A question regarding the Kalama Sutta

Here you are.

I’d have to part company there, as the Dhammapada-atthakatha dates from about a millenia after the Buddha lived, if I recall. If the story was authentic, I would think that it would appear in the four nikayas or their Chinese parallels.

To me, though, the authenticity is irrelevant to the discussion here. There are early suttas given to monastics, kings, and householders about how to create a harmonious society, both on the small scale and the large scale. This is Dhamma for improving “the world”, for rearranging samsara to be a bit more hospitable.

But, as the world is inherently unsatisfactory, there are many more teachings pointing toward how to transcend the world while still living in it and bring dukkha to an end.

I think everyone needs to put the “worldly” teachings into practice, whether one’s goal is full awakening or just a happier worldly life. Even those aiming for awakening still need a conducive environment within which to practice. They need a certain level of harmony in their social relations. Practicing this makes a beneficial environment both externally and internally. I think this is why the Buddha gave frequent teachings in the early suttas and vinaya about how the sangha should operate.

Those seeking nothing more than a happier worldly life may become involved in social activism if that’s their inclination and, provided their actions are rooted in wholesome intentions (as Erik helpfully pointed out), they are, in my opinion, practicing the Buddha’s teachings well, even if they aren’t practicing them at the level that leads to liberation.

Others who seek only a happier worldly life may not be inclined to social activism, but may prefer a simpler, more secluded life. They still practice kindness, generosity, and compassion to those they come in to contact with, thus contributing to harmony in a smaller, more intimate sphere. In my opinion, they are also practicing the teachings well.

Those seeking awakening can be involved in social activism to varying degrees or not, but should judge for themselves whether their involvement is aiding or hindering their progress toward their goal.

For most people, it seems that a fair amount of seclusion from worldly concerns, at least for occasional, sustained periods, is necessary to progress toward awakening. The more one is involved in external affairs, especially in a passionate way, the harder it is to turn the mind inward, unify it, and see clearly. But I think it’s for each person to decide how much worldly engagement is appropriate, based on how it affects their mind.

5 Likes

Thanks Christopher, for the link and your reflection.

Extended periods of/in retreat or seclusion are very helpful. We enjoy periods of natural stillness when we have the opportunity from day to day and, longer periods of silence and stillness are a great blessing.

It would not be as helpful and beneficial if Buddhists were to undertake activism or, participate in other forms of social-engagement, if it was ‘not’ done in the right spirit or, they lost their way in the practice as a consequence. It would not be useful to work for the benefit of the many, if it led to burn-out, or frustration or anger etc.

Buddhists can bring a lot of wisdom and kindness with them in whatever field they contribute to.

I would not use the term ‘worldly’ with regard to social engagement. Worldliness is related to the inner-life, it has nothing to do with wholesome behaviour in daily life.

We may do good work and be unworldly people and we may appear like world-renouncers and be worldly in our heart and mind. When this is not seen clearly, it can lead to misunderstanding and confusion? Worldliness can be gross or subtle?

I am not going to disbelieve the story about the Buddha stopping a battle because it is recorded in a later text.

From decades of listening to Ajahn Brahm teach and, the times when I was in his company and in conversation with him, I am reasonably assured that he has a very deep and learned understanding of the EBT’s and, later Pali texts that provide a background to them, the events, the places and contexts and, stories about the people who appear in the EBT’s.

I don’t find it surprising that more background information was known by the people who lived with the Buddha for extended periods of time. I can see no reason why this information would not have been shared within the monastic Sangha at the time and from generation to generation. It does not cause me concern that this background information was not written down for a long time.

Some of these background stories - associated with the EBT’s - seem to have survived intact and some of them have been embellished out of religious devotion. Some of them may be pure fiction but I don’t believe this is likely to be the case. Stories that are completely mythical in nature do not have the appearance of ‘authentic’ biographical material. Myths convey meanings/messages that have nothing to do with there invented story lines.

