Just A Little Dust

I’m pretty sure it was Stephen Batchelor’s “Buddhism Without Beliefs” that first pointed out the Kalama Sutta to me, with the little clips that I mentioned in the last two posts heading some portion of the book. I do recall taking the time to locate the whole sutta and reading it, and being clear from the outset that it was guiding us toward not only the remarkable stance that we have within us the wisdom to distinguish between what’s morally sound and what is harmful to others* — remarkable indeed for a religious text — but also toward seeking a balancing perspective by seeking the opinions of “the wise”. This seemed all the more amazing for the extreme subtlety of the line between not relying on outside opinion:

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.’

and seeking it:

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.

a line so fine as to be almost contradictory. In the first quote we are told not to simply take the word of our teacher, but in the second we are told to listen to what is praised by the wise — and I assume we try to pick teachers who are wise, so they’d fall in that category. This seems to be saying that we shouldn’t rely entirely on outside views no matter how expert they seem (or even on our own esteemed opinions) but we should still seek counsel, while verifying it all by what we can see.

This particular sutta came up again and again as my attempts to understand what the Buddha taught from the source material increased, and it was not long before I began to see it cited as the basis for some form of wishy-washy, New Age, cafeteria-style Buddhism that was being preached all over by the clueless. What piqued my curiosity was that I kept encountering firm stances against this cafeteria Buddhism that used the Kalama Sutta as an excuse to pick and choose teachings, but I was not finding the folks who were endorsing a teaching that could conceivably dismantle the wheel of the the dharma. I began to suspect this was a straw man argument — or at the very least some kind of wild meme perpetuating itself across the information network known as the web.

I will confess that my first impression of this sutta was somewhat awry in that I found the ending to be supportive of the possibility that the Buddha was, himself, an agnostic. After suggesting some ways in which we can sort out the views of others (as quoted above), and methods to help one develop the required skills involving meditations that direct our thoughts outward with kindness, compassion, joy in others’ accomplishments, and equanimity, he suggests four possibilities based on two views of the day, the first being that karmic action, good or bad, may (or may not) affect our futures; the second being that only evil actions bear results:

“‘Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.’ This is the first solace found by him.

“‘Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.’ This is the second solace found by him.

“‘Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?’ This is the third solace found by him.

“‘Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.’ This is the fourth solace found by him.

So here the Buddha offers two possibilities for the two views: If true, then following his teaching will gain the needed results; if untrue, one will still have lived a good life (more detail on this argument in the next post). It seemed to me, when I read it as a result of reading Batchelor’s seminal book, that this did support the contention in “Buddhism Without Beliefs” that the Buddha was an agnostic, a view, in that it was not the Buddha telling the Kalamas How It IS — he was not preaching one particular view to them, but seemed to be saying, “It could be this way, it could be that way” — an agnostic’s “I actually don’t know which it is” stance.

I had accepted Batchelor’s statement that the Buddha was an agnostic after reading his book but, soon after, I’d questioned as a good skeptic should — just because an authority has told me the Buddha is an agnostic doesn’t mean he is (in fact, everything I’d heard went against that) which is what had set me on the path of reading suttas for myself in the first place: was he, or wasn’t he?

It’s funny that I can now see how easily reading the views of someone whose writing I enjoyed, and whose viewpoints I generally shared, had predisposed me to seeing this “could be this, or it could be that” argument in the Kalama Sutta as a possible demonstration of the Buddha’s agnosticism; this is, amusingly, a living example of observable cause and effect for the point made a few posts back (in the linked video about propaganda) that what I’ve just read affects how I perceive what I next read.

Because, a year or more later, having read many, many more suttas, looking for patterns in the way the Buddha presents material, and studying the history of his times, I had come to see that this is just another example of the Buddha teaching people starting from wherever they are in their understanding, using concepts they are familiar with, dealing with their particular concerns, and not actually preaching the deeper and more complex parts of his dhamma at all. He ever so gently suggests a few points they could start with — looking within, making good choices of who they listen to, fact-checking by observation, plus a few techniques to develop insight — and points out that whatever they believe (he knows enough about them to know that they aren’t immoral extremists) whether true or not, his dhamma has that covered. He’s not saying what he believes about karmic action or the effects of evil because it would unnecessarily confuse the focus on what he is trying to convey.

