Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Question about Interpretation of The Kalama Suttra

MatSaltedMatSalted
edited February 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Hi

I understand the KS in one way, as in something like, "The Buddha is a Skeptic who proposes the only solution to doubt as the scientific method - doubt everything except for that which you cannot doubt."

I'm not really sure if "scientific method" is the right term there:) Anyways, my question is , What's the other reading of the KS, in nut shell?

I have seen it said here in various ways but any "nutshell" answers appreciated...

"The Kalama Suttra is...?"

Thanks in advance:)

Mat

Comments

  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I think it has already been discussed at length
    http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1369
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    I think it has already been discussed at length
    http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1369

    I ask for simple nutshell suggestions from anyone who would like to give them:)

    How about your version of: "I believe the Kalama Suttra outlines the method of skeptical enquiry the Buddha proposes: Doubt everything everything expect that which you cannot doubt."

    Thanks:)

    Mat
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Personally, I think it would to highly unfair to the sutta to give a "nutshell" description.
    All suttas need to be understood in context.

    I linked the other thread is because there are already discussions going on about the kalama sutra. Why not tag along the end of those? That way the forum will be a little tidyer :)

    Nios.

    Edit: Also, I personaly believe it's best to ask such questions to learned and well practice dharma masters. :)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    Personally, I think it would to highly unfair to the sutta to give a "nutshell" description.
    All suttas need to be understood in context.

    Well I am speaking about the whole Kalama Suttra, so what other context is there? And what has fair got to do with this? I'm asking a simple question about people's understanding of one of Buddhism's most central and well known Suttras.

    Please don't try to destruct my simple open and clear question to others if you yourself don't want to ask:) I am happy to talk these issues in PM, but my question here is simple:)
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    Please don't try to destruct my simple open and clear question to others if you yourself don't want to ask

    :confused::confused::eek::confused:
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    :confused::confused::eek::confused:

    I asked a simple question which I would like some answer to as part of my continued attempt to understand Buddhism. If you wont answer it then just don't:) Rather than try to obfuscate it and accuse me of being "unfair":) That itself isnt very fair:)

    Peace
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited February 2010
    The Kalamas, confused by the "conflicting" teachings of other gurus approached the Buddha. The Buddha gave them a simple to understand teaching of the basic precepts (intoxicants left out?). So simple was the teaching that, prompted by the Buddha's questions, the Kalamas arrived at the answers all by themselves. The Buddha did not even want them to ponder things like rebirth, because whether or not there is rebirth, they will still benefit by wholesome actions. Nothing about insight meditation, nothing about nibbana.....

    It is obvious from this sutta that the "answers" were found by simple questioning. It would have been a waste of time trying to tell the Kalamas that they should "see things as they are" through insight meditation (mindfulness-awareness). That would have been way beyond the abilities of these householders at that early stage.

    In a "nutshell" then: The Kalama Sutta was NOT intended for the purpose of "realizing reality as it is" through the Eightfold Path and insight meditation. Therefore, this sutta should not be used as a yardstick for determining the solution to all doubts in Buddhism in general. For that, we should follow the Eightfold Path.

    Mat, these are my personal views. Feel free to comment on it. :)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    sukhita wrote: »
    The Kalamas, confused by the "conflicting" teachings of other gurus approached the Buddha. The Buddha gave them a simple to understand teaching of the basic precepts (intoxicants left out?). So simple was the teaching that, prompted by the Buddha's questions, the Kalamas arrived at the answers all by themselves. The Buddha did not even want them to ponder things like rebirth, because whether or not there is rebirth, they will still benefit by wholesome actions. Nothing about insight meditation, nothing about nibbana.....

    It is obvious from this sutta that the "answers" were found by simple questioning. It would have been a waste of time trying to tell the Kalamas that they should "see things as they are" through insight meditation (mindfulness-awareness). That would have been way beyond the abilities of these householders at that early stage.

    In a "nutshell" then: The Kalama Sutta was NOT intended for the purpose of "realizing reality as it is" through the Eightfold Path and insight meditation. Therefore, this sutta should not be used as a yardstick for determining the solution to all doubts in Buddhism in general. For that, we should follow the Eightfold Path.

