These days, however, there is an increasing number of those who have taken a liking to Buddhism because of this promising spirit of free inquiry embodied in the message of the Sutta, but who at the same time believe, in part due to the far-reaching influence of the ideals of Secular Humanism on our modern society, and in part based on their personal understanding of the message of the Sutta, that one should be totally free and unrestricted in one's approach to the practise of the Dhamma. This belief includes the idea that in practising the Dhamma one should not be restricted by any structure or system at all, not even that of the Dhamma (which the Buddha himself established), and one should be totally free to mould and reshape the Dhamma in ways that one sees fit in order to make its practise more appealing, congenial and relevant for oneself as well as to modern conditions and needs. Some even believe that one should be free to adopt and incorporate without any restriction, ideas and methods outside the Buddha's teaching into the practise of the Dhamma if one finds it desirable.
There are even those who go so far as to believe that one can totally do away with faith in the Dhamma, that one should begin the practise on the basis of scepticism, doubt and question everything until one arrives at the truth; Or one should base one's practise solely on one's personal experience, or even, one's rational reflection, and understanding (read ideas and opinions). Some even propose to do away with fundamental teaching of the Dhamma such as rebirth which cannot be perceive directly in one's daily experience.
But did the Buddha really mean his message to the Kālāmas to be taken in this light? Or how did he mean it to be taken? Let us examine this Sutta to see if we can shed some light on this question.
Context of the Sutta
Firstly, as in the study of any suttas, we need to understand the context of the Sutta. And the context as given in the Sutta itself and its Commentary is that the Kālāmas' town of Kesamutta was a point of sojourn for many travellers, including many wandering religious and philosophical teachers. These teachers, when they arrived in Kesamutta would preach their own ideas and teaching and at the same time put down the ideas and teaching of others. The Kālāmas were perplexed by their contradictory statements and were in doubt as to who were speaking the truth and who falsehood. In particular they could not make up their mind regarding the questions of whether good and evil deeds bear results (have consequences) or not, and also if there is an afterlife.
So when they heard that the Buddha has arrived in their town they decided to approach him, based on his reputation as an enlightened teacher, to clear their doubts. And as Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi has noted, when the Kālāmas approached the Buddha they were not yet his disciples who have faith in him as a teacher capable of showing and guiding them on the path to liberation from suffering. In other words they have not yet gone to him for refuge. They only accepted him as their teacher and refuge at the conclusion of the Sutta.
So when we think of the Kālāmas who approached the Buddha at the beginning of the Sutta we have to keep in mind a group of people who were frustrated due to their confusion and doubts arising out of all the contradictory ideas and teachings they have heard from various teachers. Therefore although they approached the Buddha based on his good reputation, it is likely that they, or at least some of them, were not very keen to show their faith easily in yet another spiritual teacher, not even if he is an enlightened Buddha. And so we find that when they approached the Buddha some of them, instead of showing the Buddha the proper deference and courtesy befitting a respectable spiritual teacher, simply remained silent and sat to one side.
Healthy Doubt Vs Vacillating-Doubt
The first thing that the Buddha told the Kālāmas was that it was right for them to be perplexed and doubtful when a matter that arouses perplexity has arisen. Given the frustration of the Kālāmas this opening statement of the Buddha is well placed and understandable. But the Buddha did not mean this as merely a consolation for the Kālāmas in order to put them at ease. More than that it also serves as an encouragement to ask questions and seek knowledge when in doubt. For within the Buddha's teaching itself there is room for healthy doubting which serves as a catalyst for the search after knowledge and truth.
This kind of doubt should be differentiated from the vacillating-doubt (vicikicchā) that constitutes a hindrance to the practise of meditation. Vacillating-doubt is an unwholesome state of mind closely allied with delusion (moha), the combination of both which gives rise to a confused and debilitating mental vacillation that leads to mental paralysis. The mind that is plague by vacillating-doubt keeps oscillating and wavering between conflicting ideas, going back and forth until it becomes totally consumed by indecision and paralysed by irresolution. Overcome by dilemma it is unsure of how to proceed. The mind becomes weak and confused. Vacillating-doubt is therefore described as a hindrance to the process of meditation.
Healthy doubt on the other hand is not accompanied by any delusion, confusion, or vacillation. One still maintains about oneself a degree of clarity and sensibility which causes one to approach wise people and ask them sensible question in order to arrive at a satisfactory answer. Healthy doubt is accompanied by a strong curiosity and desire to seek knowledge and understanding that can clear away the perplexity. Therefore it is one of the factors that promote wisdom and understanding and is actually encouraged among the Buddha's disciples.
The Buddha's Advice on Dealing with Doubtful Teaching
Having consoled and encouraged the Kālāmas the Buddha then taught them the ten ways which one should not use as a basis for accepting a particular teaching and also proposed a better way to accept or reject a particular teaching. The following is an abridged version of what the Buddha said:
“Come, Kālāmas, do not go (1) by what is repeatedly heard, or (2) by what is handed down through one’s lineage, or (3) by hearsay, or (4) by scriptural texts, or (5) by logical thinking, or (6) by inferential reasoning, or (7) by what appears to be reasonable, or (8) by what agrees with one’s view after reflection, or (9) by the seeming competence of the speaker, or (10) by the consideration ‘this ascetic is our teacher.’
"But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; these things if undertaken and practised lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them.
