Talk:Kesamutti Sutta

[Untitled]
The deletion/revisions of the last paragraph raise an interesting issue about the notion of original research on Wikipedia. This is rightly discouraged even if it originates from expert editors. However, the question arises as to when a contribution is original research, and when it is an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge.

To take an extreme case, when (say) a celebrity who is married with one child gives birth to another child, an editor who amends the relevant entry to say the celebrity "has two children" could be challenged on the grounds of having contributed original research - to wit, that 1 + 1 = 2 - and must substantiate this claim (for the record, the proof that this is the case takes up an entire page of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica). This example is, I think we can agree, patently absurd, but serves to show that there is no clear dividing line between original research and obvious and uncontroversial extensions of extant knowledge.

In the specific case of the ref to Pascal's Wager in this entry, I would argue that the current (reinstated) final paragraph may well benefit from some expansion (in the form of direct quotes of the relevant passages), but that the connection with Pascal's Wager is not original research, but an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge (the arguments involved being identical to those dealt with by various contributors on the Pascal's Wager entry).

I am of course perfectly willing to take part in arbitration over this if this is still thought necessary. Pending that arbitration, I would however argue that the paragraph be left in place, on the grounds that the dispute is not over the accuracy of the statement, but over its status, and that even in its current form it provides useful information to those referring to this entry. Robma 11:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I don't really understand the proposed connection between the Kalama Sutta and Pascal's Wager. The Kalama Sutta, as I understand it, argues that practicing Buddhism is beneficial whether or not there is an afterlife. It's true that practicing Buddhism usually entails a belief in karma and rebirth, but this seems incidental to the point that is being argued, which seems to be the beneficial results of virtuous behaviour. On the other hand, Pascal's wager is about the utility in the afterlife of deciding to believe in Christiantiy&mdash;or at least to consider it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo Robma and Nat. This is an interesting discussion. But it seems to me that the section on Pascal's Wager misunderstands/ misinterprets the relevant section of the Kalama Sutta. I think that on a superficial reading, there seems to be some similarity between Pascal's Wager and the Kalama Sutta. But when one looks more carefully, the differences are more significant than any perceived similarity. Firstly, it is factually inaccurate to state (as the section on Pascal's Wager does) that the Buddha explicitly "argues that there are direct and immediate benefits - the "Four Solaces" - to be gained from acting as if the difficult concepts of rebirth and kamma are valid, regardless of whether they are valid claims".  The sutta is not concerned with any inner struggle over whether "the difficult concepts of rebirth and kamma are valid". That is not a particular issue of contention here. Nor is the sutta advocating an "as if" or "gamble" approach to life at all. This is nowhere stated or intimated in the sutta. Rather, the Buddha speaks of the practical effects on the mind by practising the Four Immeasurables (boundless loving-kindness, compassion, shared joy, viewing all beings impartially) and that this meditative practice has definite benefits/ is productive of well-being in the here and now (it brings freedom from enmity, from oppression, creates inner wellbeing and purity). It could also have benefits in a life beyond this present one. This is not a wager. There is no suggestion of potential loss here. It is simply recommending a particular state of mind (that of universal loving-kindness, etc.), the cultivation of a meditative practice because it is efficacious in the here-and-now and could extend its benefits beyond the present incarnation. There is no talk here of belief in "God" (as in Pascal) or in eternal life (again, as in Pascal) or eternal damnation. The whole mood and intellectual/ spiritual framework and context are different. So I agree with Nat on this one. I personally, however, would keep the Pascal Wager section in the article (as there is a superficial resemblance to one element of Pascal's Wager), but would modify it, so that it no longer says (wrongly) that the Buddha is advocating acting "as if" the doctrines of kamma and rebirth were true. That is not what this sutta - or even this small section of it - is concerned with at all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and just would note that in historical context the doctrine of karma would have been uncontroversial and not in need of "as if" bracketing. Maxwell Face (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Too conversational near the end?
Everything in this article in the heading 'Sources of wisdom to avoid' and below there seems a bit too conversational in tone. The list there seems to just restate the previous list in a less formal fashion (unless I'm missing something?) And the clarification about misrepresentations and so on seems a bit too conversational in general, like it's talking to the reader -- are there specific quotes to that effect that we could quote instead, or something along those lines? --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to be just someone's personal opinion. Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't what is meant by "conversational" in this context but the end falls within the four corners of the Nikayas. Let me gratuitously add, that we should not forget that the Buddha always made a sharp distinction between who is puthujjana and who is ariyan (yes, he was an elitist). The puthujjana, who is also an assutavant, by the way, is one who has not heard the dhamma. He is deficient in it, in other words. More importantly, the puthujjana lacks the ability to discern who is an ariyan (a Buddha, Paccekabuddha, savaka). The Kalamas - and here is the kicker - fall into the puthujjana category as do most Buddhists and non-Buddhists, who wouldn't recognize an ariyan if their life depended on it. In this light, the Buddha was being philanthropic to the Kalamas knowing they were not ariyans - and probably would never enter the stream. A post script, if you get a chance read Peter Masefield's book, Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. He covers the puthujjana v. ariya in great detail. Songhill (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed controversal paragraph. Roxie Yasoxiez (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quoting of the Kalama sutta as straw man argument
There are plenty of instances where authorities say the Kalama sutta is being used inappropriately to allow followers to "accept or reject whatever" they like or to make the Buddha out to be a "pragmatic empiricist" as in the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote at the end, but I have yet to find where anyone of authority actually uses the Kalama sutta in this way; it seems to be a virulent straw man argument. References to this issue should be removed if there is no evidence of statements in which the Kalama sutta is taken to be a "freethinker's kit to truth" or at the very least, the nature of the statements as straw man arguments should be made plain.

