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.
The Kalama Principles
thickpaper
Veteran
The Kalama Suttra is one of the most important Buddhist texts. It is a short sutra in which the Buddha visits the Kalama tribe.
The Kalamas explain to the Buddha that many sages and preachers who pass by explain and preach many different doctrines and they are at a loss as to which to believe in. This is an issue faced by all of us today; so many doctrines, mostly all incompatible, which should we believe?
The Buddha’s answer is clear and amazingly powerful; setting forth a methodology that underpins every footstep upon the Middle Path:
Firstly he defines a principle of Universal Exclusion, one in which ten different categories of belief are specified for doubting:
Do not believe anything that you:
Read
Hear
Perceive
Reason
Assume
This is the first stage of the Kalama Principle. We are left (like Descartes after his Meditations) with nothing there to be believed; everything is to be doubted. But we are not left abandoned in a darkness of universal skepticsm, the path out is shown, it is Self-illumination:
The Buddha tells the Kalamas:
You know directly that that belief is good/right.
You know directly that you cannot find fault with the belief.
You know directly when the belief is held or practised (by you or others) it leads to benefit and happiness.
The idea of "knowing directly" or "knowing that you know" might seem to be odd or circular, but I think it means the same as being unable to doubt. If you cannot doubt that something is the case then you should hold that belief as being the case.
For example, I cannot doubt that "The Kind action is the Right action." I cannot find fault with the belief, or why people would believe it and I cannot doubt that following it leads to benefit and happiness.
Universal Doubt followed by Self-illumination is epic, it is powerful... and to dogma, it is dangerous.
The Kalama Principles may not give a solution akin to mathematical certainty or logical necessity, instead they give something that is profoundly more useful to humans and happiness: clarity.
Of course, The Kalama Principles themselves invite the hardest doubt and questioning any of us can muster, and in my opinion they stand up to all attacks.
Doubt everything, be your own light.
The Kalamas explain to the Buddha that many sages and preachers who pass by explain and preach many different doctrines and they are at a loss as to which to believe in. This is an issue faced by all of us today; so many doctrines, mostly all incompatible, which should we believe?
The Buddha’s answer is clear and amazingly powerful; setting forth a methodology that underpins every footstep upon the Middle Path:
Firstly he defines a principle of Universal Exclusion, one in which ten different categories of belief are specified for doubting:
“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' “There are different translations of the 10 criteria, but what is important is that they encompass the entirety of human knowledge. There is no belief which can be doubted which is not covered by the 10 Criteria. In my opinion the exclusion can be reduced down to:
Do not believe anything that you:
Read
Hear
Perceive
Reason
Assume
This is the first stage of the Kalama Principle. We are left (like Descartes after his Meditations) with nothing there to be believed; everything is to be doubted. But we are not left abandoned in a darkness of universal skepticsm, the path out is shown, it is Self-illumination:
The Buddha tells the Kalamas:
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."In other words, doubt everything, question everything and only promote things out of the darkness of doubt when:
You know directly that that belief is good/right.
You know directly that you cannot find fault with the belief.
You know directly when the belief is held or practised (by you or others) it leads to benefit and happiness.
The idea of "knowing directly" or "knowing that you know" might seem to be odd or circular, but I think it means the same as being unable to doubt. If you cannot doubt that something is the case then you should hold that belief as being the case.
For example, I cannot doubt that "The Kind action is the Right action." I cannot find fault with the belief, or why people would believe it and I cannot doubt that following it leads to benefit and happiness.
Universal Doubt followed by Self-illumination is epic, it is powerful... and to dogma, it is dangerous.
The Kalama Principles may not give a solution akin to mathematical certainty or logical necessity, instead they give something that is profoundly more useful to humans and happiness: clarity.
Of course, The Kalama Principles themselves invite the hardest doubt and questioning any of us can muster, and in my opinion they stand up to all attacks.
Doubt everything, be your own light.
0
Comments
Someone in the past said "reality isn't as we think it. And it isn't otherwise either"
The perception is impermanent, not-self, and dukkha when grasped. That is also not a concept. If it were a concept we could doubt it but it is an experience. If I feel an itch I need not doubt that I feel an itch. Because I feel an itch.