“What do you think, Kālāmas? When greed, hatred, and delusion arise in a person, is it for his welfare or harm?” – “For his harm, venerable sir.” – “Kālāmas, a person who is greedy, hating, and deluded, overpowered by greed, hatred, and delusion, his thoughts controlled by them, will destroy life, take what is not given, go to another man’s wife, and tell lies; he will also prompt others to do likewise. Will that conduce to his harm and suffering for a long time?” – “Yes, venerable sir.”
“What do you think, Kālāmas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome? – “Unwholesome, venerable sir.” – “Blamable or blameless?” – “Blamable, venerable sir.” – “Censured or praised by the wise?” – “Censured, venerable sir.” – “Undertaken and practised, do they lead to harm and suffering or not, or how is it in this case?” – “Undertaken and practised, these things lead to harm and suffering. So it appears to us in this case.”
“It was for this reason, Kālāmas, that we said: Do not go by what is repeatedly heard…
"But when you know for yourselves: 'These things are wholesome; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; these things if undertaken and practised lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should engage in them.
“What do you think, Kālāmas? When non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion arise in a person, is it for his welfare or harm?” – “For his welfare, venerable sir.” – “Kālāmas, a person who is without, greed, without hatred, without delusion, not overpowered by greed, hatred, and delusion, his thoughts not controlled by them, will abstain from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from going to another man’s wife, and from false speech; he will also prompt others to do likewise. Will that conduce to his welfare and happiness for a long time?” – “Yes, venerable sir.”
“What do you think, Kālāmas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome?” – “Wholesome, venerable sir.” – “Blamable or blameless?” – “Blameless, venerable sir.” – “Censured or praised by the wise?” – “Praised, venerable sir.” – “Undertaken and practised, do they lead to welfare and happiness or not, or how is it in this case?” – “Undertaken and practised, these things lead to welfare and happiness. So it appears to us in this case.”
“It was for this reason, Kālāmas, that we said: Do not go by what is repeatedly heard…”
This here is the "Charter of Free Inquiry," the part of the Kālāma Sutta most often quoted. Is the Buddha here teaching a totally free and unrestricted approach in the pursuit of spiritual matters? Is he saying that one can completely do away with faith and doubt everything? Or use one's own personal experience or intellectual reflection and understanding as the sole basis for any consideration of spiritual matters?
Let us examine and ponder over this passage further. And in doing so let us examine and consider it from the perspective of a practising Buddhist, i.e. one who has already taken refuge in the Buddha and is interested in and committed to the practise of Dhamma. This of course is not the context of the Kālāma Sutta. In the Sutta the Kālāmas were not yet Buddhists and did not approached the Buddha as his disciples who are interested in the Dhamma and committed to its practise. So they did not approach the Buddha to question him about his teaching or its practise. They were more interested in their own predicament concerning the various contradictory teaching they have heard. So in his reply to the Kālāmas above the Buddha was not giving them specific guidance on the Dhamma and its practise but just some general advice concerning their problem pertaining to spiritual matters. But let us examine how this advice is relevant to one who has gone to the Buddha for refuge, one who is committed to the practise of the Dhamma. And to do this we have to consider the advice against the backdrop of the Dhamma, its system, and its practise.
Balancing Faith and Wisdom
If we look at the ten ways on which one should not base one's acceptance of a teaching we can roughly divide them into two groups. Under (a) the first group we have those ways of non-acceptance that are meant to prevent acceptance based on indiscriminate belief and under (b) the second group we have those meant to prevent acceptance based on faulty intellect.
In the first group we can include the following modes of non-acceptance:
(1) by what is repeatedly heard
(2) by what is handed down through one's lineage
(3) by hearsay
(4) by scriptural texts
(10) by the consideration 'this ascetic is our teacher'
And in the second group we can include non-acceptance:
(5) by logical thinking
(6) by inferential reasoning
(7) by what appears to be reasonable
(8) by what agrees with one's view after reflection
Non-acceptance (9) by the seeming competence of the speaker can fall into either group. It falls into the second group when the seeming competence of the speaker appears through considering his argument based on faulty application of logical thinking, inferential reasoning, etc.
When acceptance of a teaching or idea is based on indiscriminate belief, faith is on the excessive side whereby a person becomes gullible and believes too easily even when there is no convincing reason to do so. Faith becomes irrational, blind, possibly dogmatic, and very often, also excessively emotional. In this case faith is not balance.
On the other hand when acceptance of a teaching or idea is based on faulty intellect, wisdom in the form of the intellect faculty is on the excessive side. When the intellect is excessively exercised it is possible that one can become so engrossed with logical gymnastics that one turns something simple into something overly complicated to the extent that one actually missed the essential points and what is most obvious about the matter under consideration. When things are made overly complicated one might also arrive at a wrong conclusion based on overly complicated and often rigid inferential reasoning. What is reasonable may then appear unreasonable and what is actually unreasonable might appear reasonable. Also, those who are intellectually inclined usually hold some preconceived views and opinions unwittingly, views and opinions which are not easily given up but are held on to even in the face of evidence to the contrary. And if a particular teaching or idea even remotely appears to support these cherished views and opinions one would be tempted to immediately jump on it as proof that one is correct all the while. In all these cases wisdom in the form of the intellect faculty is not balance.