Nowheat (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The Kalama Sutta is always used by outsiders from the West to claim that The Buddha discourages people from going by his teachings and instead encourages people to make up their own form of Buddhism, when in reality the Kalama Sutta suggests no such thing --96.255.71.164 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of the above contributions are valid. The notion that Kalama sutta promotes free enquiry is not a widely held view of Theravada and Mahayana as intro says but the view of one monk, Soma Thera. The Buddha was indeed opposed to bigotry and fanaticism but rather than being a 'charter of free enquiry' the sutta promotes personal wisdom and common sense. As the above contributor correctly states this idea that the Buddha promoted 'free enquiry' has led many Westerners to believe that Buddhism is whatever you interpret it to mean and that being a Buddhist is also a question of personal interpretation. In other words Buddhism is a form of moral and epistemological relativism. How far from the truth! How remote from the Buddha's own teachings. One should not extrapolate from this sutta ideas that the Buddha is not actually promoting. He is dealing with the specific question of how should one decide whether a religious teaching and the prescriptions of a religious teaching are valid and useful. How is one to know what is true or not? The answer is in essence 'You will know yourselves by using your own common sense and personal experience'. Don't buy into something on the basis of authority or specious reasoning. Use your own nous (Sanskrit: Buddhi). 81.107.150.246 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To clear up some confusion and misunderstanding, I suggest everyone to read on the definition of inquiry because it is exactly what the Kalama Sutta is about by proposing and supporting the use of sound reasoning methods to question and to analyze what we might consider as truth in the goal to avoid blind faith, dogmatism and foolish belief from specious reasoning.


 * The Buddha even listed criteria by which any sensible person can proceed to examine with the goal of reaching to a practical and reasonable conclusion that would minimize the risk of resulting with a fallacious conclusion.


 * Further more, the Kalama Sutta is basically an exchange of talks between the Buddha and the Kalamas where both parties are holding different points of view about different subjects, who wish to establish the truth of the matter trough dialogues, with reasoned arguments. This process is also known as the dialectic principle.


