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.
Kalama Suttra
Hi
Someone wrote a long essay on the KS here, where is it please?:)
Mat
Someone wrote a long essay on the KS here, where is it please?:)
Mat
0
Comments
Well no, so I can doubt it:)
Do you understand why doubt is one of the five a hindrance?
Do you see what that means?
It might not mean what you think, you know:)
Peace
mat
That doesn't explain why it is a hindrance, that explains what must be done with it. Perhaps you confusing "being" with "doing"?
If you accept the proposal of the Kalama Sutra alongside the Five hindrances, then there is this apparent schism, between doubt and doubting. Its the same as you picked up on, I believe, confusing being with doing.
What is the process of the erradication? Why does it not stop at dharma itself?
If I have missed the point please show me where:)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
OK... but in the Kalama Sutra it says that we shoul'd not believe something based on common sense/appearances. (I appreciate the debate on what "akaraparivitakkena" means).
It seems to my doubting mind something is missing. Again, i think the answer is in the KS.
The Buddha tells us when we "directly know" something that is when it should not be doubted. Now that is not a belief or a supposition or an experience, that's knowledge. IE something like a belief that is also true and that I am justified in knowing it.
The KS tells us we should doubt everything and then when we can no longer doubt it we can know it. The Hindrance of Doubt tells us that we must erradicate all of the doubts that the KS proposes we should doubt; ie, everything.
We doubt everything, including the suttras and teachings, and then we erradicate that doubt by practice of Dharma - not just practice of meditation, but the whole enquiry, morality and personality.
That what I think:)
How else could it be?
In that case why is one of the other hindrences "lack of energy"? Are there really only four hindrences?
Also, do you reject the Kalama Suttra's universal doubt?
The Kalama Sutta encourages reflection or wisdom development.
In it, the Buddha said when one hears a teaching, one should reflect.
Upon wise reflection, one's mind will be free from doubt.
:smilec:
That is not the general acceptance at all of the KS. Can you tell me why you think it is not an exposition of the value of doubt?
Do you accept that the view you say is incompatible with, eg:
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima-Nikaya/mn-47.htm
This idea that the Kalama Suttra is not a radical exposition of doubt, skepticism, free thinking and critical enquiry and that it is your pithy "encouragement" to practice is misleading, I think:)
Note that it also allows for Dogma to enter Buddhism, whereas the proper reading of the KS does not:)
See how important this is?
Mat
What I say is not misleading.
:smilec:
Doubt is the difference between the enlightened stream enterer and the lost soul.
Obviously the 'teacher' you are quoting is confused.
From doubting teachers come doubting students.
.
I personally think it is missleading:)
The Buddha;s response in the KS is not standard setting but a direct response to the question as to how to deal with others who:
"expound, explain and glorify their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they deprecate, revile, show contempt for, and disparage."
Even more specifically the KS is the Buddha's answer to the problem is also found:
"As a result we are in doubt about the teachings of all of them. Which spoke the truth and which falsehood?"
That seems pretty clear to me:)
What am I missing?
Mat
The rest of the passage which you cherry-picked a partial quote from.
I can see why you'd think it is, but I'd like to see other sources backing you up.
I think you yourself are being dogmatic and insistent simply to prove yourself right, but I'm not convinced, by your insistence alone, that you are.
In fact, the more I read, the more intransigent you are being.
Sorry?
Now please provide supporting and mitigating references to back up your theories.
Thanks.
As I discuss here I am not convinced in any scriptural authenticity or accuracy.
So I, no, I cannot. Nor do I believe can anyone:)
to me, we are left with fragments subsumed in centuries of augmentation. I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe the Buddha did.
I may well be wrong:)
For example, I'd examine this, if I were you....
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
http://www.purifymind.com/FreeThought.htm (this one is easier to read if you highlight the text!)
http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/kalamasutta1.html
I cannot find the words "Doubt everything" in any of them.....
What a load of rubbish.
Hi Mat
No-one can make another believe or disbelieve what they want to believe or disbelieve.
Your doubts are fine, so long as you are happy and pleased with them, as long as they still serve you.
On the day that you find that there may be more to life, that suffering calls, then perhaps you will explore Buddhism a bit more.
And by that I mean practice, not just 'belief'. Beliefs will always, by their nature, be limited (and belief includes disbelief - which is another form of belief).
Whether that belief is that God is great, or that Buddha is supreme, still, Buddhism encourages that realm that transcends conceptual knowledge and understanding - which whilst fine and useful and with a place - is not enough, ie is not the full picture. Buddhist forums will always be limited because this can only, for the moment, be the realm of concepts and debate. But, that which they can also serve to point to, can serve you well yet in life.
If you choose to so embark.
And it is this practice (practice of Buddhism - which is experiential, not just conceptual) which is aspired to by the Ancients and it is this practice in which future generations of Buddhas will again arise.
With best wishes and many blessings,
Abu
Hi
I have read the Bikku Bhodi essay before, he is someone I respect as a Buddhist Scholar. But I simply don't agree with it, he relies on the fact that the Kalamas were not Buddhists to then go on to argue that therefore the KS, which ends in "Dharma lessons" is in fact a lesson just about Dharma for Buddhists.
Do you see my critisim? I agree with all said except that for me, very clearly, the KS starts with a simple statement of how to deal with all beleifs, from wherever they come from, smart ass teachers or logical infrance etc.
Incidentally, the third essay I think supports my view:) EG: "The Buddha taught them, and us, not to accept or believe anything immediately. He gave ten basic conditions to beware of in order to avoid becoming the intellectual slave of anyone, even of the Buddha himself."
You say> I cannot find the words "Doubt everything" in any of them....
That is because rather than state "everything" in one lump term he defines what everything is! Dont you see that? Everything is that which is presented by teacher, logic, common sense... etc The ten items together compose of "everything".
I have been prating Buddhism nearly ten years and exploring it deeply in terms of practice and enquiry.
Its funny, people here seem to think that because I hold views that are not the product of centuries of masculine Buddhist orthodoxy I must be a "mere novice". How arrogant!:) Its very Emperors new clothes;)
I believe that the Buddhism we have today, like all religions, has been distorted from its origins. I am interested in knowing what the Buddha taught in his life. Not the echoes of hearsays or ehcos written down centuries after his death.
Can you say why this is wrong?
Peace
Mat
My bad, I only skim posts here so forgive my incorrect attributions. That said, time is not the only factor considered when I said 'practice Buddhism' either ( FWIW )
No, I find it delightful
With best and kind wishes,
Abu