The first group of methods of non-acceptance helps to prevent and counter blind, naive, indiscriminate, dogmatic, and emotional belief. The second group, however, helps to prevent and rein in speculative and sceptical tendencies which result from excessive, rigid, and faulty intellectual exercise. Together they help to maintain a balance between faith and wisdom so that neither one is in excess of the other. This helps to keep one on the right track in the practise of the Dhamma. For when either faith or wisdom is excessive one is easily thrown off course, often missing entirely the point of the whole purpose of Dhamma practise and forgetting the direction that it is supposed to head towards, i.e. the realisation of complete liberation from suffering.
But when the Kālāma Sutta is mentioned or quoted, Buddhists usually think of only the methods in the first group, forgetting or even missing the message of the second group. In fact there exist an often quoted translation (or, rather, paraphrase) of the Sutta which totally leaves out the methods of the second group. And so the Sutta is called a charter of free inquiry to show that the Buddha promoted a spirit of free inquisitiveness in his approach to Dhamma and did not insists on blind dogmatic belief among his followers. While this is true we must also not forget the methods the Buddha mentioned in the second group. For while the Buddha did not insists on blind and dogmatic belief in the Dhamma he also did not encourage a totally free and unrestricted approach to the Dhamma, one in which we can practise the Dhamma as we like, according to our own intellectual ideas and fancies, or one where we can do away with faith and freely doubt and speculate based on our personal reflection and understanding, limited as they are.
Practise of Dhamma is Based on Right View as Taught by the Buddha
The Noble Eightfold Path, the path of practise for all practising Buddhists, begins with the first path-factor of right view. The practise of the Noble Eightfold Path is rooted in and established on right view. For without right view the entire path goes wrong while with right view the entire path is right and can lead rightly to the complete liberation from all suffering:
“Bhikkhus, owing to wrongness there is failure, not success. And how, bhikkhus is it that owing to wrongness there is failure and not success? For one who has wrong view, wrong thought occurs. For one with wrong thought, wrong speech occurs. For one with wrong speech, wrong action occurs. For one with wrong action, wrong livelihood occurs. For one with wrong livelihood, wrong effort occurs. For one with wrong effort, wrong mindfulness occurs. For one with wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration occurs. For one with wrong concentration, wrong knowledge occurs. For one with wrong knowledge, wrong liberation occurs. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that owing to wrongness there is failure and not success.
“Bhikkhus, owing to rightness there is success, not failure. And how, bhikkhus is it that owing to rightness there is success and not failure? For one who has right view, right thought occurs. For one with right thought, right speech occurs. For one with right speech, right action occurs. For one with right action, right livelihood occurs. For one with right livelihood, right effort occurs. For one with right effort, right mindfulness occurs. For one with right mindfulness, right concentration occurs. For one with right concentration, right knowledge occurs. For one with right knowledge, right liberation occurs. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that owing to rightness there is success and not failure.”
~ Aṅguttara-Nikāya, Book of the Tens, Sutta 103
Right view means view that accords with reality. It is view that does not contradict but conforms to the true nature of things as they really are, with the natural order of things. When one has acquired right view one understands things correctly as they actually are, according to natural truths, and is therefore able to live one's life in harmony with nature. Living thus one is able to avoid suffering and increase happiness in one's life. And by developing very profound penetrative understanding of natural truths one can even free oneself completely from all existential suffering.
It is right view that the Buddha acquired on the night of his enlightenment when he opened up his mind with penetrative mindfulness and investigated, as they really are, with keen and profound insight, the nature of the mental and physical phenomena arising in his sense experiences of the world. It is this right view, this profound understanding and enlightened vision of the nature of things as they really are that allowed him to realise the complete cessation of all existential suffering. And it is this same right view that the Buddha later put into an instructional structure and taught as the Dhamma.
And for practising Buddhists, those who have taken refuge in the Buddha as their teacher and the Dhamma as their guiding principle, right view is initially acquired by relying on the Dhamma that the Buddha taught. This is the meaning of going for refuge (saraṇagamanaṃ): to rely on the Buddha and Dhamma, the refuges, the reliable place of safety. Before one can begin the practise of Dhamma effectively one need to establish oneself in some basic right views as taught by the Buddha. It is these basic right views that chart the direction for the practice clearly and that guide the practise along, ensuring that one always move rightly and firmly in the correct direction that leads to the complete cessation of all suffering.
An Approach to Practise in Accordance with the Dhamma
The fact that the practise of the Dhamma is based upon right view as taught by the Buddha, its direction determined by it, and one's progress along the path is guided by it, already introduce some constraint to the practise of the Dhamma. This shows that the Buddha did not meant his disciples to approach the practise of Dhamma in a way that is totally free and unrestricted. Instead they are to be guided by the Dhamma that he taught. It is true that the disciples need not believe blindly the Dhamma that the Buddha taught. They are free, and are indeed encouraged, to exercise their wisdom to question and inquire into the meaning of the Dhamma that is taught in order clarify any doubts they may have. In fact, not just to question and inquire, but also in studying and reflecting on the Dhamma one would require a good degree of wisdom in order to grasp and appreciate the profound meaning of the Dhamma.
But they are also cautioned to balance the exercise of wisdom with a suitable degree of faith. For in the Dhamma there are many things described that are usually still beyond the sphere of the intellectual grasp of the majority of people. These are description of profound experiences that comes from deep practise. It would not be wise to reject these out of hand just because one fails to comprehend them with one's intellect, just as a blind man should not insist that light does not exist just because he is unable to see light. Therefore wisdom needs to be tempered with faith.
