In these complex times, when President Obama has to come out and warn us to ask questions* it can be hard to figure out how to sort it all out, where to even begin. Though he wasn’t talking about American Politics at the time, the Buddha had some good advice for us in the Kalama Sutta. The Kalamas lived on a crossroads and had so many different people coming through, each with their own view, and the views conflicted and contradicted each other to the point that they were in doubt about who to believe. Their situation reflects ours with modern media in a way that’s almost painful to see — some things never change, do they? But even if the views the Kalamas were concerned with weren’t over what Big Money does, the confusion and its solution is still the same.
“Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.'”
The Buddha suggests not relying on reports (news!), on legends (Rush Limbaugh!), nor on traditional understandings, written scripture, or even sheer logic, reasoning, analogies, or simply working it out for yourself or in discussion with others; don’t even rely on the word of the wisest person you know, even if he is the Buddha himself, but instead:
“When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”
He is talking here about “qualities” in the sense of moral choices we make in our lives, qualities we develop in ourselves, but — and this is the framing point of the story of the Kalamas — who we listen to and what we believe is the basis of our choices. In terms of the choices we make in how to behave every day, we have the ability to test for ourselves whether or not what we do has a good effect in the world. There is nothing written that says that everything we try with good intentions will turn out just as we like — it is, after all, a complex world — but in general, over time, by observation, we can see for ourselves what effect our actions have.
The first suggestion in the Kalama Sutta, then, is that we make sure that we know things for ourselves, by direct observation. This is a point I addressed earlier in “What Do You Know?” In the case of advertising and news stories, this requires some fact checking.
We have lots of access to information via the web nowadays, but not all of that information is accurate, so we might need to take a step back and learn how to look even more deeply. While that includes fact checking your fact checkers, it should perhaps start with checking in with our own attitudes, because they have a big influence, as noted in a Slate article, “Is Obama the Antichrist?” about how we are affected by propaganda, how even the smallest most insignificant-seeming information can slant our views while we are sure they do not.
All of which is certainly easier said than done, but for really sharp critical thinking to work, we have to start by knowing at least a little about the minds doing the thinking, about how our attitudes are shaped. I can (and do) suggest that, when fact checking, we listen to what “the other side” has to say, but this does no good at all if our minds are set in “No, no, no — lies! all lies!” attitude before we even hit Google. This is where the skills the Buddha taught about meditation and mindfulness come in (it’s not just about relaxation, after all). With practice we can learn to see our minds closing and train them to open up, and work toward recognizing the difference between illusions and accuracy. It isn’t easy, but it is worth doing for the benefits on many levels.
And this is the most fundamental level of fact-checking: knowing the mind doing the checking. Because theory is all well and good — articles about the information we’re exposed to being slanted (as in President Obama’s speech), or about how we take in information and have our views distorted by it (as in the Slate article) are wonderful — but chances are at least fair that even while you’re reading them, going, “Yes, indeed, that’s true. People ought to use their brains!” somewhere deep inside your mind is saying, “Of course, *I* don’t do those things.” Theory doesn’t do much toward giving us the crucial skills to apply toward actually seeing directly, for ourselves, the way information affects the most critical piece of the system we have access to — and the one we have the biggest influence on — our own minds. And the Kalama Sutta is saying this: see it with your own direct experience. I say it even more plainly: learn the forms of meditation and mindfulness that the Buddha taught because they work to give the skills needed to detect these things working in our own minds.
But seeing for yourself is not all the Kalama Sutta suggests, as I’ll describe in my next post.
* In this case due to a Supreme Court ruling which makes who is paying for advertising somewhat obscure, due to the “Citizens United” ruling
This post seemed similar to a Fundie manipulating their scriptures and using the cloak of sanctity to indirectly tell parishioners to vote Republican.
Your examples all point away from Republicans.
You mention Rush but not any Democrat propagandists.
The Buddhist passages seems to me to talk about anything but weighing the evidence (and I think the passage may just be hyperbole of intent). Yet you point us in directions which the sutta does not.