I was in a Theravada monastery library many years ago and picked up a translation of an ancient text that contained this kind of background material. The people involved at the time - who they were and where they came from, what was their relationship to other people in the teachings. It looked - and felt - like history and biography.

I am not a Buddhist scholar so my views about the ancient and, not as ancient texts is not based on erudition just, gut instinct and common sense.

With regard to your comment as a whole, I found it very interesting. My views about practice are informed by my experience of it, at different times and places in my Dhamma journey. I remember beautiful and profound periods of practice and times of less clarity and insight.

I can remember what was taking place in daily life and in meditation when the practice was rich, insightful and, transformative, when practice was proceeding well. I use this life-experience to help me understand what good practice looks like - on the ground.

It is clear to me, as a consequence of drawing on direct experience - as recommended in the ‘Kalama Sutta’ - in contrast to things I have read about, the belief that there is a difference between what we do in ‘daily life’ - when it reflects good Sila and service - and, formal practice, makes no sense!

Practice is an undivided process when it’s continuous and uninterrupted.

Extraordinary and transformative insights can arise in daily life and not just in the context of formal Buddhist practice. The notion that profound and deep Dhamma is only encountered when we are engaged in particular kinds of formal practice and not in daily life activities does not ring-true for me.

Profound insights can arise while walking down the road and ‘seeing’ the world in a radically new and clear light. Everything is teaching us! In most any situation or context we may find ourselves when a clearer encounter with the Dhamma takes place, its an opportunity for insight to arise.

“How does the dhamma teach the proper way of life? It shows us how to live. It has many ways of showing it - on roots or trees or just in front of you. It is a teaching but not in words. So still the mind, the heart, and learn to watch. You’ll find the whole dhamma revealing itself here and now. At what other time and place are you going to look?” - Ajahn Chah

When the 3-fold dimensions of practice take on there own momentum and things get interesting it becomes increasingly clear that nobody is practising or realising anything. That in itself, that seeing of the Dhamma, changes everything in a beautiful, new and joyful way.

"“With even a little intuitive wisdom we will be able to see clearly the ways of the world. We will come to understand that everything in the world is our teacher.” - Ajahn Chah

I believe ‘Ajahn Brahm’ mentioned another commentary on another Nikaya- as well - where the Buddha intervenes in the battle. It would be nice to find this other account as well?

The other (more elaborate) narration is in the Kuṇāla Jātaka.

1 Like

I glimpsed a flashing reference to 2-commentarial sources, related to two different Nikayas containing an account of this battle-intervention story. Is the second commentarial-link that you provided, related to a different Nikaya, then the link provided by Christopher?

The following is an extract from the book: Buddhism and Violence, page 194. Is there a commentarial source for this account?

"Four years after the Buddha had attained enlightenment, a war was about to break out between Kapilavastu and Kolivastu a water dispute. When the Buddha was informed of the news, he hastened to the battlefield and stood between the two armies which were about to kill each other. Summoning there commanders from both sides the Buddha then inquired about the cause of the conflict and then asked,“How much value do you think water has in comparison to the life of men?” When they both replied that the value of water could not be compared with the life of men, the Buddha asked again, “Why do you then destroy lives that are valuable for valueless water?”

Yes, it’s the commentary to the Jātaka verses. These are preserved in the Khuddaka Nikāya.

This is Xue Yu’s modern paraphrase. It’s based upon the commentarial story but (in common with many modern paraphrases) has stripped it of its miraculous elements. In the originals the Buddha sits cross-legged in the air above the two armies. Modern retellings by Xue Yu, Ambedkar, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc. have him standing between the two armies. The problem with these revisionist accounts is that they too require a miracle. Since the Sakyans and Koliyans were arrayed on the opposite banks of a very deep and broad river, for the Buddha to have stood between them would have required him to walk on water. Some Ambedkarite artists solve the problem either by having him stand on a rock in the middle of the river or by making the Rohiṇī a rather puny little stream that barely reaches the Buddha’s knees.

1 Like

If a wild dangerous animal was loose on the streets and attacking people some effort would be made to capture it to prevent further harm. Hopefully, the animal would be darted/sedated and then taken to a place where it could not injure or kill people.