By studying, questioning, and reflecting on the Dhamma the disciples increase their theoretical knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the Dhamma and with this they develop a degree of initial "reasoned" faith and confidence in the Buddha as the teacher who is fully enlightened and the Dhamma as his teaching that is capable of leading one who practise it towards the realisation of the complete cessation of suffering. With this initial faith and confidence in the Buddha and the Dhamma comes the interest to begin practising the Dhamma.
But once they have acquired this initial confidence and faith and decide to put the Dhamma into practise, they are to follow the precise instruction according to the system of Dhamma practice that the Buddha taught. Successful practise of the Dhamma depends on following faithfully the instructions according to the system that the Buddha taught and not practising as one like. This again is the meaning of going for refuge, i.e. relying on the Buddha and Dhamma for instruction on how to liberate ourselves from suffering. So for example, if the Buddha said that one must make ardent energetic effort (ātāpī) in the practise, a disciple should not turn around and say that making effort in the practise is counter-productive because it leads to physical and mental stress and justify this further by arguing that one must be totally comfortable in order to practise since comfort is one of cause for the arising of concentration. This is not going for refuge. This is running away from the refuge. One is not having enough faith to rely on the guidance of the refuges and carry through the necessary instruction.
If one finds oneself getting stressed up making effort it means that something is wrong with the way one is practising. The Buddha will not instruct us to do something that will lead to more suffering. So one should go and discuss one's practise with a competent teacher. For if one really understands how to bring up right effort in the practise there should be no stress in the practise. The kind of energy brought up in the practise, called right effort, is a kind of peaceful energy because it is accompanied by concentration that tranquillises it and brings balance to it. It is a powerful energy, a forceful drive that continuously pushes the mind forward in the practise, but is at the same time tranquil. Such a kind of energy cannot cause stress. Stress usually arises in the practise because one does not know the method of making effort properly to bring up concentration through mindfulness. So one need to go and discuss one's practise with a competent teacher who is able to guide one to bring up right effort in the practise.
The Buddha is like a guide who has completed the journey and knows the Way to the complete cessation of suffering. For one who has not yet completed the journey or has not even begun the journey, even though he had heard the theoretical description of the Path that is to be taken on the journey from the Buddha and can appreciate it with his intellectual power, he still has not got a complete experience of walking the Path all the way to its final destination and so still do not know the Path entirely and inside out. He is still liable to make mistakes along the way. There are many pitfalls along the Path that even veteran Dhamma practitioners can fall into, many byroads that look like the Path but are actually digressions that lead one astray from the true goal of the Path. Therefore he still needs guidance.
And so having heard the description of the Path by the Buddha, questioning and inquiring into it, and gaining some confidence in the Buddha as a teacher who is able to guide him on the Path, he should from then on trust the Buddha enough and follow his Dhamma instruction faithfully and diligently. At this point of course, with just this initial "reasoned" confidence he has in the Buddha and Dhamma, he still cannot know for sure if the Path that the Buddha pointed out is correct. He cannot even tell for sure if the destination that the Path is supposed to lead towards really exist. And there are many other things about the teaching of the Buddha which he does not yet have the ability to verify for himself (e.g. rebirth), which at this stage would appear to him to be counter-intuitive. Therefore he may still be inclined to disbelief. But he will not really be able to be sure of anything unless he had first try out to some extent for himself the Path that the Buddha described. And so, as one teacher puts it, he needs a "temporary suspension of disbelief." Instead of counter-productively doubting away, which at this stage will get him nowhere, it is more beneficial and useful that he suspend any tendency to disbelief and temporarily place his trust in the Buddha and the Dhamma, do the practise, give it a fair try, and walk the Path.
The initial faith and confidence he has in the Buddha and Dhamma will grow stronger and clearer with diligent and faithful practise. As his practise develops and progresses and he inches closer and closer to the goal of the Path he will be able to see clearly and verify through his personal knowledge (paccakkhañāṇa) the truth of what the Buddha had described which is visible here and now (sandiṭṭhika, one of the attributes of the Dhamma) in his own experience. His confidence in the truth of the Buddha's words, the Dhamma, will grow stronger and stronger as his practise progresses steadily in this way. And when the goal is reached and a complete penetrative understanding of the four Noble Truths arise in his experience, his confidence will become confirmed and unshakeable through his own personal knowledge.
But in the meantime, to keep himself motivated and persistent in doing the practise he needs this faith and trust that the Dhamma that the Buddha taught will indeed lead him to the goal. If doubts should arise about it for some reason he can of course inquire, question, and discuss further with a competent teacher – a teacher who is experienced, learned, and wise – to clear away the doubt. But if he indulges himself endlessly in doubtful thoughts his faith may begin to waver and he may eventually lose even the initial confidence he had in the Buddha and Dhamma, and therefore fall away from the Path.
"Bhikkhus, for a disciple who has faith (saddhā) in the Teacher's teaching, who appreciates it and is putting it into practise, it is the proper attitude [that he should consider thus:] 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am his disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' For a disciple who has faith in the Teacher's teaching, who appreciates it and is putting it into practise, the Teacher's teaching which is conducive to growth is nourishing."
~ Majjhima-Nikāya, Sutta 70
"For us, venerable sir, the teachings are rooted in the Blessed One, guided by the Blessed One, come together in the Blessed One."