I agree with you thoughts about weighing, stepping back, etc. But I wondered here if you are using your mind, Buddhist scripture and this blog to point to Democrats and thus going exactly opposite to the intent of the passage. Am I reading wrong? (I did read a bit quick and sloppy –> which I often do with politically aimed religious talk — ironic, eh?)
(PS, I’d love it if you could change your theme — it is hard to read light fonts on white)
About the only individual voice I am exposed to regularly “in the news” is Rush Limbaugh — I don’t have cable or the networks on my television, so I pick up Rush on my car radio (infrequently).
A couple of points:
(1) The Kalama sutta definitely points to weighing the evidence as its most important point: knowing directly for oneself is exactly what it’s saying — you have to balance your own opinions by seeking the opinions of others, but in the end neither of those two is enough, direct experience is required and that is evidence being used to weight the choices we make.
(2) I am pretty sure that Buddhist scripture isn’t designed to get people to be apolitical, to not take a stand on such matters. The main views of his day that the Buddha was against re: dogmatism were metaphysical speculations that led to immoral behavior. In our times immoral behavior is not limited to those basing their choices in metaphysics. What we stand up for and speak out against certainly needs to be less grounded in self-serving views, but that’s not the same as not speaking out, “taking sides” if that seems necessary, or acting as though everybody’s views are of equal value.
(3) This theme isn’t black on white? On my monitor it is. The ins and outs of WordPress themes are beyond me at the moment, and there are very few themes out there I even like. I have books on WordPress here to dig into but have yet to find time to devote to them. Used to be it was easy to override page coloring with ones of our own choosing but poking around in Firefox’s settings I don’t find an easy way to do that anymore. If there’s a theme similar to this you can suggest that has a darker text font, please recommend it and I’ll gladly have a look!
Thanks for continuing to visit and write, Sabio.
Star, it does seem as though the challenges are greater now, as it is more difficult to find out “what works” by doing things of various sorts. That is, important and meaningful patterns of living tend to take significant amounts of time to work out and through, often, and yet, the enormously chaotic and nomadic nature of modern life and relationships means that we don’t always stay in one place or with the same people long enough to find out how things work out over time. I am reminded of the difference in life in small rural communities where people still live for long periods of time. As it was in Gotahma’s day and even now in such places, certain ways of living demonstrate their quality and importance over time in a way which is apparent to all. But in the urban context the long term effects of accurate living tend not to be easily observed. For these reasons we may be somewhat more reliant on processes of judging the relative value of different sorts of reference to authority as to which way to proceed. Ancient truths, skeptically reviewed seem to have obvious merit by virtue of their evolutionary persistence. Empirically derived systems have merit as they must demonstrate themselves to gain even an initial hearing in the world. Some combination of these two has merit for the same reason.
I would also point out that not only Buddhist scriptures emphasize looking beneath the surface of both external and internal reality. Actually, I think they all do.
Thanks again for your scholarship in bringing these scriptures in such an apprehendable way.
Agreed with enthusiasm, Earl. We live in information-dense times, where views are thrown out quick and fast, often presented as fact, and we’re usually stuck with making choices before we have time to even figure out all of our options, much less test for possible results. It does make it even more important that we choose our friends (and our sources of information) wisely. I agree that other scriptures have wisdom as well, but (in the spirit of this response) I am devoting my time to studying the one that has given me evidence of providing high quality advice the greatest portion of the time.
As for “scholarship” and understandable ways, I am trying to balance the nerdiness of my experiments in sutta dissection with some talk of how the dharma gets applied in daily life.
Thanks for joining in the discussion.
Boy, that was a bit abstract, not sure I followed. You seem to be hinting that Democratic policies are right and any Republican policies are wrong. I am sure you would not want it that simple and would want to be thought of as much more nuanced. But I would hope you could see that people could hold opposite political policies from you (whatever those are) and still consider themselves insightful and compassionate.
