Nuancing the Kalama Sutta
The Kalama Sutta of the Pali canon seems to have become the foremost Sutra of secular Buddhists, no doubt thanks to the tireless efforts of the Buddhist agnostic, atheist, secular materialist, Stephen Batchelor. For those who are interested in more nuanced details about the Kalama Sutta, in particular what it says and what it does not say, which secular Buddhists, I am inclined to believe, tend to ignore, I have included some valuable material from K.N. Jayatillekes book, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (pp. 390391).
(663) This is just what the Buddha seems to demand from his hearers regarding his own statements. He does not want his own statements accepted on his authority nor rejected but seems to demand that they be tested and accepted if they are found to be true and presumably rejected if they are found to be false. This attitude is well-expressed in a late verse, which appears in the Tattvasamgraha (3588) and the Tibetan version of the Jnasamuccayasara. It reads as follows: 'Just as wise men (test a claim to be gold) by burning, cutting and rubbing (on a touchstone), my statements, O monks, should be accepted after examination and not out of respect for me'. This verse is not found in the Nikayas but it reflects the attitude of the Buddha as often represented in the Nikayas. The Buddha is anxious to see that his statements are not accepted out of respect for his authority as the teacherthe very thing that he condemns in the Kalama Sutta. On one occasion he asks, 'would you, O monks, knowing and seeing thus say, "our teacher is respected, we say so out of respect for our teacher" '. The monks submit that it is not so.
(664) Thus if we interpret the Kalama Sutta as saying that one should not accept the statements of anyone on authority nor even seriously consider the views of others in order to test their veracity but rely entirely on one's own experiences in the quest and discovery of truth, then! this wo uld be contradictory to the concept of saddha [faith] in the Pali Nikayas. But if, on the other hand, we interpret the Kalama Sutta as saying that while we should not accept the statements of anyone as true on the grounds of authority, we should test the consequences of statements in the light of our own knowledge and experience in order to verify whether they are true or false, it would be an attitude which is compatible with saddha [faith] as understood in at least one stratum of Pali Canonical thought. As we have shown above (v. supra, 662, 663) we have reason to believe that this latter interpretation is the correct one. (Brakets and italics are mine. In addition, I left out the Sanskrit and Pali scripture so the reader only sees the English translation instead of the original.)
Speaking from my own personal mystical experiences I have faith in the Buddhas teaching. So far I have verified his teachings to be absolutly reliable. This may not be the case, however, for someone like Stephen Batchlor or the intractable skeptic. Okay, I can understand thatBuddhists like Batchelor are puthujjanas (worldlings) when in comes to gnosis (jna). Maybe a thousand or more rebirths might help these hammerheads.