~ Majjhima-Nikāya, Sutta 46
The Kinds of Right View
What are the basic right views that one needs to be establish in prior to beginning the practise? The most important of right views is the basic right view concerning the law of kamma and its result. And this is closely tied up with the right view concerning rebirth, afterlife, and the existence of various other planes of existence.
"And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, connected with merits, resulting in the aggregate of existence? 'There is [result of] giving, there is [result of] alms-offering, there is [result of] donation, there are fruit and resultant of kammas well done and ill done, there is this world, and there are other worlds [where we may be reborn after death], there is [result of good or evil action done towards] mother, there is [result of good or evil action done towards] father, there are beings who are spontaneously reborn [like petas, devas, and brahmas], there are recluses and brahmins in the world who have reached the pinnacle, who have rightly practised, who, having realised it for themselves through higher-insight, make known [to others] this world and the other worlds' – this, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, connected with merits, resulting in the aggregate of existence."
~ Mahācattārīsaka Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya, Sutta 117
Understanding of the law of kamma and its result, of rebirth, and of the other planes of existence, constitute mundane (and thus affected by taints) basic right view that is most fundamental to the path of practise. Even though they are mundane knowledge that are conducive to favourable rebirth and are not connected with the liberative supramundane knowledge that delivers one from existential suffering, they nevertheless form the foundation right view for one who is practising the Dhamma.
For one who does not have an appreciation of the law of kamma and its results, which includes also an appreciation of the rebirth that kamma produces in the various planes of existence, will not believe that our actions have consequences. Such a one will not be careful nor bother to restrain his action. He will not take the trouble to do good, refrain from evil, and purify the mind. In other words he will not bother about Dhamma practise. But when one understands the law of kamma and its resultant rebirth one understands and appreciates that not only do our actions have consequences, they also produce rebirth that result in the arising of the five aggregates subject to clinging (pañcupādānakkhandhā, which is dukkhasacca, the truth of suffering) which very nature is suffering. One will then not only be very careful of one's actions, avoiding evil so as not to produce further unwholesome kamma, doing good so as to acquire wholesome kamma, but one will also be motivated to work to purify one's mind from the cause of suffering that leads to rebirth. An appreciation of the law of kamma and its result will also attune the mind to the idea of cause and effect which is an essential realisation that arises from the practise.
Then there is also the supramundane right view which the Buddha described in the same Mahācattārīsaka Sutta thus:
"And what, bhikkhus, is the right view that is noble, unaffected by the taints, supramundane, and a factor of the [Noble] Path? There is the wisdom that is the controlling-faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the enlightenment-factor of investigation of phenomena, the right view that is a factor of the [Noble] Path, possessed by one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taint-less, who is endowed with the Noble Path, who develops the Noble Path – this, bhikkhus, is called the right view that is noble, unaffected by the taints, supramundane, and a factor of the [Noble] Path."
As stated in the passage this is actually the right view that is a factor of the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path. It is sometimes referred to as magga-ñāṇa or path-knowledge, and is the wisdom associated with the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path. Therefore it arises only at the moment of the attainment of the supramundane Noble Path (which takes supramundane Nibbāna as its object) and serves the function of penetrating the four Noble Truths completely. That is why when analysing the factors of the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path the Buddha defined right view as the right view concerning the four Noble Truths and not that of kamma, etc.
"And what, bhikkhus, is right view? The knowledge concerning suffering, the knowledge concerning the origin of suffering, the knowledge concerning the cessation of suffering, the knowledge concerning the way of practise leading to the cessation of suffering – this, bhikkhus, is called right view."
~ Vibhaṅga Sutta, Saṃyutta-Nikāya, Maggasaṃyutta, Sutta 8
Incidentally, notice also that in the same Vibhaṅga Sutta the Buddha defined right concentration of the supramundane Noble Eightfold Path as the four jhānas. This is because at the moment of attainment of the supramundane Noble Path, the Noble Path consciousness (ariya-magga-citta) that arises is absorbed in jhāna taking Nibbāna as its object. Prior to the attainment of the Noble Path, however, when the meditator is still engaged in the practise of the preliminary-path (pubbabhāga-magga) of insight-development (vipassanā-bhāvanā) leading up to the attainment of the supramundane Noble Path (ariya-magga), the mind takes formations (saṅkhārā or conditioned mental and physical phenomena) as its object, investigating their nature of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. At this time the concentration that arises is not jhāna but very powerful vipassanā momentary concentration (khaṇika-samādhi, sometimes called by the coined term vipassanā-jhāna). Only with this momentary concentration is it possible to carry out the investigative work of vipassanā on the formations which nature is to continuously arise and pass away moment after moment.
Anyway coming back to right view. The attainment of supramundane right view concerning the four Noble Truths, also called the right view of the [Noble] Path (magga sammādiṭṭhi), does not occur out of a sudden. Prior to its attainment the foundation work must be carried out which consists of the development of insight into the nature of realities. Therefore right view of the Noble Eightfold Path concerning the four Noble Truths must necessarily include, as its forerunner, the right view of insight (vipassanā sammādiṭṭhi) concerning the true nature of realities as impermanent, suffering, and non-self. In fact the Buddha said that the first Noble Truth of suffering, which in short refers to the five aggregates subject to clinging (saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā), should be fully understood (pariññeyyaṃ). And its full understanding consists of the full understanding of the nature of these mental and physical aggregates as impermanent, suffering, and non-self, i.e. the right view of insight. This would include also understanding their nature of arising and perishing based on the law of conditionality. See Kaccānagotta Sutta (Saṃyutta-Nikāya, Nidānasaṃyutta, Sutta 15).