I find American Atheists and American Buddhists alike pretty Leftist in policy — which is fine. But when they put a religious, self-righteous spin on it and exclude that others with similar values could come up with radically different contradictory policies from your favorite ones, I protest.
I heard your post leaning that way. Was I wrong?
I’m not hinting at anything, Sabio. I am saying that whatever one believes to be important and necessary, one should stand up for it; that the Buddha’s teachings (nowhere that I’ve seen) say stay silent if you see an injustice; but that what the Buddha teaches is a way to let go of self-centeredness in our lives that tends to motivate us to take stances for self-serving reasons.
I do suspect that you are reading into my comments what you’re expecting to hear. Perhaps because I slanted your view of who I am by poking fun at the Rush Limbaugh legend, while saying positive things about the President’s comments about asking questions. In most political discussions I tend to be the one pointing out that both sides need each other ala Jonathan Haidt’s TED.com talk on the differences between liberals and conservatives.
One of the points you will have missed if you didn’t listen to the President’s talk in the link I provided was that it is now easier than ever for those with wealth and power to put out “information” without providing details about who is funding the output. Anything that makes it harder for individuals to tell where information is coming from is a Bad Thing in my books and I don’t care which “side” is responsible for it. This goes straight to the Buddha’s point: we have to be able to see deeply, that means get the facts; we need to pay attention to where the information is coming from, and that is made difficult by the Citizens United ruling.
Let me take a different approach and see if this makes it clearer, Sabio. The Buddha’s teaching is apolitical. That does not mean that what he teaches cannot be applied to what happens in politics. I am not saying anything remotely approaching the Buddha’s being on One Side and not The Other Side of any modern political argument.
@ Star
Thank you for elaborating.
So we are told by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Shintoist and now Buddhists that their masters/teachings say to “stand up for” whatever one believes and not tolerate injustice.
And of course each feels their faith generates the heart/mind/discernment to know what that is. Each encourages their believers to do that.
Fantastic.
Each are doing it in the name of their religion. Each are sanctifying their activists.
Heck, even secular people tell each other to do that.
But as Haidt points out, ideas of Justice (“fairness”), Tradition (authority, stability), Security (care) and others are hugely formed by temperament and culture. Thus even within those traditions there are contrary voices (and contrary policies) — but each using the same religion rallying flag.
Even Haidt’s research is a bit slanted but his emphasis on temperament and the useful aspects of apparently contrary temperaments when use together are good.
You are right, when you spoke against the Right and Praised the Left, it felt like you showed your colors during a religion speach.
Compassionate Policy Actions against the potential abusive power of the rich can vary between compassionate people. Just as policies against the potential abusive power of the masses (poorer) can vary between compassionate people.
To cry to take action because your religion says to, is a common cry. To mention the parties which you disfavor and favor in the same speech is a common technique. I was trying to point out the commonness of such methods.
I will take your word, not having read anything thing else of yours yet, that you don’t take stances on Policies. But I don’t mind if you do, of course. It is linking your particular policy preferences to your view of the Buddha’s teachings and implying any necessity in that link which triggers my caution. Hopefully you can understand my caution even if I may have read too much into your post.
Sabio, I didn’t say I don’t take stances on policies; quite the contrary. And I’m a little confused by what sanctified activities you see me as suggesting we do in the name of the Buddhist religion in the original post, and I hope you’ll go back and have a closer look to see if you find any evidence (beyond my playful building of Rush Limbaugh’s “legend”) that there’s any agenda demonstrated at all. What I attempted to convey was that it’s important to question what we’re told, and to check your facts and start by checking in with yourself. This isn’t a “cry to take any particular action”, but a suggestion that we stop and study what’s going on before proceeding in every case — a recommendation that is completely non-partisan. Perhaps it would be wise for you and I both to stop here and spend a little time silently studying what came before, to see if there is good evidence for what we are perceiving. On that basis I ask that we retire this thread.
Very good. My bad then. Thank you.