The Kalama Sutta - How Do We Know When Things Are Good?

[camerata]

In his talk this week, Sayadaw U Jotika brought up the part of the Kalama Sutta in which the Buddha says:

"Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

But he asked, how do we ourselves know when something is good? It seems to me that many people assume this refers to "common sense" or intuition, but the sayadaw explained it like this: After we meditate and the mind is still, everything is much clearer, like a black spec on a white cloth. In this state of mind, it's very easy to know what is good and what is not.

This corresponds to what Ajahn Brahm says about the "super-mindfulness" one achieves immediately after coming out of jhana. That's the time to ask questions and investigate phenomena.

[phetaroi]

I'm certainly not the greatest practitioner of Buddhism in our forum. But, for me, some Buddhist principles have allowed me to put many elements of life into better perspective.

I used to be the kind of guy who when in a traffic jam on the way to work would be cursing and pounding the steering wheel (as one example). Two things helped in this kind of situation -- consciously thinking of "right thought" and what it meant in the "current" situation, and simply repeating to myself "To the Buddha I go for refuge, to the Dhamma I go for refuge, to the Sangha I go for refuge". These two steps alone immediately improved my temper in those types of situations, and over time it became just a more common way for me to handle stressful situations in a calmer, more productive manner.*

Similarly, before retiring as a school principal, one of the most stressful job situations I would sometimes be in were situations such as counseling a teacher out of the profession (or firing them), or having a conference with an angry parent about why we were going to fail their son or daughter, or situations of that sort. I found that if I approached such conferences/meetings with preparation that included actually thinking about "right intention" and "right speech", that I could conduct such conferences in a more professional, more sympathetic way. Of course, that didn't mean that every difficult conference turned out well, since I could only control half of the interchange.

And so, even at a more elemental level, Buddhist principles can help us put life into better perspective and know better what is "good"...but then again, perhaps I am misreading what you mean by the word "good".

* I do want to mention one caveat. I am not saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff. It's all small stuff." While one should not "sweat the small stuff", not all "stuff" is "small". I mention this because several years ago I was talking to a Thai friend who was living in the States. Our topic was why do you see so many amputees in Thailand, and we both came to the conclusion that many amputations are due to industrial accidents. I was of the opinion that, "Why isn't more done about it." And he responded that it was sort of a Buddhist thing, and compared it to Americans who say not to sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff. There is a difference between sweating the small stuff and sweating the big stuff, and I'm not clear that Thais always see the difference. I wonder how this relates to your question.

[AYJAYDEE]

a steering wheel slammer!! ah, a kindred spirit. if buddhism does nothing but cure me of that, it will have been well worth it!! LOL

I'm certainly not the greatest practitioner of Buddhism in our forum. But, for me, some Buddhist principles have allowed me to put many elements of life into better perspective.

I used to be the kind of guy who when in a traffic jam on the way to work would be cursing and pounding the steering wheel (as one example). Two things helped in this kind of situation -- consciously thinking of "right thought" and what it meant in the "current" situation, and simply repeating to myself "To the Buddha I go for refuge, to the Dhamma I go for refuge, to the Sangha I go for refuge". These two steps alone immediately improved my temper in those types of situations, and over time it became just a more common way for me to handle stressful situations in a calmer, more productive manner.*

Similarly, before retiring as a school principal, one of the most stressful job situations I would sometimes be in were situations such as counseling a teacher out of the profession (or firing them), or having a conference with an angry parent about why we were going to fail their son or daughter, or situations of that sort. I found that if I approached such conferences/meetings with preparation that included actually thinking about "right intention" and "right speech", that I could conduct such conferences in a more professional, more sympathetic way. Of course, that didn't mean that every difficult conference turned out well, since I could only control half of the interchange.

And so, even at a more elemental level, Buddhist principles can help us put life into better perspective and know better what is "good"...but then again, perhaps I am misreading what you mean by the word "good".