Similarly, if we find people or, groups of people (organisations) behaving so dangerously that it will cause enormous harm that will damage our collective life-support system, out of care and concern for them and, others, we may need to obstruct, intervene in or, restrain this behaviour in various ways. Through the application of skilful means?

Alternatively, should we stand by ‘idly’ and just witness what is going on or, ignore the situation or, do next to nothing to remedy it?

Does Buddhism provide us with any clues with regard to situations like these? How should we respond if we are in this kind of predicament? If the science is correct, this is the actual situation we are faced with right now.

Is there something difficult to understand in all of this?

In the extract from the book I cited, it talks about a teaching given to the commanders of the opposing armies. These commanders then withdraw their forces, they lose the will to fight.

A happening like this - in the life of the Buddha - may have been witnessed by others and the story got passed down over time, taking on miraculous dimensions out of religious devotion. Is this possible?

There may be Buddhist master’s alive today that can remember past-lives when the event actually happened or, before the story was mythologised - is that possible with regard to the teachings on rebirth?

The last possibility I can imagine is something supernormal may have taken place. Is that a possibilty that is consistent with the teachings found in the EBT’s?

The answers to the 3 questions I have asked above is ‘yes’ - is it not?

Do you ‘believe’ that this story is a complete fabrication or do you ‘feel’ that it has some basis in historical facts?

Ajahn Brahm seems satisfied that the story is not a complete fiction. I feel the same way, what do you think? I would be grateful to receive your perspective on this teaching.

Do you feel this story can tell us something about the place of activism and other forms of social engagement in Buddhism?

You are latching on to one incident in a vast corpus devoted to the themes of seclusion and withdrawal…

‘Ajahn Brahm’ explained how, in science, if a single piece of evidence is uncovered that demonstrates that a theory is false, the theory must be rejected! No matter how highly regarded the scientific theory is it must be rejected - if disproved by a single finding. To my mind we have established that in this single instance, between the two armies about to fight, the Buddha was behaving like a social-activist.

Christopher drew attention to other instances of social activism - the Buddha’s advise to kings. It seems to be an established fact that the Buddha was socially engaged - don’t you think?

A life of seclusion ‘can be’ a beautiful way to live but there are other beautiful and ennobling ways to live as well. Its not an either/or situation in Buddhist practice.

Had such a thing actually happened, I think it would have redounded so much to the Buddha’s credit that it’s barely conceivable it would have gone unmentioned in the Suttas. But since it’s neither reported nor even hinted at in the Suttas (not even in the canonical verses to the Kuṇāla Jātaka, which are solely concerned with listing the flaws of women) I think the odds are rather in favour of it being a pleasant and morally edifying work of fiction.

Well, it could have happened like that. It’s just that there’s no reason at all to think that it did. And set against it there’s the negative evidence mentioned above: what on earth would have possessed the early sangha to pass over such a splendid propaganda opportunity?

It may be possible, though I haven’t myself heard of any masters claiming to have been present at the alleged Rohiṇī incident.

It is possible in the sense that is no detail in the two commentarial accounts that would exceed the range of supernormal possibilities envisaged in the EBTs. But this doesn’t obviate the difficulty mentioned above.

As I haven’t read or listened to the talk where he mentions the Rohiṇī incident, I can’t comment on his thinking about it. In general my impression is that when Ajahn Brahm finds a good story to tell he doesn’t much mind where it comes from. His EBT purism seems to be exercised chiefly in matters of doctrine and practice.

Not really. The story merely tells us that you can divert people from doing something bad by performing a spectacular miracle. The really valuable part of the text is what comes next: the homily on (1) keeping a proper sense of proportion; (2) living free of hate; and (3) remaining aloof and uninfluenced by the defilements of those around you. The miracle story is merely a prelude (memorable, of course, but by no means essential) to this homily:

Then the Teacher asked the king, “How much is water worth, great king?”
“Very little, Reverend Sir.”
“How much are Khattiyas worth, great king?”
“Khattiyas are beyond price, Reverend Sir.”
“It is not fitting that because of a little water you should destroy Khattiyas who are beyond price.”

