Following our discussion of the inferentially connected nature of word-based knowledge from latter-day epistemology and the Buddhist perspective in the previous two posts, we now discuss the Kālāma Sutta. The Kālāma Sutta matters because the Buddha offers his view on the usefulness of word-based knowledge in the search for an unchanging Truth.
Kālāma Sutta (Chinese: 卡拉瑪經), also known as Kesamutti Sūtra, “is a discourse of the Buddha contained in the Aṅguttara Nikaya (Chinese: 增一阿含經) of the Tripiṭaka (Chinese: 三藏經).”
On the day the Buddha passed the village of Kesaputta, its inhabitants, a clan called the Kalamans, greeted him. While the Kalamans were very happy to see Buddha, they were also eager to ask him for advice on a dilemma they faced when other gurus visited. They asked Buddha, “Many wandering holy men and ascetics pass through, expounding their teachings and criticizing the teachings of others. So whose teachings should we follow?”
In other words, the Kalamans wanted to know how to judge the holy men and ascetics who came to preach to them. They wanted to know whose teachings to believe. Their dilemma was that the gurus’ teachings varied, and they also criticized each other. By asking the Buddha whose teachings they should follow, the Kalamans sought advice on how to identify gurus whose teachings remained unchanged, so that they could have faith in them.
As discussed in Post 3, Cittai s is a quiescent mentality. Since it is quiescent, its “realness” never changes. Therefore, Buddha calls it the Ultimate Reality. In Buddhism, a reality can only be the Ultimate if its “realness” is permanent. Therefore, if the Kalamans were looking for a guru whose teachings never change, they would have to look for someone who must have understood what the Ultimate Reality is. If not, their teachings could not be unchanging.
With his criterion established, Buddha gave the Kalamans the following ten instructions for evaluating the holy men and ascetics who came to preach to them.
These ten instructions are (Pali expression in parentheses):
1) Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava);
2) nor upon tradition (paramparā);
3) nor upon rumor (itikirā);
4) nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna);
5) nor upon surmise (takka-hetu);
6) nor upon axioms (naya-hetu);
7) nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka);
8) nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā);
9) nor upon another’s seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya);
10) nor upon consideration, “The monk is our teacher” (“samaṇo no garū).
By asking the Kalamans to “do not go upon” these sources, Buddha made it very clear to the Kalamas that they should not rely on those gurus or ascetics whose knowledge “has been acquired by repeated hearing,” came from “tradition,” “rumor,” “scripture,” “surmise,” “axiom,” “specious reasoning,” “bias,” “seeming ability,” or “teacher.”
A careful examination of the list reveals that all ten items are methods of receiving information from “others” through word-based knowledge, whether verbal or written. The point Buddha wanted to make was obvious: he wanted to impress on the Kalamans that if they wanted to learn the unchanging Truth, learning from someone whose knowledge came from others’ word-based knowledge would not lead them to it. If they wanted to know the unchanging Ultimate Reality, they could either learn it directly by realizing it personally or indirectly from someone who had realized it personally. If they wanted to rely on others to teach them, the teacher must have personally realized what they taught, but never someone who had not personally realized it.
In fact, Buddha spoke from his own experience. As discussed in Post 4 on Shakyamuni Buddha, the two gurus he studied under before his enlightenment, Alara Kālāma and Udraka Ramaputra, taught the Buddha what they had never personally realized.
After studying under his first guru, Alara Kālāma, for a while, Buddha realized that, like the other students, he had only recited the yogi’s doctrine while claiming to understand his teachings. According to author Pankaj Mishra of An End to Suffering, “he began to think that ‘Kālāma only has faith in his teaching and does not proclaim, “I myself know, realize, and take upon myself this teaching, abiding in it.'”
The future Buddha decided to confront Kālāma: “How far have you yourself realized this teaching by direct knowledge?” In response, Kālāma taught him about the Sphere of Nothingness. Soon after practicing, Buddha realized the Sphere of Nothingness and could abide in it. Impressed, Kālāma invited Buddha to join the hermitage as a co-teacher. However, Buddha was not yet satisfied and turned down the offer because the Sphere of Nothingness “does not lead to revulsion, dispassion, cessation, calm, knowledge, awakening, and Nibbana.”