Now, although in truth the right views of vipassanā and of the four Noble Truths come as a result of the practise of Satipaṭṭhāna Vipassanā meditation and not before beginning the practise it is nevertheless important and very helpful prior to carrying out the practise to acquire a good theoretical grasp of the four Noble Truths as well as the nature of impermanence, suffering, and non-self of conditioned realities (mental and physical phenomena). A theoretical understanding of the Four Noble Truths (suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation) gives us a sense of purpose why we want to do the practise at all (to be completely liberated from existential suffering). Knowing clearly the purpose of the practise will help to give us a sense of the direction of where our practise is supposed to progress towards. This helps to prevent us from being side-tracked from our original purpose by some other extraneous purpose which leads into a wrong direction, e.g. to acquire psychic powers, collecting amulets and talismans for good luck or protection, etc.
Understanding what constitute the first Noble Truth of suffering, i.e. the five aggregates subject to clinging, also helps us to recognise the correct objects to be used for investigation into the nature of suffering. This helps us during the practise of vipassanā meditation to filter out objects that are not relevant to the investigative work of insight, e.g. conceptual objects like images and light that often arise as a result of concentration. A theoretical understanding of the nature of impermanence, suffering, and non-self also prepares the mind to be more attune and open to the experiences that may arise during the practise, experiences which can be quite oppressive (e.g. the experience of the nature of suffering due to formations), confounding (e.g. the sudden fleeting away of everything observed), or even fearful (e.g. the disappearance of the assumed self).
Deciding Based on Principles of the Dhamma
After teaching the Kālāmas the ten ways not to be used as basis for accepting a teaching the Buddha then showed them the better way to accept or reject a teaching. He taught them to consider for themselves whether what is taught by the teaching under consideration is unwholesome or wholesome, blamable or blameless, censured or praised by the wise, leads to harm and suffering or to welfare and happiness. Here again we see that the Buddha did not leave the Kālāmas entirely free to decide these questions on their own. Instead he guided them according to the principles of the Dhamma. He showed them that what is unwholesome, blamable, censured by the wise, and that lead to harm and suffering are the unwholesome mental states of greed, hatred, and delusion, the roots of evil actions such as killing, stealing, etc. And what is wholesome, blameless, praised by the wise, and that lead to welfare and happiness are the wholesome mental states of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, the roots of noble deeds that prevent one from ignoble acts such as killing, stealing, etc.
It was wise that the Buddha did not just leave it entirely to the Kālāmas to decide these questions on their own. For left to their own they are likely to decide according to their own intellectual capacity, their own ideas and opinions of what is unwholesome and wholesome, etc. which for an unenlightened person may be misguided. For example there are some in this world who think that it is most noble to kill in the name of defending their religion. For them killing driven by hatred for the enemies of their religion is something wholesome, blameless, praised by the wise, and would lead to the pleasures of heaven. Therefore these are questions that should be answered using the principles of the Dhamma as one's guide. Otherwise it may lead to harm and suffering, both for oneself and others, especially when one does not possess the wisdom of right view.
Looking Up to the Wise
A most important criterion that the Buddha set forth to decide if something should be taken up or rejected is whether it is censured or praised by the wise. This again shows that the Dhamma is not to be practised as one like, based on one's own ideas, opinions, and fancies. One has to also see if one's ideas and opinions tally with those of the wise. In the Buddha's teaching a wise person is always one who is learned in the ways of right view, who possesses the wisdom of right view, and who conduct himself firmly in accordance with it.
The Buddha set great store by the opinion of the wise. Association with wise people for example is considered one of the highest blessings. And a wise person should be followed as one would follow a guide to a hidden treasure (Dhammapada 76). When one has a wise person to serve as one's guide in the practise of the Dhamma, one is said to be having noble-friendship (kalyāṇamittatā). And this noble-friendship, the Buddha said, is the whole of the spiritual-life. In practising the Dhamma one should seek out the instruction of the wise teachers whose thoughts, conduct, and wisdom are firmly grounded in right view. And one should take them as one's role model and fashion one's practise after them. This is especially important now that the Buddha, the wisest of the wise, is himself no longer present. The Buddha's legacy lives on today among these wise people who breathe the Dhamma every day in their every thoughts, words, and actions.
The Dhamma and Science
On another related matter there are many today who like to compare the Buddha's teaching to science. They like to think of the Buddha's teaching as scientific and the practise of the Dhamma as similar to a scientific exploration. There are also some who try to measure the truth or the worth of the Buddha's teaching using science as the yardstick. While there are certainly some overlapping areas of agreement between the two disciplines – the spirit of free inquiry and rejection of blind belief as embodied in Kālāma Sutta being one – they are not entirely similar.
For example, while scepticism regarding present scientific knowledge is an attitude required of scientists in carrying out any scientific inquiry, in the teaching of the Buddha the attitude towards the Dhamma that is encouraged is that of faith that is balanced with wisdom. And while science employs logical analysis to make sense of the data and information collected, in the Dhamma, wisdom or insight that understands the nature of natural phenomena arises intuitively through vipassanā meditation, a method of deep and pure observation of natural phenomena that is unadulterated by any logical thoughts.
