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.