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.
@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.
Then we'd all better stop posting on this forum, since the frequent disagreements in viewpoints here might "harm" Buddhism.
I understand your resistance to suppression of discourse, but I also think that there's a place for dismissive censure of viewpoints which are known to be wrong and are likely to cause confusion to uninformed people. I hold no position on whether "kammic retribution" and post-mortem rebirth actually happen, but I am 100% certain, based on my own experience, that you don't need to believe in them to get a lot out of Buddhist practice. Observation of karma and rebirth as they occur moment-to-moment is enough. In other words, Bodhi is wrong, and you can follow the Buddha's instructions in the Kalama Sutta all the way along the path. (Not claiming enlightenment, but I do know exactly how the path works, how to walk it and where it leads.)
I agree with Sabre that Right View with effluents is likely a useful motivator for people with whose world views allow them to accept it from the start, but presenting it as a necessary component of Buddhist practice, as Bodhi does in that essay, is a hindrance to many modern people. It was certainly harmful to me, as it kept me from practicing for years, and I know that there are many others in the same boat.
Was it truly what he said that was harmful or irresponsible? Or was it that you chose not to investigate and explore and find answers to your questions beyond the words of one person that caused your suffering? Others aren't to blame for our suffering, only we are.
Nothing can harm truth. It just is. That's what is so nice about Buddhism.
Clarity and transparency as opposed to mirroring? It is not unusual to understand the dharma from different personal and unfolding perspectives. Do we have the capacity to continually allow the possibility that a wholistic comprehension enfolds and transcends the partial? A sutra is a representation of an absolute. In presenting itself, a sutra or teaching is only as right as we can make it. Dharma is as perfect as mundane expression can be but not perfection itself.
In many ways the ability to read a sutra as if faultless, is a valid but perhaps impossible goal. It may be far more appropriate to listen to what others say and recognise what we say may also be imperfect, limited and not the transcendent beyond logical expression.
or . . . if that sounded overly wordy: Nothing can harm truth. It just is. That's what is so nice about Buddhism
Anyone else wish to share some thoughts? I hope to add a few more reflections tomorrow, just things that I've had on my mind.
Next Friday, I was thinking of another short sutta, the Tittha Sutta, which contains the blind men and elephant metaphor -- unless there are other suggestions anyone has. You can PM me or just toss your suggestion here.
I have nothing to add, just that I went to a welcome talk tonight for a weekend retreat, and the Lama started talking about this sutra, and before he named it I knew exactly what it was, and where he was going with it. So even though sometimes I read them and I'm not sure what exactly is going on, I understand it much better reading everyone's comments Proof the study group works!
3
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
and the Lama started talking about this sutra, and before he named it I knew exactly what it was, and where he was going with it.
Cool! It can get awkward and interesting sometimes when you study a sutta, and a monk or lama later misquotes it, or gets it wrong, and you know he's gotten it wrong. To correct the teacher or not? Hmmm...
Then we'd all better stop posting on this forum, since the frequent disagreements in viewpoints here might "harm" Buddhism.
I agree with Sabre that Right View with effluents is likely a useful motivator for people with whose world views allow them to accept it from the start, but presenting it as a necessary component of Buddhist practice, as Bodhi does in that essay, is a hindrance to many modern people. It was certainly harmful to me, as it kept me from practicing for years, and I know that there are many others in the same boat.
It may be interesting that this "right view with effluents" (versus "without effluents", reference), may be a later development in Buddhist thought. It is in the suttas, yes, but just in one. And I recall reading or hearing somewhere it is not in all versions of this sutta (there are versions in different languages), which at least suggests some alteration in some way.
But also logically, to me it would be strange, this two fold right view. Before I heard the above, I could never make sense of the passage, because right view is just right view. You can't have sort of half a right view. This "right view with effluents" is not a right view, it is still a wrong (or at the very least, incomplete) view until one really understands the Dhamma. And again, everywhere else in the suttas (and there are a lot) right view is not divided in two types.
But it is then when the suttas usually start speaking about 'faith': After one has seen the Dhamma, when one has right view. This goes to show once again that the translation 'faith' is not so good. Because why have faith in something you have seen and understood? Confidence is better, I think.
And if one didn't know this, one could call rebirth "right view (with effluents)", but it is not as long as one did not really understand not-self. Until then rebirth is likely to be the Hindu version of rebirth, the rebirth of a soul. Ideas which we even see among Buddhist teachers with many years of practice. Those are not ideas I understand the Buddha to call right view. That's why a faith in things like rebirth may as well be hindering one, it may give rise to ideas of eternalism. In fact, somewhere the suttas say the view of annihilation (modern materialism) is -to paraphrase- 'the best among incorrect views'.