They were silent. Then the Teacher addressed them and said, “Great kings, why do you act in this manner? Were I not here present to-day, you would set flowing a river of blood. You have acted in a most unbecoming manner. You live in enmity, indulging in the five kinds of hatred. I live free from hatred. You live afflicted with the sickness of the evil passions. I live free from disease. You live in eager pursuit of the five kinds of sensual pleasure. I live free from the eager pursuit of aught.” So saying, he pronounced the following stanzas:

Happy indeed we live, friendly amid the haters.
Among men who hate we dwell free from hate.

Happy indeed we live, healthy amid those afflicted.
Among men who are afflicted we dwell free from affliction.

Happy indeed we live, content amid the greedy.
Among men who are greedy we dwell free from greed.
(Dhp. 197-9)

4 Likes

I can imagine a pretty good reason. What if, any kind of overt interference in the affairs of kings and their warriors was best avoided.

An instance of the Buddha directly intervening in a battlefield confrontation may not have been a good propaganda opportunity.

If the ruling class had come to understand that this teacher was a threat to their power, that he counselled against, interfered with, obstructed, their acts of extreme violence, this could endanger the four-fold assembly. Discretion in an extremely violent culture is often the only viable option.

I can see good reason to be very careful - in most situations - with regard to what you say and do, if you lived in a place where warlords with standing armies were in the habit of chopping and hacking each other to pieces, indulging in occasional massacres, taking prisoners and enslaving them etc.

It may have been useful to sanitize the Nikayas, rid them of stories and teachings that ruling-elites may find disconcerting. Sounds like a good reason for a bit of creative editing?

Socially relevant teaching are less threatening when they are passed down in the form of myths and legends. That does not make them irrelevant or mean they are not based on actual events. Many myths may have some historical basis - is this possible?

We have a bit more room to manoeuvre in our current global environmental crisis and it will not go away by ignoring it. Perhaps, we have the opportunity to be a bit more proactive - don’t you think?

Frankly us discussing this here will be probably have an appreciable impact on approximately 10 people. Maybe this should be directed to Christians who are far better organised than we are, internationally? I think Laurence is choosing the wrong man for the correct role here. You wouldn’t normally choose a pacifist to be a guard for example. I think sites like SC and DD have much greater efficacy in reclaiming the EBTs and what the Buddha (really) taught. Of course, we would live in an environmentally conscious way with wisdom and compassion with regards to our fellow humans, animals and nature. Better to start working on oneself first, and tell us how you follow your beliefs as part of your own practice.

with metta

1 Like

It is possible to offer an opinion about the uselessness of discussing issues of this nature. We could do this whenever the opportunity arises?

I really don’t see the point - it may be true or not! How do we know? This may be one instance of an ongoing conversation in Buddhist circles. We cannot be sure what the broader impact is with regard to this area of inquiry and reflection.

If it helps a small number of Buddhists to find a reason to do more than light incense sticks and sit in the corner thinking kind thoughts when they know, the neighbourhood is on fire, an urgent help is needed then, I guess it serves a purpose.

I do feel it’s important to reflect on our responsibilities that sometimes reach beyond our immediate interests and preoccupations.

It is not everyone’s cup of tea and that’s fine.

What we do know is there are Mitta’s reading this and discussing it. If anyone feels they have something more useful or beneficial to discuss on another topic then feel free to do so.

Perhaps, their topic of interest can be shared by :star2:-ting a new thread. It might turn out, whatever it is they wish to explore, may be seen by 10 Mitta’s and not have much of an impact on their lives or, in the lives of others?

I would still encourage Mitta’s to discuss whatever it is they are interested in. I see no harm in free and open discussion. No-one is forced to participate.

We may not share the same interests or see why we each have the interests we do. That’s fine, we can pay attention to the threads that interest us and ignore the rest. I do this all the time!