So when the next post in the lineup — which I started drafting a while back — made reference to the Kalama Sutta and found that I needed to say more about it than I could work into the text without overburdening it, I realized I needed to start further back, with what turned out to be two posts leading up to this one on the sutta’s use as a Straw Man. I went out on the net trying to find examples of anyone of authority, or even anyone with a fair understanding of Buddhism, who espoused this sutta as the Buddha’s endorsement of an individual’s right to pick and choose what they wanted from the teachings, and while I didn’t find a single example — I did find something worth looking at, so we will, in a moment — I was pleased to find this piece by Bhikkhu Bodhi standing both as an example of someone knocking down an argument for cafeteria Buddhism (a still-apocryphal argument which maybe does get made, but certainly not by anyone who actually understands Buddhism) but along the way I found that he also agrees with the conclusion I came to about why the Buddha uses the “maybe it’s this way, maybe it’s that way” argument:

. . . It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha’s disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the . . . Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who “have gained faith in the Tathagata” and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality.

This is couched within a discourse of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s in which he says that the Kalama Sutta:

has been described as “the Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry,” and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself — or to those to whom one is preaching?

I can only assume he is referring to some statement made quite a while ago (the ©1998-2010 doesn’t give me much clue as to when this piece was written) and that it must have created an uproar at the time which is still echoing through the ether years later, though it is only the outcry we still hear; I found no one actually espousing the argument; all that’s left is the straw man obscuring the ability of traditional Buddhists to understand what’s being said by the emerging Western Buddhists (because we aren’t arguing for cafeteria Buddhism, that’s for sure).

I was a little surprised to find Thanissaro Bhikkhu arguing the same point:

Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha’s carte blanche for following one’s own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One’s own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one’s feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one’s understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one’s beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. . . these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice.

Both Bhikkhu Bodhi’s and Thanissaro’s quotes come from accesstoinsight.org where there is a second translation, and a commentary on what the Kalama Sutta titled “The Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry” written by Soma, and it occurred to me that this might be where the Straw Man came from, but no, this is not a quotation out of context, it’s an introduction:

The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance.

The reasonableness of the Dhamma, the Buddha’s teaching, is chiefly evident in its welcoming careful examination at all stages of the path to enlightenment. . . .

Thus since all phenomena have to be correctly understood in the field of Dhamma, insight is operative throughout. In this sutta it is active in rejecting the bad and adopting the good way . . . Here it may be mentioned that the methods of examination in the Kalama Sutta . . . have sprung from the knowledge of things as they are and that the tenor of these methods are implied in all straight thinking. Further, as penetration and comprehension, the constituents of wisdom are the result of such thinking, the place of critical examination and analysis in the development of right vision is obvious. Where is the wisdom or vision that can descend, all of a sudden, untouched and uninfluenced by a critical thought?

The Kalama Sutta, which sets forth the principles that should be followed by a seeker of truth, and which contains a standard things are judged by, belongs to a framework of the Dhamma; the four solaces taught in the sutta point out the extent to which the Buddha permits suspense of judgment in matters beyond normal cognition. The solaces show that the reason for a virtuous life does not necessarily depend on belief in rebirth or retribution, but on mental well-being acquired through the overcoming of greed, hate, and delusion. . . .

followed by the entire sutta. The above does mention “Charter for Free Inquiry” and “critical examination” and “critical thought” and a statement about a virtuous life not necessarily depending on belief in rebirth or retribution — is it that this last seems to endorse the non-traditional, Western view? But it does not make any statement about the Buddha’s teaching on rebirth as necessary or unnecessary to the liberation he taught in his dhamma, it only says a virtuous life can be led whether or not we believe in rebirth or retribution, which is certainly true, and supported by the sutta.

At a guess, I can imagine that someone of note took Soma’s statements here and ran with them, and quoting the Kalama Sutta out of context made statements about this being “”carte blanche for following one’s own sense of right and wrong” which drew the responses from Bhikkhus Thanissaro and Bodhi. Perhaps someone who knows the history of this brouhaha can illuminate us with some references and information or at the least anecdotes, but until then, I would make one plea:

Since Western Buddhists aren’t endorsing “carte blanche for following one’s own sense of right and wrong” or “a freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes” can we stop banging on what’s left of the argument, stop beating this poor straw man which raises so much dust that obscures what’s really going on? When I engage in discussions with traditional Buddhists they are often unable to hear what I am saying because they take my words and bend them to the tune of “The Kalama Sutta as Carte Blanche” and that is not the song I am singing; that is not the song I can find any other serious Western Buddhists singing either.

* as opposed to the widely prevailing modern view that our morality has to come from some Higher Authority

Notes:

1. I did find one quote by Thomas McEvillery in his 2002 “The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies” that has the Kalama Sutta as an example of the Buddha offering “a combination of empirical investigation, pragmatic decision-making, and utilitarian hedonist values” but I don’t think that’s an accurate description at all, and while it mentions “empirical” and “pragmatic” it says nothing about picking and choosing from the dhamma.  It’s a great example of someone who hasn’t got a clue what Buddhism is about sounding authoratative though (“utilitarian hedonist values” indeed).

2. And another interesting view here:  “The Right To Ask Questions” by Larry Rosenberg