➥ mā anussavena:

• for mā anussavena:
  • Do not [abandon religious teachings merely] because they do not accord with an oral tradition.
  • Do not [accept and abide by religious teachings merely] because they accord with an oral tradition.

Kālāma Sutta: for those without faith

The Kālāma Sutta (AN i 188) answers this question: On what basis should religious teachings be abandoned or accepted? The sutta is therefore aimed at people lacking in established religious faith. It was preached twice by the Buddha to such kinds of people, in the Kālāma Sutta and the Bhaddiya Sutta (AN ii 190). It was never preached to disciples with established faith, and it was neither praised nor even mentioned by any of the bhikkhus when speaking amongst themselves, showing that for those with established faith, the Kālāma Sutta is irrelevant. The Sāḷha Sutta is an unusual sutta which we will discuss separately.

For those with established faith: irrelevant

For those with established faith the Kālāma Sutta is irrelevant because for disciples with faith (saddhassa sāvakassa) it is in accordance with the teaching (anudhammo) to reflect ‘The Blessed One is the teacher, I am a disciple. The Blessed One knows, I do not know’ (Jānāti bhagavā nāhaṁ jānāmī ti MN i 480). For those with established faith, the Kālāma Sutta is irrelevant, because considering whether the Buddha’s teaching should be abandoned or accepted implies a denial of one’s faith in the Buddha as the Teacher.

The Sāḷha Sutta

The Sāḷha Sutta (AN i 194) describes an occasion when the Kālāma Sutta was preached inappropriately. Firstly, the preacher was Venerable Nandaka, foremost among exhorters of the bhikkhunīs (AN i 25). Sāḷha was the grandson of Visākhā, not to be confused with Sāḷha the Licchavi who visited the Buddha at Kūṭāgārasāla (see Sāḷha Sutta, AN ii 200).

Why Nandaka preached the Kālāma Sutta to Sāḷha is hard to fathom. Sāḷha had asked no questions, and his visit to Nandaka was merely a social call with his friend, Rohana. Not only was Sāḷha free of questions, later events showed he was free of moral sensibility. This would in due course lead him into taking an unhealthy interest in the bhikkhunīs, and on the pretext of being their supporter, repeatedly attempting to seduce the beautiful bhikkhunī Sundarīnandā, till eventually she became pregnant by him and disrobed (Vin.4.211-6).

It can be no surprise, therefore, that the Sāḷha Sutta has a rather different conclusion to the Bhaddiya Sutta and Kālāma Sutta. Whereas those suttas had ended with listeners full of praise and thanks, in the Sāḷha Sutta, while Venerable Nandaka waxed lyrical about exalted fruits of the practice, from Sāḷha and Rohana we hear in appreciation not a word. Bhikkhu Bodhi says that the advice of the Kālāma Sutta ‘can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped.’ In the Sāḷha Sutta we have a good example of what exactly that means.

Where the Kālāma Sutta is irrelevant

The Kālāma Sutta is intended for those who have no established religious faith, but who nonetheless, as Bodhi says, are ‘of refined moral sensitivity.’ If this is misunderstood, problems arise. This is most obvious in people who claim to be disciples of the Buddha but have no faith in him, and no shame of wrongdoing, and who therefore easily gravitate to the philosophy of the Kālāma Sutta. Two suttas show the result of this.

The Kīṭāgiri Sutta

In the Kīṭāgiri Sutta (MN i 473) the bhikkhus Assaji and Punabbasuka refused the Buddha’s request that they abandon the evening meal, because by eating all day they claimed they were free of affliction and illness, and enjoyed health, strength and a comfortable abiding. When bhikkhus tried to stop them, they joked: ‘Why should we abandon a benefit visible here and now to pursue a benefit in the future?’ This defence is reminiscent of the Kālāma Sutta: ‘If you yourselves should consider that this leads to benefit and happiness, you should abide by it.’ The Buddha summoned them, roundly castigated them, and concluded:

• ‘Bhikkhus, you have lost your way. Bhikkhus, you are conducting yourselves wrongly. Bhikkhus, how far you have strayed, you worthless men, from this teaching and training system.’

vippaṭipannā'ttha bhikkhave. Micchāpaṭipannā'ttha bhikkhave. Kīvadūrevime bhikkhave moghapurisā apakkantā imasmā dhammavinayā. (MN i 480)

This, then, is the result of applying the philosophy of the Kālāma Sutta, when, as a disciple of the Buddha, one should already be established in faith. As if to confirm the limitations of the Kālāma Sutta, the Buddha told the bhikkhus to reflect that ‘The Blessed One knows, I do not know.’

The Kālāma Sutta says ‘if you yourselves should consider these teachings are blameworthy and denounced by the wise, you should abandon them.’ The admonishment of Assaji and Punabbasuka shows that in certain contexts, one should apply this message to the Kālāma Sutta itself.

The Bhaddāli Sutta

In the second situation, Venerable Bhaddali was another bhikkhu who was apparently swayed by the philosophy of the Kālāma Sutta, again with reference to avoiding the evening meal (Bhaddāli Sutta, MN i 437). Bhaddali’s excuse was ‘I might become anxious and uneasy about it.’ This is reminiscent of the Kālāma Sutta’s advice: ‘If you yourselves should consider these things lead to harm and suffering you should abandon them.’

The Buddha criticised Bhaddali for not simply following the bhikkhu’s code of conduct as laid down, and said that the faith most bhikkhus had for the Buddha was such that, if asked by him to ‘be a plank for me across the mud’ they would simply obey. He said Bhaddali had no faith at all in the Buddha, and was therefore not even a saddhānusārī. He was an empty, hollow wrongdoer (ritto tuccho aparaddho).

This shows that the problem with following ‘what one knows for oneself’ lies in the fact that religious practice is often uncomfortable, and the advice in the Kālāma Sutta to follow what one considers beneficial is rather easily confused with following what one considers pleasant. Bhikkhu Bodhi calls it ‘that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself.’

It is pertinent to recall the words of the bhikkhu who said:

• ‘When I live as I please, spiritually unwholesome factors flourish, spiritually wholesome factors fade. But when I apply myself to what is unpleasant, spiritually unwholesome factors fade, spiritually wholesome factors flourish. How about if I applied myself to what is unpleasant?’

Puna ca paraṁ bhikkhave bhikkhu iti paṭisañcikkhati 'yathāsukhaṁ kho me viharato akusalā dhammā abhivaḍḍhanti kusalā dhammā parihāyanti. Dukkhāya pana me attānaṁ padahato akusalā dhammā parihāyanti kusalā dhammā abhivaḍḍhanti. Yannūnāhaṁ dukkhāya attānaṁ padaheyyan ti. (MN ii 225)

Mā anussavena: what is the verb?

Mā anussavena is commonly translated: ‘Do not go by oral tradition.’ The verb ‘go’ is assumed because the verb is apparently missing. But the sentence does indeed have a verb, because the sutta concerns the question, on what basis should religious teachings be abandoned or accepted. The verbs ‘abandon’ and ‘accept’ occur when the Buddha tells the Kālāmas that under certain circumstances this is what they should do (atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha… atha tumhe kālāmā upasampajja vihareyyātha). These, then, are the verbs to use instead of ‘go.’

• for mā anussavena:
  • Do not [abandon religious teachings merely] because they do not accord with an oral tradition.
  • Do not [accept and abide by religious teachings merely] because they accord with an oral tradition.

Dhammā: teachings

Another problem with the Kālāma Sutta is how to render dhammā because it has two fields of application. In one case, it means ‘teachings,’ and is equivalent to vādaṁ in the following passage, which we have divided into Question and Answer:

Question:

• There are some ascetics and Brahmanists, bhante, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own teachings (sakaṁyeva vādaṁ); the teachings of others (parappavādaṁ) they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other ascetics and Brahmanists too, bhante, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own teachings; the teachings of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces.

Te sakaṁyeva vādaṁ dīpenti jotenti parappavādaṁ pana khuṁsenti vambhenti paribhavanti omakkhiṁ karonti

… Bhante, there is unsureness, there is doubt in us concerning them. Which of these reverend ascetics and Brahmanists spoke the truth and which falsehood?”

Tesaṁ no bhante amhākaṁ hoteva kaṅkhā hoti vicikicchā. Ko su nāma imesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ saccaṁ āha ko musā ti?

Answer:

• Kālāmas, if you yourselves should consider:

Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanāva jāneyyātha

… These teachings (dhammā) are unwholesome;

ime dhammā akusalā

… these teachings are blameworthy;

ime dhammā sāvajjā

… these teachings are denounced by the wise;

ime dhammā viññugarahitā

… when followed and taken up

ime dhammā samattā samādinnā

… these teachings lead to harm and suffering,”

ahitāya dukkhāya saṁvattantīti

… you should abandon them.

atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha. (AN i 189)

Dhammā: six phenomena

In the other case, dhammā is used in reference to six phenomena: greed, hatred, and undiscernment of reality (lobho doso moho) and their opposites, non-greed, non-hatred, and discernment of reality (alobho adoso amoho). The sutta calls these phenomena dhammā which we render as ‘factors.’

• ’What do you think, Kālāmas? Are these factors spiritually wholesome, or spiritually unwholesome?’

Taṁ kiṁ maññatha kālāmā ime dhammā kusalā vā akusalā vā ti?

• ’Spiritually unwholesome, bhante’

Akusalā bhante. (AN i 189-191)

Two lists of reasons

Another problem with the Kālāma Sutta is that there are two lists:

1) ten reasons for not abandoning teachings, and

2) ten reasons for not accepting teachings

But the two lists are identical, where it would make more sense if they were not. For example, mā anussavena means teachings should not be abandoned or accepted merely because of their relationship to an oral tradition. But this would be clearer if mā anussavena was phrased either positively or negatively, as follows:

• Do not [abandon religious teachings merely] because they do not accord with an oral tradition.
• Do not [accept and abide by religious teachings merely] because they accord with an oral tradition.

We say ‘merely because’ because the Kālāma Sutta is not about whether teachings should be abandoned or accepted, but on what basis and for what reason this should happen. By all means, abandon teachings, but not merely because they do not accord with an oral tradition etc.

If you yourselves should consider: yadā attanāva jāneyyātha

We deal with this issue elsewhere, sv Jāneyyāti, where we note that the prominent phrase in the sutta is often translated by ignoring the optative tense, saying:

• When you know for yourselves: 'These things are unwholesome… then you should abandon them.

Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanāva jāneyyātha ime dhammā akusalā… atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha. (AN i 190)

But to propose that the Buddha is saying an untrained disciple could really know for himself what things are unwholesome would negate the rationale for a religious training system. We suggest that this excerpt is more accurately and more rationally translated with ‘should consider.’ The context obliges one to translate yadā as ‘if’ not ‘when’:

• Kālāmas, if you yourselves should consider: “These teachings are unwholesome… you should abandon them.

Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanāva jāneyyātha ime dhammā akusalā… atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha. (AN i 190)

For further notes, see sv Jāneyyāti.

The Buddha’s attitude to self-reliance

To what degree the Buddha expected self-reliance from his disciples is obvious in these two quotes:

1) So long as in relation to spiritually wholesome factors, [what should be done] by a bhikkhu is not done, neither with the help of faith [in the perfection of the Buddha’s transcendent insight], nor with the help of shame of wrongdoing, nor with the help of fear of wrongdoing, nor with the help of energetic application [to the practice], nor with the help of wisdom, that bhikkhu should be looked after by me.

Evameva kho bhikkhave yāvakīvañca bhikkhuno saddhāya akataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu hiriyā akataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu ottappena akataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu viriyena akataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu paññāya akataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu anurakkhitabbo tāva me so bhikkhave bhikkhu hoti.

But when [what should be done] by a bhikkhu is done, either with the help of faith [in the perfection of the Buddha’s transcendent insight], or with the help of shame of wrongdoing, or with the help of fear of wrongdoing, or with the help of energetic application [to the practice], or with the help of wisdom, I am unconcerned about him, thinking: 'The bhikkhu can now look after himself. He will not be negligently applied [to the practice].’

Yato ca kho bhikkhave bhikkhuno saddhāya kataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu hiriyā kataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu ottappena kataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu viriyena kataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu paññāya kataṁ hoti kusalesu dhammesu anapekkho dānāhaṁ bhikkhave tasmiṁ bhikkhusmiṁ homi Attaguttodāni bhikkhu nālaṁ pamādāyā ti. (AN iii 6)

2) Therefore, Ānanda, dwell spiritually self-reliant, with yourself as your refuge, with no other refuge, relying completely on the teaching, with the teaching as your refuge, with no other refuge. How do you do this?

Tasmātihānanda attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā. Kathañcānanda bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo dhammadīpo dhammasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo:

… In this regard a bhikkhu abides contemplating the nature of the body, vigorously, fully consciously, and mindfully, having eliminated greed and dejection in regard to the world [of phenomena].

idhānanda bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.

… He abides contemplating the nature of sense impressions… the nature of the mind… the nature of certain objects of the systematic teachings

Vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ. Citte cittānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ. Dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.

… Thus a bhikkhu abides spiritually self-reliant, with himself as his refuge, with no other refuge, relying completely on the teaching, with the teaching as his refuge, with no other refuge.

Evaṁ kho ānanda bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo dhammadīpo dhammasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo.

… Those bhikkhus, either now or after my passing, who abide spiritually self-reliant, with themselves as their refuge, with no other refuge; relying completely on the teaching, with the teaching as their refuge, with no other refuge; it is these bhikkhus, Ānanda, who will be for me foremost amongst those desirous of the training.

Ye hi keci ānanda etarahi vā mamaccaye vā attadīpā viharissanti attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā tamatagge me te ānanda bhikkhu bhavissanti ye keci sikkhākāmāti. (SN v 154)

Illustration: mā anussavena, Do not [abandon religious teachings merely] because they do not accord with an oral tradition.

mā anussavena

[merely] because they do not accord with a religious lineage.

mā paramparāya

[merely] because they do not accord with popular opinion.

mā itikirāya

[merely] because they do not accord with the scriptural collections.

mā piṭakasampadānena

[merely] because they do not accord with logical reasoning.

mā takkahetu

[merely] because they not accord with inferential reasoning.

mā nayahetu

[merely] because they do not accord with reasoned cogitation.

mā ākāraparivitakkena

[merely] because of a considered disapproval of some view.

mā diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā

[merely] because of their implausibility.

mā bhabbarūpatāya

[merely] because the expounding ascetic is not your teacher.

mā samaṇo no garū ti

Kālāmas, if you yourselves should consider:

Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanāva jāneyyātha

“These teachings are unwholesome;

ime dhammā akusalā

these teachings are blameworthy;

ime dhammā sāvajjā

these teachings are denounced by the wise;

ime dhammā viññugarahitā

when followed and taken up

ime dhammā samattā samādinnā

these teachings lead to harm and suffering,”

ahitāya dukkhāya saṁvattantīti

you should abandon them.

atha tumhe kālāmā pajaheyyātha. (AN i 189)

Illustration: mā anussavena, Do not [accept and abide by religious teachings merely] because they accord with an oral tradition.

mā anussavena

[merely] because they accord with a religious lineage.

mā paramparāya

[merely] because they accord with popular opinion.

mā itikirāya

[merely] because they accord with the scriptural collections.

mā piṭakasampadānena

[merely] because they accord with logical reasoning.

mā takkahetu

[merely] because they accord with inferential reasoning.

mā nayahetu

[merely] because they accord with reasoned cogitation.

mā ākāraparivitakkena

[merely] because of a considered approval of some view.

mā diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā

[merely] because of their plausibility.

mā bhabbarūpatāya

[merely] because the expounding ascetic is your teacher.

mā samaṇo no garū ti

Kālāmas, if you yourselves should consider:

Yadā tumhe kālāmā attanāva jāneyyātha

“These teachings are wholesome;

ime dhammā kusalā

these teachings are blameless;

ime dhammā anavajjā

these teachings are praised by the wise;

ime dhammā viññuppasatthā

when followed and taken up

ime dhammā samattā samādinnā

these teachings lead to benefit and happiness,”

hitāya sukhāya saṁvattantīti

you should accept and abide by them.

atha tumhe kālāmā upasampajja vihareyyātha. (AN i 190)