Science began with man's curiosity about the natural world. It is a method of inquiry devised by man in his attempt to try to understand the natural world and the laws governing its working. Science did not originally start out as an attempt to solve any problem. It is only incidental that the knowledge we have acquired through our scientific exploration had come to be so useful for us in solving many of our problems and improving the quality of our life in our physical environment. The original purpose of science was to understand the natural world and how it works. And since the natural world is very extensive the scope of scientific inquiry is also very wide. It covers many fields of study such as botany, zoology, cosmology, meteorology, ecology, geology, oceanography, astronomy, medicine, neurology, genetics, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.
In the case of the Buddha's teaching, the Buddha started out not with the desire to understand the natural world but to solve a very specific problem, the problem of suffering he observed among beings. Therefore in contrast to science the scope of the Buddha's teaching is much narrower, being focussed almost exclusively on addressing the problem of existential suffering.
"Both previously and now, bhikkhus, I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering."
~ Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 22
In fact any insistence to seek answers to philosophical questions that does not pertain to the problem of suffering is compared by the Buddha to a man wounded by a poisoned arrow who refuses to have that arrow removed and his wound treated until he is told everything that he wants to know about the man who wounded him and the bow and arrow that he used. In the meantime the poison would take effect and he would die before he knows all the answers. Whatever the answers are to these questions the fact is that suffering exists in the world now and what is more important is that we address it. (Majjhima-Nikāya, Sutta 63) On another occasion the Buddha compared those things he had taught in order to address the problem of suffering to a handful of leaves in his hand and those things he had not taught, even though he has knowledge of them, to all the leaves in the forest. (Saṃyutta-Nikāya, Saccasaṃyutta, Sutta 31)
In science a scientist would begin by proposing a hypothesis in order to explain certain event that is observed in the natural world. But a hypothesis is just an unproven suggestion, a possibility. Therefore experiments are devised and carried out whereby the hypothesis is tested to see if it holds up. And through experiments the hypothesis will either be corroborated or disproved. If it is disproved then the scientist needs to return to the drawing board and come up with new or adjusted hypothesis and the cycle repeats. But if the hypothesis is corroborated by the experiment it then acquires validity. This validity, however, will not remain unchallenged. In accordance with the sceptical spirit of scientific inquiry scientists must always be open to the possibility that present scientific knowledge, even that which they personally hypothesised, may be wrong or imperfect. Even the hypotheses and theories proposed by great scientists like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are not exempted from this rule. Newton’s understanding of space, time, and gravity established in the 17th Century, for example, was overturned when Einstein published his revolutionary relativity theories at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Therefore in science new experiments are always being carried out, new discoveries being made, that constantly challenge the validity of existing scientific knowledge and scientists constantly have to re-evaluate their hypotheses and come up with new ones in order to improve on or totally replace the old ones. Therefore scientific knowledge is always tentative and perpetually evolving and improving. At no point in time do scientists ever claim to have a full and complete understanding of the natural world that they are trying to understand. In fact, while there are many things which scientists are very certain about, there are still quite a lot things that scientists have observed of which they still cannot really explain with any certainty, e.g. dark matter, dark energy, and the weakness of the gravitational force, just to name a few.
As for the Buddha, he began his search for the answer to the problem suffering by testing out some of the proposed solutions to this problem (hypotheses if you like) that were proposed by others. He tested out the proposals of Āḷāra Kālāma and Rāmaputta who believed that the end of suffering can be reached by attaining the highest jhānas. He disproved their proposals when after attaining these jhānas himself he found that they do not lead to the complete removal of the problem of suffering. Then he tested out another possible solution popular during his time: self-mortification. This also was disproved by him. Later on, by opening up his mind to investigate directly the nature of suffering inherent in his experiences of the world as they arise at the sense-doors, he made a breakthrough into the four Noble Truths and discovered the answer to the problem of suffering he was seeking.
Unlike scientific knowledge that are ever evolving, with new discoveries being made constantly that challenge and invalidate existing knowledge, the Buddha's knowledge of the four Noble Truths has remained valid as it was since the day of his enlightenment until now. There have been no new discoveries to disprove or improve on the four Noble Truths, no new and better ways discovered that lead to the complete cessation of suffering since the Buddha's enlightenment. Buddhists have been practising the same Noble Eightfold Path from the time of the Buddha until now. And it is still working as it should as the path that leads to the complete cessation of suffering. This is because through his attainment of enlightenment the Buddha's understanding of the problem of suffering and its solution, as crystallised in his teaching of the four Noble Truth, is complete and perfect. And he is perfectly confident of the Truths he had realised.
"Sāriputta, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahma could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me saying: 'While you claim yourself to be a perfectly self-enlightened one you are not enlightened as to these certain things. Not seeing any ground for this I dwell secure, fearless, and confident."