* I do want to mention one caveat. I am not saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff. It's all small stuff." While one should not "sweat the small stuff", not all "stuff" is "small". I mention this because several years ago I was talking to a Thai friend who was living in the States. Our topic was why do you see so many amputees in Thailand, and we both came to the conclusion that many amputations are due to industrial accidents. I was of the opinion that, "Why isn't more done about it." And he responded that it was sort of a Buddhist thing, and compared it to Americans who say not to sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff. There is a difference between sweating the small stuff and sweating the big stuff, and I'm not clear that Thais always see the difference. I wonder how this relates to your question.

[camerata]

And so, even at a more elemental level, Buddhist principles can help us put life into better perspective and know better what is "good"...but then again, perhaps I am misreading what you mean by the word "good".

For sure the basic precepts and teachings guide us towards what is good (the Buddha's word, not mine), but I think what the sayadaw was getting at was how to make the right decision when the situation isn't covered by the generic teachings. Just looking at the 5 Precepts, what exactly is "sexual misconduct?" What exactly is an "intoxicating substance?" Or "Should I give my useless brother-in-law the money he's asking for when half of it will go on booze and only half will help support his family?" I think it's these more complex "What is the right thing to do here?" questions the sayadaw was talking about.

I wonder how this relates to your question.

Me too. The topic is about a specific technique for determining skillful actions.

[Xangsamhua]

Have I missed something? I thought the Kalama Sutta answered the question of what is good quite clearly, as that which does not lead to harm and ill. It also says that good things are those that are "praised by the wise". (Note verses 4- 9 and 11-13.)

OK, so these answers lead to second-order questions: "How do we decide whether a consequence leads to more harm than good?" "How do we know the wise are wise?" I guess these are the kinds of questions that the Sayadaw is referring to.

It's sometimes not that easy, and a libertarian will suggest a quite different answer from a social democrat, for example, coming as they do from different priorities.

Does a monk who has fully renounced the world and therefore does not intervene in matters of injustice do more harm than good by his passivity? Does a monk who intervenes in social or political matters do more harm than good when outcomes are not always clear?

I'm not sure if the criteria for deciding on good vs harm are given us by the dharma. Dharma only teaches us how to understand the causes of suffering in our own lives and the ways to overcome it.

I'm not sure about compassion. I guess it follows from right understanding, but compassion does not in itself guarantee a good outcome, does it? Perhaps intention is the key, but in some cases it might be better if a person did not proceed from good intentions alone, so we come back to understanding, and dharma only teaches us about suffering and the cessation of suffering in our own lives.

[Brucenkhamen]

As far as I understand the Kalama Sutta is about evaluating whether a teacher or teaching is good or bad, not whether actions or political movements etc are good or bad.

Of course once you've decided a teacher or teaching is good and decided to take it on board then you can start using that to help evaluate the merits of other things in life.

[christiaan]

I try to aproach this by asking myself: how would I wished to be 'handled' when I would be the person, the horse, the forest, the steering wheel, I am dealing with.

[rockyysdt]

As far as I understand the Kalama Sutta is about evaluating whether a teacher or teaching is good or bad, not whether actions or political movements etc are good or bad.

Don't you mean whether a teacher is skillful or unskillful rather than good or bad?

Of course once you've decided a teacher or teaching is good and decided to take it on board then you can start using that to help evaluate the merits of other things in life.

I thought practice (mindfulness & meditation) leads to automatic skillful actions over the usual rational thought.

[Brucenkhamen]

Don't you mean whether a teacher is skillful or unskillful rather than good or bad?

Skillful or unskillful are terms we apply to our actions or attitudes, not so much to teachers. A teacher could be very skillful in teaching you how to kill people, that teacher would be bad.

I thought practice (mindfulness & meditation) leads to automatic skillful actions over the usual rational thought.

It's not automatic, one must reflect on and integrate what one learns through mindfulness & meditation.