    Mat, these are my personal views. Feel free to comment on it. :)

    Hi Sukhita,

    Thanks for your repose, I have read it a few times and have a clearer idea of what the alte

    I think we agree that the KS is not a metaphysical guideline to "realizing reality as it is."

    But can I ask you to clarify your "nutshell" please:) Your "nutshell" is about what it is not, whereas what it is remains unclear.

    Are you saying that his instructions are specific to the Kalamas and not to general items of enquiry?

    My reading of "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.'"

    Seems more general than that? (I may be cherry picking but I don't see that yet:) )

    I look forwards to your comments and thoughts:)

    Peace,

    Mat
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited February 2010
    Are you saying that his instructions are specific to the Kalamas and not to general items of enquiry?

    My understanding is that the instructions are specific to new "recruits" like the Kalamas. Practitioners who wish to advance beyond this level must look to other suttas (4NT, 8FP, DO, etc....). :)
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited February 2010
    When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change our beliefs/faith to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism.

    We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly taught by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutta. (AN III, 65). The Buddha said 'do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it'.

    Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or GOOD or because it's comforting to us. Make sure it fits our experience.

    Buddhism gives us a method for our practice. We do the experiment and find out for our self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out our experience. PERSONALLY!

    "Come, Kalamas. Do not go
    (1) by oral tradition,
    (2) by lineage of teaching,
    (3) by hearsay,
    (4) by a collection of scriptures,
    (5) by logical reasoning,
    (6) by inferential reasoning,
    (7) by reflection on reasons,
    (8) by the acceptance of a view after pondering it,
    (9) by the seeming competence of a speaker,
    (10) or because you think, 'The monk is our teacher.'

    But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameable, these things are censured by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practised, lead to harm and suffering', then you should abandon them...

    But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are wholesome, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practised, lead to welfare and happiness', then you should engage in them..."
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    sukhita wrote: »
    My understanding is that the instructions are specific to new "recruits" like the Kalamas. Practitioners who wish to advance beyond this level must look to other suttas (4NT, 8FP, DO, etc....). :)

    Hi Sukhita:)

    Thank you. I think when you look to the other suttras the universal doubt aspect seems more likely than the "kalama tuition" aspect:)

    Thanks for your time,

    Mat
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    pegembara wrote: »
    When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change our beliefs/faith to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism.

    We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly taught by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutta. (AN III, 65). The Buddha said 'do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it'.

    Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or GOOD or because it's comforting to us. Make sure it fits our experience.

    Buddhism gives us a method for our practice. We do the experiment and find out for our self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out our experience. PERSONALLY!

    "Come, Kalamas. Do not go
    (1) by oral tradition,
    (2) by lineage of teaching,
    (3) by hearsay,
    (4) by a collection of scriptures,
    (5) by logical reasoning,
    (6) by inferential reasoning,
    (7) by reflection on reasons,
    (8) by the acceptance of a view after pondering it,
    (9) by the seeming competence of a speaker,
    (10) or because you think, 'The monk is our teacher.'

    But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameable, these things are censured by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practised, lead to harm and suffering', then you should abandon them...

    But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are wholesome, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practised, lead to welfare and happiness', then you should engage in them..."

    Hi Pegembara,

    Thanks for the post. I agree with you. It does seem that this is what the KS is, as in, a method for dealing with Universal doubt - the 10 points do contain all origins of knowledge, I believe. It is pretty amazing that the Buddha isolated them millennia before they were even really assessed in the west.

    I think its important to remember that in other places the Buddha recommends doubting teachers and teachings, including his own.



    But this leaves an important question:

    What is the "to know for onesself"?

    (1) Is it to know in some empirical sense of pure experience, known just by meditation and inner contemplation?

    (2) Is it to know in the epistemic sense of "know that one knows" or "cannot not know"?

    I am not sure what (1) could mean? Especially when applied to the ten variants of doubt.

    On the other hand (2) does make sense to me and does cohere with reason and methodology.

    So as I understand it the Kalama Suttra can be read as: Doubt all things, those which cannot be doubted, which one knows one knows, one cannot doubt. (Hence I see it is doubts that cannot be doubted which are hindrances, not the universal doubt across all domains that are the start of such knowledge.)


    I guess we will never know which reading is the right one, but as the KS is clearly part of the ten items of doubt, it's interpretations should be doubted too! :)

    Thanks

    Mat
Sign In or Register to comment.