Whether I have a personal interest in that which interests others - who start a discussion - is of little relevance. There may be others who connect with the discussion and they may find it useful in some way?

If anybody has something they wish to discuss and, it has a meaning and a value to them personally, that’s good enough reason for me to encourage them to say what they wish to say. I will listen and contribute if I think it may help in some way.

You said in your comment above: “I think sites like SC … have greater efficacy in reclaiming … what the Buddha (really) taught.”

The implication is, the topic being discussed here is irrelevant when it comes to the Buddha’s teachings.

I don’t believe it is irrelevant to the Buddha’s teachings to reflect on the place of good hearted conduct for the benefit of others. I believe this is an important theme in the teachings.

The failure to comprehend how the subject of this thread is related to the teachings may have more to do with myopia - an inability to see clearly - that has nothing to do with the EBT’s (what they teach)?

Many of the Jataka stories are ancient folk-tales that may predate Buddhism. Others may refer to actual events in the Buddha’s life and times. Some of the stories that are directly related to the historical Buddha may have been transformed into miraculous tales over time. This kind of transformation is commonplace in religious literature.

Jesus was a rabbi who is later portrayed as a universal-monarch with a crown and sceptre seated in the clouds. The Mahayana went to town on the Buddha, turning him into a cosmic being surrounded by a celestial entourage.

What do you think - impossible?

I did not mean that someone who remembered past lives - assuming they have happened - would have needed to be present at the rohini-incident. They may remember a time when the story had been shared in the Sangha, before it took on the form we have received in the Jataka tales.

This is correct IMO. Also let’s not forget apologetics- some stories may be fabricated to later cover up Buddha’s apparent lack of involvement in the politics, of the time, when perhaps they didn’t quite understand why he didn’t. The Buddha’s acts are sometimes seen as somewhat mysterious!

With metta

Indeed. And the Dhammapada Commentary (one of the Rohiṇī incident’s two sources) is a good example of this. Many of the stories in it are found also in the Tipiṭaka, but the commentary’s version of them is always considerably more extravagant.

This consideration, however, has no bearing upon the Rohiṇī incident, which is not found even in the most rudimentary and unembellished form in the Suttanta or Vinaya Piṭakas.

2 Likes

A total expurgation from the Canon would hardly be creative editing!

And no, I don’t find the idea compelling. If the points you raise had been a momentous concern in the early sangha then we should reasonably expect the Canon to be missing quite a few of the thirty-four suttas in the Kosala Saṃyutta, along with a lot of other material depicting the Buddha’s intimate and often quite frank exchanges with King Pasenadi and Bimbisāra’s son, Prince Ajātasattu. But they are not missing.

King Pasenadi

Prince Ajātasattu

And these two, the rulers of Kosala and Magadha respectively, were the heavyweight rājas of the day. A teacher who was in their good books hardly needed to worry about his standing with the leaders of petty fiefdoms like the Sakyan and Koliyan territories.

3 Likes

The Rohini incident may have been an account that was deemed out of place in the EBT’s or earlier, when it was part of the oral transmission.

It may still have had a place in another oral tradition i.e the many other stories that were not recorded in the EBT’s that generations of Sangha may have shared with each other.

Stories that related events in the life of the Buddha but were not part of the core collection may have been placed in the commentaries.

I have seen biographical material like this that is not found in the Nikayas but has made its way into the commentaries. You may have read all this material?

Some of this material reads like straightforward biographical accounts and some of it may have been mythologised over time.

The other possibility is the Buddha did have supernormal powers that we may simply ‘read’ as mythology?

When a collection was written and compiled, some of these oral histories that ‘may’ have been mythologised over time ended up in the Jatakas.

The Jatakas being a mixed collection of pre-buddhist fables, myths and possible stories that have a basis in historical fact. Events that may have actually taken place in the Buddha’s lifetime.

It may be the case that every teaching and situation the Buddha experienced in his long life is not found in the Nikayas. Some events may be recorded elsewhere and many may be lost to history.