[camerata]

Does a monk who has fully renounced the world and therefore does not intervene in matters of injustice do more harm than good by his passivity? Does a monk who intervenes in social or political matters do more harm than good when outcomes are not always clear?

Presumably the individual involved will know the answer after meditating. The sayadaw's talk was about freedom, specifically the freedom to decide for ourselves when "these things lead to harm and ill." The technique he described was:

"After thinking stops, and then thinking starts again, you can see the true nature of that thought... but when we learn to stop thinking, then whatever thought occurs later, you are like watching, you step back and watch the thoughts. You see that this is wholesome, this is unwholesome. Now i understand what is wholesome, what is unwholesome. Before that I read about what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. I read about it, and I thought about it. But I never really knew. But when I learned to meditate and made my mind really clear so that thinking stopped, then whatever appears in my mind I can see very clearly: this is good, this is not good, this is proper, this is not proper."

[phetaroi]

Don't you mean whether a teacher is skillful or unskillful rather than good or bad?

Skillful or unskillful are terms we apply to our actions or attitudes, not so much to teachers. A teacher could be very skillful in teaching you how to kill people, that teacher would be bad.

I thought practice (mindfulness & meditation) leads to automatic skillful actions over the usual rational thought.

It's not automatic, one must reflect on and integrate what one learns through mindfulness & meditation.

And I think as we read the posts in this and other threads, we will note that not everyone agrees on every topic. And for me, this relates back to a thread debating about whether or not Buddhism is scientific. In science, every time you conduct an identical test, the results should be the same. When, however, human thinking (including meditation) comes into the picture, there are emotional and personal experience factors that will come into the equation, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion.

[christiaan]

Don't you mean whether a teacher is skillful or unskillful rather than good or bad?

Skillful or unskillful are terms we apply to our actions or attitudes, not so much to teachers. A teacher could be very skillful in teaching you how to kill people, that teacher would be bad.

I thought practice (mindfulness & meditation) leads to automatic skillful actions over the usual rational thought.

It's not automatic, one must reflect on and integrate what one learns through mindfulness & meditation.

And I think as we read the posts in this and other threads, we will note that not everyone agrees on every topic. And for me, this relates back to a thread debating about whether or not Buddhism is scientific. In science, every time you conduct an identical test, the results should be the same. When, however, human thinking (including meditation) comes into the picture, there are emotional and personal experience factors that will come into the equation, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion.

Maybe when intention, the actual moment and circumstances are all in harmony we can act 'good', profitable to the Karma of all involved.

When there is more awareness, more 'higher knowledge' involved in the action, the outcome could probably be even 'more' good.

So for this the right study, meditation and practice i.m.o. definitely contributes to good action.

I think most important is the intention out of wich the action takes place.

When somebody is directed by good intention, or kill by accident, without any intention to kill - and this happens even more when we look at trafficaccidents - (a child runs between cars into the street ) then this i.m.o. does not have negative result for Karma, however it was part of Karma and will in some way influence Karma.

[Brucenkhamen]

And I think as we read the posts in this and other threads, we will note that not everyone agrees on every topic. And for me, this relates back to a thread debating about whether or not Buddhism is scientific. In science, every time you conduct an identical test, the results should be the same. When, however, human thinking (including meditation) comes into the picture, there are emotional and personal experience factors that will come into the equation, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion.

I'd suggest the opposite is true.

Yes people who don't actually do the experiments, just talk about them, come up with vastly differing conculsions.

Also people who do do the experiments may still have differing interpretations of doctrinal points or aspects outside the core practise.

But I'm constantly amazed considering how diverse, uncentralised, uncontrolled, and individual Buddhist practise is that those who have put the time and effort into a genuine practise end up coming to a place of having much the same outlook. I often find that people who have little in common with me as far as teachers or approach is concerned can still say things that are a better way of saying the things that I'm trying to say.

[lungmi]

Oh, painful discussion.

Kalanamasutta, help me.

Oh yeah, I have the link.

http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/kalamasutta1.html