~ Majjhima-Nikāya, Sutta 12
Therefore, while scientific knowledge must necessarily continue to evolve, and improve with every new discovery, the original Buddha's teaching has remained unchanged since the Buddha first proclaimed it more than two millennia ago in ancient India. We can look at the whole of scientific enterprise as a continuous attempt to discover new knowledge about the natural world as well as to continuously improve on the existing knowledge that we have. But in the Buddha's teaching, after the four Noble Truths was discovered by the Buddha neither he nor his disciples attempted to discover any new truths or to improve on the four Noble Truths already discovered. The Buddha's realisation of the four Noble Truth is complete as it was. He is perfectly confident about the Truths he had realised. There was nothing further to be done on the part of the Buddha after he had discovered the four Noble Truths except to declare these Truths to his disciples and to provide practical guidance on how to realise them.
But on the part of his disciples they accepted these Truths that the Buddha declared, initially with reasonable faith (faith balanced with wisdom). And later, through following the instruction of his teaching, they try to verify these Truths for themselves through direct personal experience by attempting to reproduce in their own experience the same realisation of these four Noble Truths that the Buddha had. And each time a disciple managed to do this successfully he or she attain enlightenment about the four Noble Truths and confirms for himself or herself through personal direct experience the authenticity of these Truths that the Buddha declared. So over the many centuries of Buddhists history right until today the four Noble Truths have been confirmed and reconfirmed again many times over each time a disciple got enlightened. The Dhamma is described as Truths that are visible here and now (sandiṭṭhika) and to be realised by the wise personally (paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi). It is like a medicine that can cure the disease (of suffering). The Buddha discovered this medicine. So others need not go out and discover the medicine again since it has already been discovered. But they do need to take it for themselves in order to be cured of the disease.
Another difference between science and the Dhamma is that while scientists indirectly probe and explore the natural world which is physical in nature by means of human created scientific instruments, in the Dhamma, Buddhists, by means of the method of vipassanā meditation, make use of the mind to directly investigate the nature of their experiences of the world, which comprises mental and physical phenomena, as they occur through the sense doors. Because Buddhists investigate the experience of the mind directly, the realisation that arises out of this investigation is able to transform the mind at its most fundamental level of experience. This effects a process of purification of the mind from the causes of suffering in the most profound way, radically transforming the mind, its attitude, its entire outlook, in such a fundamental way that the mind can no longer relate to its experiences of the world in a way that produces suffering.
But while Buddhists investigate the mental processes directly with their mind scientists until today have hardly touched the mind. At most they have measured, by means of their instruments, the effects of mind on the body, e.g. brain waves and nerve activities. Or they observe human behaviours which are the outward manifestation of mental states. There is no scientific instrument until now that can directly access and measure the mind. Science has for the most part been focussed on the physical material world. In fact, most scientists today think of the mind as a function of the physical brain unlike Buddhists who see the brain as just a material support for the occurrence of the mind.
There is also a difference in terms of moral values. In the Dhamma moral or virtuous conduct serves as the foundation of spiritual practise and is highly valued whereas science is secular in nature and in principle does not involve any consideration for the principles of morality. Of course individual scientist, depending on their personal beliefs and principles, may inform their work with moral values, but science on its own need not take moral values into consideration.
And there are many other differences between science and the Dhamma. The two systems being different in so many ways it is hardly accurate to compare the Buddha’s teaching to science or to use science as a yardstick to measure the worth of the Buddha's teaching. While we can appreciate that the Dhamma, even though it was taught by the Buddha more than two millennia ago, is able to measure up in so many ways to modern scientific inquiry, the Dhamma itself should be evaluated according to its own merit and not measured using a standard of measurement foreign to its own discipline. And in the same vein Buddhists must also not measure the worth of science using the Dhamma as the yardstick. The worth of science should also be measured based on its own merit. The practise of both the Dhamma and science must also be carried out according to the principles and methods of their respective system.
In Conclusion: Come and See
So as we have discussed, having looked at the message of the Kālāma Sutta from the perspective of a practising Buddhist who had gone for refuge, placing the message against the backdrop of the entire teaching of the Buddha and its system of practise, the Buddha did not mean for his disciples to approach the Dhamma in a totally free and unrestricted fashion. Rather he invites one to come and see (ehipassiko) and find out for oneself if what he has taught is true or not. And when one decides to come to see, one firstly listens to and study the Dhamma. Then one inquires and asks questions, exercising one's wisdom in order to clarify one's knowledge of the Dhamma and to clear away any doubts. One is encouraged and is completely free to investigate and question instead of believing blindly and all too eagerly in what is taught. One is, however, cautioned to strike a balance between wisdom and faith. This delicate balance is important not only at this initial phase of inquiry but also later when one decides to try out the practise of the Dhamma. For it keeps one on the right track.
Then having inquired to one's satisfaction and if one is satisfied one may gain some initial faith and confidence in the Dhamma which motivates one to decide to practise. From that point onwards, if one is sincere about reaching the goal of the practise, one should effect a temporary suspension of all tendency to disbelief and surrender oneself to the Dhamma and carry out the practise faithfully according to the instruction of the Buddha. Should any doubt arise during the course of the practise one can approach a competent teacher to discuss in order to clear the doubt. If one sincerely and faithfully carry out the practise according to the instruction given by the Buddha, the practise will then lead one in the right direction and one will progressively be able to verify the Dhamma little by little and strengthen one's faith and confidence at the same time until such a time when one's practise acquired enough maturity and one is able to penetrate and realised the four Noble Truths completely on one's own. Then one's faith and confidence will become unshakeable through personal knowledge. One has come and now one has seen the Dhamma.
For Further Reading
Doubt and Wrong-View
Asking Questions About Dhamma
No comments:
Post a Comment