 * Having done proper research and understood clearly the Kalama Sutta, one can only agree that referring it to the "Charter of free inquiry" can not be less accurate.


 * Now, the previous contributor(81.107.150.246) seems to be jumping to conclusion in a hasty manner without having verified properly the source he is criticizing. Saying that "The notion that Kalama sutta promotes free enquiry is not a widely held view of Theravada and Mahayana as intro says but the view of one monk, Soma Thera." is completely erroneous. As specified, Soma Thera is simply the translator Of Buddha's dialogue with the Kalama.


 * Also, the mentioned misinterpretation by Westerners is not a valid reason to disqualify at all the term "Charter of free inquiry". This is exactly a straw man argument as well as an argumentum ad logicam fallacy. It is  not because some group of individual misinterpret a term due to them being ill-informed that we should  by consequence conclude the term being wrong.


 * Finally, saying that the Buddha encourage the use of common sense is misleading. If the previous contributor(81.107.150.246) had read a bit more research or at least read the wikipedia article that he is editing, he will see that common sense is exactly what the Buddha is warning the Kalamas from and to examine it with cautiousness. The main reason people fall into fallacious reasoning is exactly because they believe it to be obvious and of common sense with out having ever consider or gone trough the need of ever doing any critical analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.21.134.14 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I believe the problem here has been mainly misidentified, except where reference is made to a straw man. Firstly, the quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi is summarized as arguing that the Kalama Sutta is misinterpreted as endorsing radical skepticism and ego-centrism. However, this is not what the quote goes on to say. The quote states, in so many words, that the Sutta is misinterpreted as endorsing evidenced based criteria for determining truth and placing this truth estimating responsibility in each case on the individual. So the first problem is that the summary doesn't match the quote. The second problem is that Bhikku Bodhi's assertion is highly questionable. It is a fair interpretation of the Sutta, even in context, that the Buddha is in fact endorsing evidence based criteria for determining truth, or at least usefulness of his and anyone else's ideas, and placing this responsibility with the individual. To argue that the Sutta is misinterpreted as stating what it quite clearly states is surely at the root of the confusion here.Thaliomiles (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Poisoned well
The article reads like an essay by some individual with enough expertise to have developed their own unique perspective, and not enough expertise to have published it somewhere other than wikipedia first. The treatment did not seem encyclopedic. In particular, the lead in no way conveys the significance of the topic in the context of Buddhism. It makes out that this is the central pillar, referring to it like a charter or constitution, rather than placing it as one Sutta among thousands. Half of the sources probably support this interpretation, but the other half (possibly the more authoritive looking half) strongly take pains to emphasise that such an interpretation is flawed, which casts doubt on the neutrality of this article, since their view is downplayed here (and the former viewpoint is treated like a consensus - which it may be among important communities, but if so that should still be explicitly discussed to identify who takes which view). There were two many "Venerable"s, again putting the author's independence into question. Too much blatant original "extensions from existing knowledge". And too many long quotes directly from scripture (or worse, duplicated original re-expressions of long quotes from scripture) instead of communicating the interpretations expressed by reliable tertiary sources. These problems make everything else in the article suspect too. It is also strongly disturbing that on the talk pages, editors are arguing for the acknowledgments of dissenting experts to be removed on the basis that those editors feel qualified to refute those sources themselves. (And apparently seek to promote their view of truth, even in the absence of any verifiable sources that support their attempted refutation, and certainly without any interest in presenting an unbiased and duly-weighted survey of the range of different views that are published concerning the topic.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the ten points not to be relied upon
The ten points not to be solely relied upon have been translated in many different ways by different authors. I think that the article should reflect the different varieties, such that the reader can get a grasp of that. The main problem is that this would clutter the paragraph, so maybe the best solution is to suggest one translation first and then later add a paragraph listing alternative translations. Kathedra87 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kalama Sutta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510233435/http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/message/kalama1.htm to http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/message/kalama1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)