Next, the future Buddha went to another guru called Udraka Ramaputra. This time, the guru told him about the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. Again, the Buddha quickly grasped the teachings and abided by them. Once again, Udraka Ramaputra offered him a leadership position in his hermitage, which his student also declined. He left the second guru for the same reason.
According to author Pankaj Mishra, Buddha felt that the meditation these gurus taught, “no matter how deep,” was “temporary, comfortable abiding, in the here and now.” However, “one emerges from them, even after a long session, essentially unchanged.” These states were “without a corresponding moral and intellectual development; they, by themselves, did not end suffering.”
The experience with the gurus also makes Buddha realize “that mere faith in what the guru says isn’t enough and that you have to realize and verify it through your own experience.”
Ultimately, this was the message Buddha wanted to impress on the Kalamas: to know the unchanging Citta, the Ultimate Reality, “you have to realize and verify it through your own experience.”
It is essential to know that, among the ten things the Kalamans should not rely on, “teacher” is one of them. That, of course, includes the Buddha, who is a teacher.
Of course, the Buddha adhered to his beliefs. He did not start teaching until he became a Tathagata. As discussed in Post 5, a Tathagata is a highest-enlightened Buddha who has encompassed “all objects of knowledge” nature has to offer and, therefore, has understood “things as they are.” Only then could he be sure that his teachings would be consistent because knowledge about nature never changes.
However, understanding “things as they are” is not what word-based knowledge can achieve. Indeed, as the Buddha teaches, to understand “things as they are” requires “verifying it through your own experience” by becoming part of it through meditation, as discussed in Post 5.
Therefore, the Buddha taught his followers that when they had learned enough and were ready to pursue knowledge of “things as they are,” they should relinquish the word-based knowledge they had acquired from him so they could complete their remaining journeys by experiencing them personally.
The Diamond Sutra delivered this message through the Parable of the Raft.
Diamond Sutra (Chinese: 金剛般若波羅蜜多經/金剛經) is “a Mahāyāna (Buddhist) sutra from the genre of Prajñāpāramitā (perfection of wisdom) sutras. Translated into a variety of languages over a broad geographic range, the Diamond Sūtra is one of the most influential Mahāyāna sutras in East Asia, and it is particularly prominent within the Chan (or Zen) tradition, along with the Heart Sutra.”
In the Diamond Sutra, Buddha instructs the bhiksu (Sanskrit, commonly translated into English as a Buddhist monk, Chinese: 比丘) as follows:
“You bhiksus should understand my teachings as the Parable of the Raft: even Buddha Dharma must be relinquished, let alone the non-Buddha dharmas (Chinese: 如等比丘, 知我說法, 如筏諭者, 法尚應捨, 何況非法).”
The raft parable involves a person using a raft to cross a river. Once he and the raft reached the other side, he wondered whether he should continue on land with or without the raft. Buddha suggested that he should continue without the raft.
The raft is a metaphor for Buddhist teachings. Just as the rafters who had finished crossing the river needed to change course on land, the Buddha wanted his followers to know that when they had learned enough from his word-based doctrines (Buddha Dharma), they must change course by letting go of them. Only after relinquishing what they had learned from the Buddha could they be free to embark on their own journeys to experience what they had yet to understand personally.
Again, this is what the Buddha did. By the time he sat down at the Bodhi Tree to meditate, he had relinquished everything he had ever had: his princely life, lessons from the gurus, and the harsh Jainistic asceticism. By letting go of his attachments to worldly possessions, Buddha’s journey to enlightenment became easier.
That was also why, as discussed in the Post, In Memory and Honor of a Kalyanamitra, during their first encounter, Master Zhang Jia (Chinese: 章嘉大師) told Master Jing Kong that “seeing through, letting go (Chinese: 看破，放下)” is the principle behind all Buddhist cultivation. To learn “things as they are,” it is better to relinquish all personal attachments and maintain a hate-free, malice-free, undefiled, and purified mind to make enlightenment easier.
Without question, Buddhism is the only education where a teacher asks his students to relinquish his teachings before graduating.
(If you like this post, please subscribe, like it on our Facebook page, and share. Thank you.)
