strictly speaking however you only land safely on the ground if it happens that the instructions are satisfactory. Analysis would play a role as if the instructor said not to use a parachute and that by focusing light thoughts you would be like dumbo the elephant. Even that has a possibility to be true. The parachute is a good example I think because the true gold standard is experience in my opinion.
In terms of practicality, I think it may be a bit of both.
For example, let's say you're wondering about very basic Karma. I can go out and punch someone in the face at the mall and probably get arrested. Instant karmic results.
But, let's say that I am wondering about Karma that carries over into a future existence. I don't KNOW if there is a future existence. And if there is, I can't test whether Karma can carry over into the next existence during this lifetime.
And of course, that's part of the mystery of life. We can assume the Buddhist perspective is the TRUTH. The Christian perspective could be the TRUTH. Or the Hindu perspective. Or the Mormon perspective. Or the...you fill in the rest. We have to make our best GUESS. And, what I like about both Buddhism and Christianity is that if you follow the moral code of either or both, the quality of your life and the lives of those around you will probably be better.
Never does he suggest that his (Buddha's) teachings should be doubted.
This is clear, he says nothing in reference to his own teachings, he's speaking about discerning between authentic and false teachings of others. This in no way implies he's egotistical, he's simply delivering a lesson. And "when you know for yourselves" likewise doesn't relate to the Buddha's teachings, it relates to his instructions about analyzing others' teachings. Jeffrey has provided us with passages in which the Buddha does give instructions to judge his teachings by putting them into practice, he just doesn't do this in his instructions to the Kalamas, but he does teach this elsewhere.
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
Does the fact that the Buddha refers to himself as a "Perfect one, fully Enlightened" mean he's egotistical? No, it's simply a statement of fact. He reached Enlightenment, but he's not getting all ego-involved in it, boasting.
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.
This, also, is an interesting point. And as far as faith goes, teachers routinely say that one is to have faith that following the teachings of the Buddha will bear fruit, and will bring one closer to Enlightenment. Without that belief, why would anyone practice? But this is a very different kind of faith than that in other religions, where one is expected to believe in unseen and unproven beings and forces that one can't test for oneself.
In sum, I think in order to correctly understand the Kalama Suttra, one needs to not only look at the suttra as a whole, as Daozen suggests, but also at the canon as a whole, to see where the Buddha taught what; where he taught to test his own teachings, and were he didn't teach this. Note that it's in the passage from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta zidangus provides that the Buddha says "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 Arhatship, the Nibbana..." Here is where the "you will know for yourselves" principle Fivebells speaks of applies to the teachings of the Buddha. In the Kalama Suttra it does not, it applies to analyzing the teachings of wandering holy men and ascetics.
I have noticed that you consistently support that other religions such as Christianity can also be believed/doubted. I wholeheartedly agree. The dharma is believed because it is pleasant to hear, agreeable on contemplation, and in experience improves a persons life. If you know a person which has learned and is wonderful in the Christian tradition this is easy to see. Sometimes in the Bible it is information (begats), not logically explained, or a story. But the commentaries on the Bible provide support for the logic or meaning to the story. Even a reader may understand this independently. And the begats even is just a story of Jesus lineage. In the bible there is some extraordinary things such as prophecy. A few things in Theravada even and many in Mahayana are difficult to believe. Hard to believe things in mahayana are sidhis and that a mass murderer could become an arhat.
An example of something logical are Jesus parables and the 10 commandments. All can be argued to form a positive society. It is coincidental that in the west many buddhists did not enjoy Christianity and thus it is popular that Christianity is lacking substance in our community.
Therefore Christianity has value upon contemplation. And experience. Regarding hearing of course Christianity is beautiful other than the dogma and 'go to hell Christians'. Much of the old testament is pretty raw too, but it is interesting. If you recall Disney/Wilfred there are some brutal buddhist stories such as the worm in the apple who is baked in the sun. The house on fire arguably. I will say there is more wanton violence in xtianity and buddhist violence is generally illustrating a lesson which is pleasing. Obedience at gunpoint isn't pleasing (for me).
Of course Christianity is not immune to criticism which is the reason many turn away from it. However the same can be said of buddhism. Pema Chodron criticizes religions (or people) who view a 'big babysitter' watching over them. Thats an example. An example of Christian criticism is that they feel depressed and discouraged by the emphasis in buddhism on suffering. I can understand because metta is also needed. I am not arguing that suffering is not important to have motivation to escape. But hammering the point for days is analogous to fire and brimstone. Even buddha made this mistake when teaching disgust of the body. He later introduced metta skillfully as a cure.
Christianity (etc) is not suitable for all people but many it is greatly of benefit. I noticed this when my dog died and both myself and the nun who previously owned the dog had resources to cope.
I have noticed that you consistently support that other religions such as Christianity can also be believed/doubted. I wholeheartedly agree. ...
It is coincidental that in the west many buddhists did not enjoy Christianity and thus it is popular that Christianity is lacking substance in our community.
Therefore Christianity has value upon contemplation. And experience. Regarding hearing of course Christianity is beautiful other than the dogma and 'go to hell Christians'. Much of the old testament is pretty raw too, but it is interesting. ...Obedience at gunpoint isn't pleasing (for me).
Of course Christianity is not immune to criticism which is the reason many turn away from it. However the same can be said of buddhism. ...