There is no conceptual nirvana. If it were conceptual then there could still be suffering. You can conceptualize 'no suffering'. But the actual nirvana is an experience.
You can not existentially prove that the itch exists without axioms. But you feel it.
So I disagree with buddha. I find that perceptions are all we have. Conceptual knowledge is to be doubted.
We have had some good chats you and I, lets not get caught up. Nattering nabobs of negativism, no thanks!:)
I question what purpose you had posted this topic?
Moreover, my OP wasn't an argument or anything radical, it was an attempt to explain the Kalama Principles; because I have been referring to them a fair bit in my other posts here, of late.
Its easy to be negative, so very easy, life is negative.
Namaste
So does that mean when one criticizes something that it is not ones opinion? I don't see where you are coming from. Anyhow this is an open forum so I may respond how I see fit. Since this is not fruitful interaction I hope that someone will come by who can satisfy you.
I did give a different opinion from yours. I don't understand why you consider my output to be negativism. I find my perspective quite valuable to me, and I am sorry you don't wish to be contested in the way you had expected. My post WAS a criticism. I hope that someone else comes by and can give you satisfaction. Positivism
the goal of negation is to get to such awareness. such simplicity.
just tasting, hearing, smelling, seeing, feeling, thinking. just this. this is buddha.
nice post btw.
If I recall your style you like line by line discussions. For example like this...
"The Kalama Suttra is one of the most important Buddhist texts. It is a short sutra in which the Buddha visits the Kalama tribe."
blah blah blaha blah comment contesting.
"The Kalamas explain to the Buddha that many sages and preachers who pass by explain and preach many different doctrines and they are at a loss as to which to believe in. This is an issue faced by all of us today; so many doctrines, mostly all incompatible, which should we believe?"
blah blah blah blah
That is not how I operate. I read what you wrote the information. Comprehend. Analyze. Sythesize and then make my own conclusions. Then I present my own view and I exect you too to make an analysis of my contribution and grapple with how it relates to what you have said.
I cannot accomodate your line by line style.
Here is where I contradicted buddha. In the material above this line I showed how perceptions are all we have. I wonder if there is translation problems.
No I haven't, until now, and thanks!:)
Sure, its good to verify and experience teachings before deciding they are accurate, but it is in no way one of his most important teachings in my opinion.
You seem to love doubt, but it is only another fabrication.
It is interesting, that that happens lots here, people saying "Such and such is only this..." But that seems unlike a skillfull addition to the talk.
Do you have anything constructive to add Matt with two "t"s?
Mat
after understanding and being skeptical, what remains is confindence.
maybe that's the point?
Who is the most confident:
The woman who believes X because she was told it and read it
or
The woman who believes X because no matter how hard she tries she cannot find a way to doubt it.
If someone thinks the doubt method of Buddhism is unwholesome or mistaken, I suggest they don't understand it, moreover I suggest they think more about it:)
Try to doubt the doubt principles!
Mwah! xx
or
The woman who believes X because no matter how hard she tries she cannot find a way to doubt it."
This is a good point. However I think you can still apply something which you can doubt. In the end you might see that it is skillful means towards happiness.
The dharma isn't a theory. Which is true. It is a method. To me.
For example I cannot prove that karma is true. But I can apply the method and experience for myself. When I think I will pay the consequence of my action it makes me more moral person.
So even if karma is not true it still helps me in my life.
Second karma MAY be true as something I will understand at a later time. Same goes for 'mystical' powers. I may realize they are true at a later date. These are an example of something I don't find useful to think about at this time in my life. Unlike karma which I find useful.
I consider doubt a fabrication because it is an unnecessary addition to the brain that arises when we do not have confidence. For instance, if we hear something, there isn't need to believe or disbelieve... that arises from clinging to a wrong view of self.
Belief and disbelief are moot because the teachings are verifiable, we follow the instruction and progress. Buddha said "abide in them" about teachings we know are wise, from those we know are wise, and which lead to liberation. Doubt is normal, sure, and especially at first, but it is a fabrication we abandon after we practice.
He was just saying not to accept teachings because they are taught to us, are tradition, someone claims to be wise, and so forth. Not "cultivate doubt".
But Buddha does not say you should doubt HIM, or his teachings, does he?