So I think it is very, very likely that this twofold type of right view is indeed a later invention. Now if only I could recall where I have seen or heard this idea first.
As I see it -with my very limited knowledge of the sutta languages-, it is everything that leads one away from enlightenment. So 'right view with effluents'.. hmmm. As may be clear now, I don't buy it.
All right, let's go back to the original post. Thanissaro Bhikkhu claims the Kalama Sutta says
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.'
It says no such thing. The ancient world that Buddha lived in and the Pali language didn't have the concept of logical deduction and all the rules that go along with it. Buddha used logic, but also taught in analogy. I don't consider this a very accurate translation. Translations between languages and especially ancient and modern ways of thinking isn't this easy or cut and dried.
No does the Buddha say in the sutta that we should not use any of these tools, only don't rely on any of them exclusively. He goes on to say what is taught should pass a practical test of being "conductive to well being and happiness."
One comprehensive list that tries to be accurate, as much as possible:
Do not accept anything on mere hearsay. Do not accept anything by mere tradition. Do not accept anything on account of rumours. Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere supposition. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable. Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us.
He only said don't accept something exclusively because of something on this list. Since this pretty much covers any reason possible to believe anything, obviously he isn't saying any of these are bad reasons to believe something.
But Buddha does say in additon to these, what is taught also has to work. It has to be conductive to well being and happiness.
Thank you @riverflow for a great thread. I would like to share some of my thoughts about this Suttra as follows:
The Suttra seems to suggest a three step method for testing a specific issue, ie. testing whether certain qualities such as greed, aversion and delusion should be abandoned or adopted.
We see that first the Buddha asked the Kalamas: "Now, what do you think, Kalamas? Does [this quality] arise for welfare or for harm? Skillful or unskillful? Blameworthy or blameless?" So the first step is to think and reach a conclusion about the harmfulness, skillfulness and blameworthiness of a certain quality, which in this case is that of greed, aversion and delusion. By asking the Kalamas to think this also implies that in the process of thinking, one can use such things as reasoning, logic, information gained from scriptures, tradition, teachers, etc.).
After one has come to a conclusion through thinking, it seems the next step is to check it against the experience of the wise. The Buddha, after he asked the Kalamas what they thought, he then asked them: "[Is this quality] criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"
Then the final step, it seems, is to do a check against the results of one's own practice as to whether the quality in question leads to harm/suffering or well-being/happiness. This is because the the Buddha in his last question finally asks the Kalamas: "When adopted and carried out [does this quality] lead to harm or suffering, or not?"
So to sum up it seems the steps are as follows:
1) Think and reach conclusion about the harmfulness, skillfullness and blameworthiness of a certain quality (using logic, reasoning, scriptures, words of teachers, etc.) 2) Check whether that thought/conclusion is in accordance with what is praised or critcized by the wise. 3) Then the final test is to check it against one's own personal experience of the results. If one's experience say that a certain quality leads to suffering and harm, then abandon it. But if it leads to well-being and happiness, then pursue it.
Now, on the issue of reasoning, the Suttra seems to suggest quite clearly that reasoning has its place and use as we see in the final paragraph that the Kalamas said, "Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear." This suggests that the Kalamas were able to understand the Dhamma using their own reasoning to follow along with the Buddha's line of reasoning.
On the issue of belief in rebirth/karma, the Suttra does suggest that it is normal for followers to have doubts about rebirth/karma and that this is something that should not stop them from practicing. This is shown in the passage about the second assurance that is acquired by "a disciple of the noble one" whose mind is pure saying that such a disciple who does not believe in a "world after death" or "in fruit of actions rightly or wrongly done" nevertheless gains the assurance that "here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble."
Comments
I agree with Sabre that Right View with effluents is likely a useful motivator for people with whose world views allow them to accept it from the start, but presenting it as a necessary component of Buddhist practice, as Bodhi does in that essay, is a hindrance to many modern people. It was certainly harmful to me, as it kept me from practicing for years, and I know that there are many others in the same boat.
A sutra is a representation of an absolute. In presenting itself, a sutra or teaching is only as right as we can make it. Dharma is as perfect as mundane expression can be but not perfection itself.
In many ways the ability to read a sutra as if faultless, is a valid but perhaps impossible goal. It may be far more appropriate to listen to what others say and recognise what we say may also be imperfect, limited and not the transcendent beyond logical expression.
or . . . if that sounded overly wordy:
Nothing can harm truth. It just is. That's what is so nice about Buddhism
Anyone else wish to share some thoughts? I hope to add a few more reflections tomorrow, just things that I've had on my mind.
Next Friday, I was thinking of another short sutta, the Tittha Sutta, which contains the blind men and elephant metaphor -- unless there are other suggestions anyone has. You can PM me or just toss your suggestion here.
