Application Of Kalama Sutta

Application of Kalama Sutta Kalama Sutta we find in Anguttara Nikaya. Lord Buddha preached this Sutta to Kalamas of the village Kalama as a response to a question posed by them to Lord Buddha. The question posed by them was very important not only as a spiritual and religious issue, but would be to be applied to any situation where a decision is needed to be made about, “What is to be True?”. The question was; "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?" (Ŧ = translated by Soma Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1981). Copyright © 1981 Buddhist Publication Society. ) The translator, Soma Thera, presents Lord Buddha’s answer under two sub headings as follows; 1. The criterion for rejection 2. The criterion for acceptance This inclusion of sub headings is by the translator, which is meant for clear presentation only. It, according to my view, does not cause any harm to the meaning of the original Pali text. But I feel these two criterions have to be further divided in to two, when we try to interpret the Sutta. Because, all the interpretations I have encountered did not bring out the real criterion presented by the Lord Buddha, but they deal with the criterion which should be avoided in decision making, in order to ascertain the truth. Both the criterion which should be avoided and the criterion for rejection and criterion for acceptance come within the same paragraph. But the criterion which should be avoided attracts more attention. The criteria which should be avoided are as follows;

“Come, Kalamas. 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 toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.” (Ŧ) The criterions for rejections, numbering four, were as follows; " Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'(Ŧ ) I would like to rearrange the above paragraph, in order to bring the four criterions to your notice, and to number them; " Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 1. These things are bad; 2.these things are blamable; 3. these things are censured by the wise; 4. undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them.” In the same way the criterions for acceptance are also four, after numbering would appear as follows; ‘’

Kalamas, when you yourselves know:

1.These things are good; 2. these things are not blamable; 3. these things are praised by the wise; 4. undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness; ‘’ enter on and abide in them.’’ (Translated by Soma Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1981). Copyright © 1981 Buddhist Publication Society .Numbering is done by me. )

Hence, Lord Buddha applies the criterions to many different situations in order to bring them to the Kalamas notice. They are as follows; 5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir." 6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir." 7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir." 8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here." ’’ (Ŧ) The above last paragraph I would rearrange and number, in order to bring the four criterions to clarity. 8. "What do you think, Kalamas? (1). “Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" (2). "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." (3). "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." (4). "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here." ’’ (Ŧ)

Even though, Lord Buddha has done this (applying the criterion for a situation), most of the popular interpretations goes contrary to this and still emphasizes on the criterion which should be avoided. Though, the Lord Buddha applies the criterions meaningfully, they are related to his own teachings. Therefore, a Buddhist, I feel may not notice them. There are other writers who, instead of taking criterions of rejection or acceptance or even criterions of avoidance, they take the wording “Kalamas, when you yourselves know “ as the basis on which decision has to be made. This implies that everyone has the capability of making or finding out the truth for him/herself without resorting to any methodology. But the same wordings means, that “when you yourself have tested using the given criterions for acceptance or rejection, then you will know what is to be accepted or rejected. As I was not born as a Buddhist, I was interested in this Kalama Sutta, as I was also had the same question in my mind, as I was studying many religious doctrines. Initially, taking the popular interpretations, I was not satisfied with the Kalama Sutta as it could not be applied to my problem. Later, I noticed this particular Para has two sections and the second part presents the real criterions and they are very scientific, and can be applied to any situations. Now I would like apply the criterion to some situations in order to clarify my point of view. Application is being done, together with the definitions of the key words in the criteria. They are shown underlined in the relevant criterion; 1.These things are bad; 2. these things are blamable; 3. these things are censured by the wise; 4. undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, Bad. Bad can be defined as a thing or an action which can bring harm to any one of the following; 1. to oneself. 2. to others. 3. to oneself and others.

This definition is also is done by the Lord Buddha himself elsewhere, which none of the other religious doctrines or philosophies unable to do. Since, this is a practical Buddhist criterion, it accords with the 4th criterion above. Therefore, one may feel that the same is repeated twice. I feel it is not so. When we come to the fourth criterion, it is clear that we have to undertake and observe to find out whether a thing or an action brings harm. But by the long experience of the society in the past, if a thing or an action is being established as to be bad, one does not need to apply the 4 th criterion. I said earlier that these criteria are scientific. The long experience of the society means that it has been tested in the past (the thing or the action) and proven to bring bad or harmful result. That is experimentation (empirical method) is done many times and enough data is collected (deductive method) to its harmful outcome. Therefore, one need not go further and apply other criteria. Blamable. Here the thing or the action in question may be; 1. A new one, therefore, it is not fully established to its harmful affects. (E.g. smoking- 20 years before-i.e. in the 80’s. But now it comes under the 1st criterion) 2. Goes contrary to the norm of the society. (E.g. polygamy, homosexuality, etc.,) 3. Harm is very negligible or none, but society views it differently. (E.g. according to Buddhism to commit the action of killing one need to have an intention, plan, etc., which would bring bad Kamma (bad results) and also killing small insects does not cause a great Kamma (almost none). And Lord Buddha asked that one need not to go to the extreme of avoiding such unintentional killing of insects, when one walks. But when monks were blamed by people when they go for alms in rainy seasons, trampling insects in the grass, he put a ban on going to alms in the rainy season, applying this criteria, even though, it is not against his teaching. Censured by the wise This criterion goes against the popular interpretation of Kalama Sutta, Which emphasizes the criteria which should be avoided also emphasizing that the decision has to be arrived by one himself(i.e. not required to consult anyone else meaning that every individual has the capacity to make decisions on his own-they call it as freedom of choice. But if one feels that his knowledge is inadequate, then what would be the solution?) It does not bring into light the criteria for decision making and the

methods of applying them. (i.e. criteria for rejection and criteria for acceptance). Here, when one finds it is difficult for him/her to make a decision, regarding a thing or an action, because it does not fall to the category of bad or blamable, he/she need to approach someone who is well versed with the subject(expert advice). This advice should be sought from many experts, before coming to a conclusion. (e.g. advise on drugs, surgery, higher education of children, usage of computer by children, usage of internet by children, etc.,) Undertaken and observed This forth criterion is scientific in the sense, here failing make a conclusion using the earlier methods set forth by the earlier three criteria, we have to resort to do an experiment or many of them and to observe the result to see whether it fits the definition of the bad in order to reject the thing or the action in question(In empirical method of scientific investigation experiments are done and the results are observed in order to arrive at a conclusion). Thereby, we may have to experience some bad outcome, which may harmful to us. This risk one has to take if earlier safe criterions could not be applied. Next, the criterions for acceptance which are exact opposite one for each criterion I would not go into detailed explanation using examples or definitions unless if it needed to be done. The criterions for acceptance are as follows; 1.These things are good; 2. these things are not blamable; 3. these things are praised by the wise; 4. undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness; Now it is all the key words underlined need not be explained, because some of them are same or exact opposite ones. Blamable → not blamable Censured by the wise → praised by the wise Undertaken and observed = Undertaken and observed (same differing only in the result). Therefore, I would only define the word good as it is not the exact opposite of the word bad.

Good Good can be defined as a thing or an action which should fulfill the following conditions. “It should be (the thing or the result of an action) to the benefit and happiness of one self as well as to the others.” The definition should also include exceptions which are as follows; That is which are not Good ;1. Which benefits one self, but not others. 2. Which benefits others, but not one self. 3. Which benefits none. Therefore, it is evident the exact opposite of Bad is not Good. Hence, when applying this particular criterion, we have to not only see the established norm of the society, whether it to be good and also whether it benefits all. One who reads Buddhism would find the Lord Buddha himself applying these criteria in many situations himself, as in the example of alms begging in the rainy season. By looking at these practical situations as well as trying to apply it to practical situations only one can really comprehend the true meaning of this unique teaching which I have not encountered in any religion or philosophy. Other very special feature of this Sutta is that the given criteria are independent of Buddhism. That is the criterions given are not related to Buddhism. Only in Buddhism one encounters such teaching of Lord Buddha, where he gives solutions which are independent. Ŧ = translated by Soma Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1981). Copyright © 1981 Buddhist Publication Society. Down loaded from internet:(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.soma.html)

By Yogi Anurada. Address:

Yogi Anurada 38/1, Pallewela, Gampola.