You are focussing on the beginning of the sutra, but (like almost every other person who misinterprets it) it seems you have not read and followed the remainder of it - which is classic Buddhist teaching.
The lesson here is not "doubt everything, be your own light"; it is "examine my teachings by following them, and you will see that I am right". An important difference.
Namaste
Absolutly. Doubt the teachings as hard as you can, they verify themselves. In this we seem to agree. Again, I think we have different meanings of doubt. You seem to have a negative view of it, I have a positive view.
Ummmm... if you don't accept any teaching wherever it is from, the doubt cultivate's itself. The kalama Principles are all encompassing, the span all of human knowledge.
I see him as saying "Bring it on! All you got! The Dharma can stand up to anything!"
It is the ultimate stance in antidogma. How many times have I heard that reply?
I now see it as pretty much orthodox propaganda. I have read it all, many times, in every translation I can find.
You are mistaken, I have not misinterpreted it. The sutta has this structure:
1) Setting down the principles of universal doubt followed by self illumination.
2) The "classic" buddhist teaching that discusses the methods of self illumination.
Please try again to see it without your assumptions. IMO they are the product of an ancient orthodoxy that simply does not want its community exercising the kinds of doubts the Buddha very clearly encourages them to.
namaste
I don't get it. How can you venerate a section from the beginning of a sutra as highest truth, then simply dismiss the remainder of the sutra as 'orthodox propoganda'? This approach, apart from being ridiculously selective, is simply illogical. If Buddha's meaning was truly absolute doubt, it would make his own teaching redundant. It also leads to paradox, like the statement "everything i say is a lie".
Buddhism is not a 'pick and mix' selection. Buddha earnestly beleived every word that he taught, and hoped, for their own sake, that his followers would too. Like so many before you, you simply find it convenient to take the Kalama Sutras as a carte blanche to think whatever you want and to call it Buddhism.
Read the ENTIRE sutra and see what it says, please.
I will point out that what YOU don't have ability to doubt might not apply to me. I might have an experience where I can doubt the 4 noble truths. How do you know what MY experience is?
I don't think you could have such an experince.
What would such an experince be? In near ten years I haven't come up with a counter-example.
What would such an experince be? In near ten years I haven't come up with a counter-example."
We've had threads like that here such as this
thats doubt of the 1st. You could doubt the second which is to say that you don't believe desire is the cause of suffering. You might believe it is the devil. Most Christians believe that. You could doubt there is any possibility to become enlightened. Third truth. I personally doubt the third
I can think of one possible way, it requires an unbounded universe with infinite possibiloity at every point. Im not even sure that works.
>>You could doubt the second which is to say that you don't believe desire is the cause of suffering.
Ahhh! Bingo. Now I see where we disagree, I think. Doubt doesn't mean "don't believe", it means to frame the proposition for refutation and then try to refute it.
To properly doubt the second noble truth you would need to show why its wrong or show a counter example. Can you do either?
>>You might believe it is the devil.
Again, that is not a refutation. Devil or no devil, tanha causes dukka. In every world I imagine. Can you imagine a world where tanha doesnt cuase dukka?
>>>You could doubt there is any possibility to become enlightened. Third truth.
I think we understand the third truth differntly, then. For me it is simply about the severance of the feedback of interdependence. If tanha casues dukka then stop tanha stopping dukka
>>>I personally doubt the third
Wow... and why?
>>>You can doubt the 8 fold path is effective.
You can try to yes, but as you gain right understanding and as you gain the benieifts of practice how can that doubt last? That is the essence of the kalama principle.
An interesting chat:)
xx
You can think there is not suffering. That suffering is not a pervasive experience.
You cannot refute that an imperceptable creator god is in control of everything you do and say.
For example if I have the two axioms:
apples are fruit.
apples are red.
Then I cannot doubt that:
fruit may be red.
In your presentation you are saying anything beyond doubt is dharma. Thus we must conclude that 'fruit may be red' is dharma.
Your position certainly has axiom(s)
(1) abstract 'things' exist
(2) we can extrapolate that which follows in (1) unto the world of our experience and draw conclusions.
I think the difference between our views is perhaps not large, but still quite critical.
I agree that Buddha is advising the kalamas to severly *test* his teachings and that by doing so they will see for themselves that it works.