It can get awkward and interesting sometimes when you study a sutta, and a monk or lama later misquotes it, or gets it wrong, and you know he's gotten it wrong.
To correct the teacher or not? Hmmm...
But also logically, to me it would be strange, this two fold right view. Before I heard the above, I could never make sense of the passage, because right view is just right view. You can't have sort of half a right view. This "right view with effluents" is not a right view, it is still a wrong (or at the very least, incomplete) view until one really understands the Dhamma. And again, everywhere else in the suttas (and there are a lot) right view is not divided in two types.
But it is then when the suttas usually start speaking about 'faith': After one has seen the Dhamma, when one has right view. This goes to show once again that the translation 'faith' is not so good. Because why have faith in something you have seen and understood? Confidence is better, I think.
And if one didn't know this, one could call rebirth "right view (with effluents)", but it is not as long as one did not really understand not-self. Until then rebirth is likely to be the Hindu version of rebirth, the rebirth of a soul. Ideas which we even see among Buddhist teachers with many years of practice. Those are not ideas I understand the Buddha to call right view. That's why a faith in things like rebirth may as well be hindering one, it may give rise to ideas of eternalism. In fact, somewhere the suttas say the view of annihilation (modern materialism) is -to paraphrase- 'the best among incorrect views'.
So I think it is very, very likely that this twofold type of right view is indeed a later invention. Now if only I could recall where I have seen or heard this idea first.
With metta,
Sabre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava
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.'
It says no such thing. The ancient world that Buddha lived in and the Pali language didn't have the concept of logical deduction and all the rules that go along with it. Buddha used logic, but also taught in analogy. I don't consider this a very accurate translation. Translations between languages and especially ancient and modern ways of thinking isn't this easy or cut and dried.
No does the Buddha say in the sutta that we should not use any of these tools, only don't rely on any of them exclusively. He goes on to say what is taught should pass a practical test of being "conductive to well being and happiness."
One comprehensive list that tries to be accurate, as much as possible:
Do not accept anything on mere hearsay.
Do not accept anything by mere tradition.
Do not accept anything on account of rumours.
Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
Do not accept anything by mere supposition.
Do not accept anything by mere inference.
Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances.
Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.
Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable.
Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us.
He only said don't accept something exclusively because of something on this list. Since this pretty much covers any reason possible to believe anything, obviously he isn't saying any of these are bad reasons to believe something.
But Buddha does say in additon to these, what is taught also has to work. It has to be conductive to well being and happiness.
The Suttra seems to suggest a three step method for testing a specific issue, ie. testing whether certain qualities such as greed, aversion and delusion should be abandoned or adopted.
We see that first the Buddha asked the Kalamas: "Now, what do you think, Kalamas? Does [this quality] arise for welfare or for harm? Skillful or unskillful? Blameworthy or blameless?" So the first step is to think and reach a conclusion about the harmfulness, skillfulness and blameworthiness of a certain quality, which in this case is that of greed, aversion and delusion. By asking the Kalamas to think this also implies that in the process of thinking, one can use such things as reasoning, logic, information gained from scriptures, tradition, teachers, etc.).
After one has come to a conclusion through thinking, it seems the next step is to check it against the experience of the wise. The Buddha, after he asked the Kalamas what they thought, he then asked them: "[Is this quality] criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"
Then the final step, it seems, is to do a check against the results of one's own practice as to whether the quality in question leads to harm/suffering or well-being/happiness. This is because the the Buddha in his last question finally asks the Kalamas: "When adopted and carried out [does this quality] lead to harm or suffering, or not?"
So to sum up it seems the steps are as follows:
1) Think and reach conclusion about the harmfulness, skillfullness and blameworthiness of a certain quality (using logic, reasoning, scriptures, words of teachers, etc.)
2) Check whether that thought/conclusion is in accordance with what is praised or critcized by the wise.
3) Then the final test is to check it against one's own personal experience of the results. If one's experience say that a certain quality leads to suffering and harm, then abandon it. But if it leads to well-being and happiness, then pursue it.
Now, on the issue of reasoning, the Suttra seems to suggest quite clearly that reasoning has its place and use as we see in the final paragraph that the Kalamas said, "Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear." This suggests that the Kalamas were able to understand the Dhamma using their own reasoning to follow along with the Buddha's line of reasoning.
On the issue of belief in rebirth/karma, the Suttra does suggest that it is normal for followers to have doubts about rebirth/karma and that this is something that should not stop them from practicing. This is shown in the passage about the second assurance that is acquired by "a disciple of the noble one" whose mind is pure saying that such a disciple who does not believe in a "world after death" or "in fruit of actions rightly or wrongly done" nevertheless gains the assurance that "here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble."