Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha?

Textual Scholarship
1

The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha (aathaapi.org) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma sutta.

  1. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Non-Buddhists

  2. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha
    (and Alobha-adosa-amoha)

I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your comments.

Kālāmā Sutta Analysis.pdf (116.1 KB)

Kālāmā Sutta Analysis

Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him.

So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating other things mentioned in the Tipitaka.

If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above mentioned page:

“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.
So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima nikaya where,

  • An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first.
  • Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases)
  • Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned.
  • At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for Niddesa.

Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc.

Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:
“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni, …’ti – ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.
“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti – iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ? ‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ manāyatanaṃ.
Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti – iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.

“‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ This is the recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.
‘The six interior sense fields should be understood.’ – That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
‘The six interior sense fields should be understood.’ – That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Araṇavibhaṅgasutta:
“Na kāmasukhamanuyuñjeyya hīnaṃ gammaṃ pothujjanikaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ, na ca attakilamathānuyogamanuyuñjeyya dukkhaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ. … – ayamuddeso araṇavibhaṅgassa.

“‘na kāmasukhamanuyuñjeyya hīnaṃ gammaṃ pothujjanikaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ, na ca attakilamathānuyogamanuyuñjeyya dukkhaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhita’nti – iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ; kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?

Yo kāmapaṭisandhisukhino somanassānuyogo hīno gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasaṃhito, sadukkho eso dhammo saupaghāto saupāyāso sapariḷāho; micchāpaṭipadā. Yo kāmapaṭisandhisukhino somanassānuyogaṃ ananuyogo hīnaṃ gammaṃ pothujjanikaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ, adukkho eso dhammo anupaghāto anupāyāso apariḷāho; sammāpaṭipadā. Yo attakilamathānuyogo dukkho anariyo anatthasaṃhito, sadukkho eso dhammo saupaghāto saupāyāso sapariḷāho; micchāpaṭipadā. Yo attakilamathānuyogaṃ ananuyogo dukkhaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ, adukkho eso dhammo anupaghāto anupāyāso apariḷāho; sammāpaṭipadā.

‘Na kāmasukhamanuyuñjeyya hīnaṃ gammaṃ pothujjanikaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ, na ca attakilamathānuyogaṃ anuyuñjeyya dukkhaṃ anariyaṃ anatthasaṃhita’nti – iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.

“Don’t indulge in sensual pleasures, which are low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And don’t indulge in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless… This is the recitation passage for the analysis of non-conflict.

‘Don’t indulge in sensual pleasures, which are low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And don’t indulge in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it?

Pleasure linked to sensuality is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. Indulging in such happiness is a principle beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the wrong way. Breaking off such indulgence is a principle free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the right way. Indulging in self-mortification is painful, ignoble, and pointless. It is a principle beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the wrong way. Breaking off such indulgence is a principle free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the right way.

‘Don’t indulge in sensual pleasures, which are low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And don’t indulge in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

1 Like
2

Partial Theravadans love to quote out of context.
2 weeks ago we had a user try to pull this on us and even misquoting my own words (out of his habit) but it did not work.

In any case. Many Pa-Auk meditators can know and see subcommentary abhidhammas.
When we bring this up to the “disputers” they just say it is imagination, totally ignoring what could be their own imagination on general-sutta-dhamma

Business and the Test of Time

When one sees a budget or estimation, one might only see the top-level figure.
If you want to make an estimation for a bill, the best thing you can do, is try to think of as many details as possible, and make an estimate for each detail. Then you add up all of the details and you can get a proper estimate. Furthermore experience will know how to adjust that detailed ledger … For instance, a manager of programmers will double or triple that number depending on his team. Just spitting out a number rarely works. Anyone in the business will know that those who do billing in general ways will fold and go out of business. In this way, we can use the test of time (through experience), to see that Classical Theravada has been built to withstand the test of time.

3

There is a Threefold-method that any wise person follows inside religions.
It is called “Paccakkha-Anumana-Saddheyya”, Ven. Maggavihari said.

And he explained this Saddheyya part is the facts like “There are 4 hells; There are 6 heavens.” Such facts are to be believed by the Follower out of faith.

But the Reasoned-faith is based on Paccakkha and Anumana, so that one can believe the rest part, since the first two parts are understood and reasonable.

The Saddheyya facts are first to be believed, until one practice and make it Paccakkha.

Even the other Indian religions had this method. In the book “Ancient Indian Education by Radha Kumud Mookerji”, it is mentioned as “Pramana: Pratyaksha, Anumana, Agama.”

Since the wise people knew that the Truth about the world can not be known without a Supernormal Knowledge (Abhinna), they seek for a Religious-founder who preaches what they can’t know by Normal wisdom.

Suttas say a student need both “Wisdom and Faith” in order to be successful in Buddhism as well as in other Crafts taught by a master.

The Satthu Sutta says “The one who doesn’t realize the birth-and-death as it is, should seek for a Sattha” The insistence here, I think, is on the Faith-factor.

If we go to “follow anything in Buddhism only after understood”, it will not be the correct method. Even a basic fact like “Kamma” can not be proven by ordinary persons’ intelligence.

The very use of going forth is, knowing things that one can’t know by ordinary wisdom.

The one who can’t believe the Buddha as omniscient, is the one who wait until everything becomes understood by own wisdom.

But the wise people investigates in many ways before choosing religions. (This is mentioned in the beginning of the Kalama sutta.)

Even while following badly-expounded religions, the wise people leave the religion, if they found a clearly wrong fact. (This is mentioned in the Sandaka sutta.)

1 Like