But i still question the emphasis you are placing on *doubt*. Yes, doubt is part of the sutra, but really it is only mentioned at the beginning of sutra, in the context of the problem. As Buddha says: "Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
But then - and this is crucial - Buddha goes onto to resolve the problem with his solution, his teachings. And what is the solution? Yes, he says "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." And wow, that rules out a lot of ways we normally acquire our knowledge, leaving only our experience as the ultimate yardstick. And of course this experiential nature of awareness is a hallmark of Buddhism.
But wait - he's not finished! He doesn't simply say "decide for yourself", because in that case their would be no need for Buddhism, would there? NO, he explicitly says, in regards to judging ones experiental knowledge: "'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 other words: skillfulness, blameworthiness, wisdom, suffering. This is absolutely classic Buddhism. Furthermore, he then goes onto talk of the three poisons, aka klesas (greed, ignorance, aversion), followed by *more* teaching on factors of enlightenment, and finally on karma.
Doubt is the problem - the kalamas are asking "we are confused, what do we do?"
And Buddha is replying "You should practice Buddhism".
Yes, Buddhism is experiential and must be lived. But doubt is not a factor in the path. On the contrary, one requires a faith in the wisdom of Buddha.
"Do you believe, Sariputta, that the faculty of faith, if cultivated and regularly practiced, leads to the Deathless, is bound for the Deathless, ends in the Deathless; that the faculty of vigor... the faculty of mindfulness... the faculty of concentration... the faculty of wisdom, if cultivated and regularly practiced, leads to the Deathless, is bound for the Deathless, ends in the Deathless?"
"Herein, O Lord, I do not follow the Exalted One out of faith. Those by whom this is unknown, unseen, uncognized, unrealized and unexperienced by wisdom, they will herein follow others out of faith. But those by whom this is known, seen, cognized, realized and experienced by wisdom, they have no uncertainty, no doubt about it that these five faculties, if cultivated and regularly practiced, lead to the Deathless, are bound for the Deathless, end in the Deathless. By me, O Lord, it has been known, seen, cognized, realized and experienced by wisdom and I have no uncertainty, no doubt about it that the faculty of faith... the faculty of vigor... the faculty of mindfulness... the faculty of concentration... the faculty of wisdom, if cultivated and regularly practiced, leads to the Deathless, is bound for the Deathless, ends in the Deathless."
"Well said, Sariputta, well said," spoke the Lord (and he repeated in approval the words of the Venerable Sariputta).
— Sutta 44 (iv,220); translated by Nyanaponika Mahathera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html
Hi @Daozen
Super post:) Yes - though not just just his teachings - all sources of understanding.
I can see this is a common difference. I wonder if the buddhists who don't like my use of the term doubt have some prior negativity towards it, perhaps coming from a faith based religious background?
In faith based religions doubt is seen as close to sin, the enemy of belief, the source of wrong etc. Perhaps that negative "sense" gets carried over when people find dharmma.
Something is going on because I just cant see why any follower of dharma would see doubt in a bad light.
Yes. The doubt is accepted here. Then it is analysed and specified with the ten items of understanding that are subject to doubt: (As an asside, you can see why monks through the ages would have issues with the last item of doubt!)
So he states the problem, defines the problem and then he....
We agree up to here. Then.... We agree up to here too.
There is a point we might quibble on here:
It's actually all ways. There isn't any source of knowlege that is left indubitable, at least, I haven't fond one from the ten items....
Were it not for what you said next, I'd disagree here too. It's not mere experience, that is a massively unreliable source... as you say:
There is one thing you have missed here, which I think is crucial, it is the "know for yourselves" point: "when you yourselves know"
What does this mean?
I think it means that you "cannot doubt that", and this is spark that lights the light of self illumination.
When you cannot doubt that these "Qualities are..."
When you know for yourself that these "Qualities are..."
When you know directly that these "Qualities are..."
Do you agree with that?
I agree with you about the rest of the text. That is outlining the methods to illumination, and in this context it isn't that remarkable and is much like much else mentioned in other texts - "classic buddhism" as you say.
Finally, re your summary:
Yes - though the Buddha makes it clear just how wide in scope doubt has to be, not because he says so, but because all things are subject to doubt, at least at the start. The way out of doubt is to find the things that we cannot doubt lead to happiness, wisdom... etc.