At age 61 I am facing some potentially very serious medical issues (heart related). All may turn out fine, or not. Until my retirement I was a teacher and then school principal...careers that certainly contribute to one's feeling useful to society. Retirement for the past 3 years has been much more about me spending time doing things I enjoy...although the medical issues have suddenly limited my traveling (for example). So recently I began thinking about what difference I can still make. And there are several things I am doing in my neighborhood, and so forth (we have a lot of elderly here in my neighborhood). But I also decided that I wanted to attempt to soften some people's views on the differences between Buddhism and Christianity, since I have long practiced aspects of both. And so one of the things that I try to get across is that I think ALL people should make an effort to judge (I was tempted to say contemplate) all religions -- including their own -- by the same standards. A good example of what I mean is "the Bible is the exact recorded word of God" and compared to "the Dhamma is the exact recorded word of Buddha". And, I think both points are arguable, but whatever one's basic response to that particular question, they ought to think am I using a different standard to judge the two statements. And if so, then it's something to really think about.
I think you also hit upon an important point regarding how we come to Buddhism. In the East (Thailand, for example, where I lived for a while and traveled frequently before that) people are born into Buddhist culture, just as we Americans are born into Christian (or Jewish) culture (for the most part). And so, just as there are Americans who have turned to Buddhism due to dissatisfaction with aspects of Christianity, there are former Buddhists in Thailand who have turned to Christianity due to dissatisfaction with aspects of Buddhism.
I am reminded of a cultural habit most Theravada Thais have. When they walk past a Buddha image, they put their hands together and do at least a slight bow. Those same people do the same for a Hindu image (for example there are a number of Hindu images that have throngs of Thai Buddhists worshiping before them day and night right down in the main shopping/business district of Bangkok). And they even do the same for animistic spirit houses of note. When you ask them why they would do that if they are Buddhist, the answers vary from, "I am just paying respect," to, "well, you never know, we could be wrong" (usually followed by a smile).
Comments
For example, let's say you're wondering about very basic Karma. I can go out and punch someone in the face at the mall and probably get arrested. Instant karmic results.
But, let's say that I am wondering about Karma that carries over into a future existence. I don't KNOW if there is a future existence. And if there is, I can't test whether Karma can carry over into the next existence during this lifetime.
And of course, that's part of the mystery of life. We can assume the Buddhist perspective is the TRUTH. The Christian perspective could be the TRUTH. Or the Hindu perspective. Or the Mormon perspective. Or the...you fill in the rest. We have to make our best GUESS. And, what I like about both Buddhism and Christianity is that if you follow the moral code of either or both, the quality of your life and the lives of those around you will probably be better.
In sum, I think in order to correctly understand the Kalama Suttra, one needs to not only look at the suttra as a whole, as Daozen suggests, but also at the canon as a whole, to see where the Buddha taught what; where he taught to test his own teachings, and were he didn't teach this. Note that it's in the passage from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta zidangus provides that the Buddha says "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 Arhatship, the Nibbana..." Here is where the "you will know for yourselves" principle Fivebells speaks of applies to the teachings of the Buddha. In the Kalama Suttra it does not, it applies to analyzing the teachings of wandering holy men and ascetics.
I have noticed that you consistently support that other religions such as Christianity can also be believed/doubted. I wholeheartedly agree. The dharma is believed because it is pleasant to hear, agreeable on contemplation, and in experience improves a persons life. If you know a person which has learned and is wonderful in the Christian tradition this is easy to see. Sometimes in the Bible it is information (begats), not logically explained, or a story. But the commentaries on the Bible provide support for the logic or meaning to the story. Even a reader may understand this independently. And the begats even is just a story of Jesus lineage. In the bible there is some extraordinary things such as prophecy. A few things in Theravada even and many in Mahayana are difficult to believe. Hard to believe things in mahayana are sidhis and that a mass murderer could become an arhat.
An example of something logical are Jesus parables and the 10 commandments. All can be argued to form a positive society. It is coincidental that in the west many buddhists did not enjoy Christianity and thus it is popular that Christianity is lacking substance in our community.
Therefore Christianity has value upon contemplation. And experience. Regarding hearing of course Christianity is beautiful other than the dogma and 'go to hell Christians'. Much of the old testament is pretty raw too, but it is interesting. If you recall Disney/Wilfred there are some brutal buddhist stories such as the worm in the apple who is baked in the sun. The house on fire arguably. I will say there is more wanton violence in xtianity and buddhist violence is generally illustrating a lesson which is pleasing. Obedience at gunpoint isn't pleasing (for me).
Of course Christianity is not immune to criticism which is the reason many turn away from it. However the same can be said of buddhism. Pema Chodron criticizes religions (or people) who view a 'big babysitter' watching over them. Thats an example. An example of Christian criticism is that they feel depressed and discouraged by the emphasis in buddhism on suffering. I can understand because metta is also needed. I am not arguing that suffering is not important to have motivation to escape. But hammering the point for days is analogous to fire and brimstone. Even buddha made this mistake when teaching disgust of the body. He later introduced metta skillfully as a cure.
Christianity (etc) is not suitable for all people but many it is greatly of benefit. I noticed this when my dog died and both myself and the nun who previously owned the dog had resources to cope.
I think you also hit upon an important point regarding how we come to Buddhism. In the East (Thailand, for example, where I lived for a while and traveled frequently before that) people are born into Buddhist culture, just as we Americans are born into Christian (or Jewish) culture (for the most part). And so, just as there are Americans who have turned to Buddhism due to dissatisfaction with aspects of Christianity, there are former Buddhists in Thailand who have turned to Christianity due to dissatisfaction with aspects of Buddhism.
I am reminded of a cultural habit most Theravada Thais have. When they walk past a Buddha image, they put their hands together and do at least a slight bow. Those same people do the same for a Hindu image (for example there are a number of Hindu images that have throngs of Thai Buddhists worshiping before them day and night right down in the main shopping/business district of Bangkok). And they even do the same for animistic spirit houses of note. When you ask them why they would do that if they are Buddhist, the answers vary from, "I am just paying respect," to, "well, you never know, we could be wrong" (usually followed by a smile).