So we agree with each other I think up to here, we agree very much on the whole.
Then you say this and I think, "Huh, what just happened?:"
I am very confused!:)
I have really enjoyed your post and I hope you can spend the time for us to discuss just this last, deeply incongruous, line of it.
Much respect,
Mat
one must understand the three centers because they relate directly to those paths. the three centers are the head (mind), the heart (emotional body) and the hara (man's physical center and spiritual center).
the heart and head are taught and are considered to be on the periphery of the real center/hara.
most of us are head orientated because of society so we orientate ourselves to the sciences, philosophy, intellectual theories, etc. the head is the furthest from the hara, thus this is the hardest and longest path towards being or hara.
whereas one who is heart orientated will focus on feeling, intuition, and in some sense faith and devotion. this path is the quicker path to enlightenment because it is closest to the center/hara. this is also a center that can not be developed because of the lack of love throughout childhood, etc.
both are worth developing and eventually transcending. we arrive at the hara.
those who place emphasis on the hara is zen. zen places emphasis on cutting thinking to directly point oneself towards their inherent buddha nature, which is in beingness/thusness/emptiness. so in korean zen we direct our awareness towards two inches below the navel where the hara is. from there we can experience the silence and potentially bring consciousness upon itself and thus have a non dual awakening. zen cuts all bull shit and says sit in zazen, use a koan to cut thinking, and directly engage with your true nature.
now you must realize what path you are on and what path others are on. all paths lead to the same truth of our being. the non dual awareness that manifests through beingness via our bodies and the inherent emptiness/interconnectivity of all things.
a person who is head oriented will examine non dual philosophy. they will follow logic to its logical conclusion through negation. then they will get to a sweet not knowing because when you negate everything you are left with the mystery. if you haven't gotten there yet then you are clinging to some kind of knowledge or method. thus when one gets to the mystery the come into the silence and from there consciousness and the mind can rest. from here potentially awakening becomes a reality.
a person who is heart oriented will place emphasis on different rituals and things like chanting/prostrations. also emphasis is on doing good acts and they will build confidence (notice i use this word instead of faith) in what they believe through meditation and action. since they are closer to their beingness they have the potential to realize their buddha nature.
a person who is hara oriented will directly face death and when completely allow and surrender in their being, heart and head they can die into themselves and consciousness will directly realize itself.
all paths take sincerely and a willingness to surrender into the infinite mystery. we get there by our heads, hearts, or gut.
only the sincere ones make it to awakening.
but don't take my word for it.
It is a doubt when it is not extinguished.
If you doubt everything, and do not extinguish the doubts that can be extinguished, (The Kalma Principles), then I think its pretty clear it will hinder you;)
Doubt is not the enemy. A lack of practice is the enemy.
Anyways, 'nuff said.
Stage One: Doubt all things.
Stage Two: Determine which things you cannot doubt because no matter how you try they are shown to lead to benefit, happiness, wisdom...
Stage Three: Practice those things you cannot doubt.
So for example, take the simple idea that:
"The right action is the kind action."
Should we just belive that, even though it professed by Buddha, Confusis, Plato, Jesus, Alexander, The Talmud, Lao Tzu, HHDL...?
According to the Kalama principles, no we should not. We should not believe anything that is stated in scriptures, tradition... yada yada....
Stage One: Doubt that: "The right action is the kind action."
Stage Two: Try to show that the right action does not lead to benefit, happiness.... No matter how hard we try, how many thought experiments we care to throw at it, I am certain, and I would hope you are certain, that we cannot doubt that. It is indubitable - The Right Action is the kind action.
Stage Three; Practice Kindness.
So please, don't tell me I am wrong. Don't paste yet another of the ten thousands sutta. Don't tell me I am over complicating it.
Either: Show that this method is flawed and does not, in itself, lead to benefit....
Or: Just say, "Ahh right, I misunderstood..."
Either its a nobrainer or I am a much bigger fool than I suspected!:)
With well wishes
mat
Your "doubt everything until proven self-evident" theory is superfluous. The Buddha does not say to "doubt everything." He says to test theories with personal examination and based on criteria, INCLUDING the declaration of the wise, before accepting them as truth. There is a difference.
regards