One thing that needs to be made clear in the very beginning is that Buddhism is not a religion or a philosophy and, in fact, is not really an “ism” either.  Unlike religion, at least in the way that it is commonly understood, Buddhism does not rest upon revelation from a transcendent being or beings, nor does it put stock in miracles or other supernatural displays, nor does it direct the attention of its adherents to their possible status in the afterlife and finally it assigns all supernatural beings to the role of fellow students and disciples of the Buddha. Unlike philosophy or metaphysics, which are often the same thing, Buddhism does not concern itself with fruitless speculation about the origins or structure of the universe (indeed it tends to take the Vedic cosmology of ancient India for granted), nor are its teachings the result of mere logic and reasoning, though the Buddha is always very logical and reasonable in his presentation of his teachings. Buddhism does not qualify as an “ism” either, if an “ism” is understood to be an institution that promotes the adoption of a system of beliefs or an ideology. It would be more accurate to refer to Buddhism as the “Buddha Dharma”, meaning the Truth pointed out by the Buddha so that we can discover it for ourselves. Buddhism, then, is really a way of life designed to help people see things as they really are, free of delusion, projections, paranoia and false assumptions. This way of life is composed of a doctrine and a discipline which both serve to help the one who takes them up see for him or herself if what the Buddha taught was true. In the beginning, it is true, these things may need to be taken on faith; but the expectation is that these things will prove themselves to the Buddhist who endeavors to live in accordance with the Buddha Dharma. So, unlike an “ism” which demands that one put one’s faith in something which can not be verified, Buddha Dharma is more like an experiment in seeing the Truth directly for oneself by utilizing the same methods that enabled Siddhartha Gautama to become Shakyamuni Buddha.

The Kalama Sutta, in particular, makes the Buddha’s common sense and non-dogmatic approach clear. At one time the Buddha came to a town called Kesaputta which was the home of the Kalama people. Apparently, the Kalamas had been afflicted with all manner of dogmatic preachers and pretentious philosophers of the variety that people usually associate with “isms”. It seems, however, that the good reputation of the Buddha had preceded him, and so the Kalamas decided to ask the Buddha about all the conflicting truth claims which they had been subjected to:

“There are, Lord, some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta. They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, debunk, revile and vilify the doctrines of others. But then some other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, debunk, revile and vilify the doctrines of others.  For us, Lord, there is perplexity and doubt as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak falsehood?”

“It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kalamas, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, Kalamas.  Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by a reflection on reasons, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The 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 practiced lead to harm and suffering’, then you should abandon them. (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p. 65)

What is remarkable about this passage is that the Buddha comes right to the point and denies all the usual sources that people use as a basis for establishing truth claims. He does not spare anything or anyone: not religion (scriptures & tradition), nor philosophy (logic, inference, reflection, and pondering), nor the opinions of experts (the ascetic-teacher & those with seeming competence as speakers) nor unproven assumptions (hearsay and reliance on lineages). Having cleared the field, the Buddha then questions the Kalamas in such a way that it leads them back to the clear foundations of direct observation and common sense, the genuine starting points for any serious inquiry.

“What do you think, Kalamas? When greed, hatred and delusion rise in a person, is it for his welfare or harm?” – “For his harm, Lord.” – “Kalamas, 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, engage in sexual misconduct and tell lies; he will also prompt others to do likewise. Will that conduce to his harm and suffering for a long time?” – “Yes, Lord.”

“What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome?” – “Unwholesome, Lord” – “Blamable or blameless?” – “Blamable, Lord.” – “Censured or praised by the wise?” – “Censured, Lord.” — “Undertaken and practiced, do they lead to harm and suffering or not, or how is it in this case?” – “Undertaken and practiced, these things lead to harm and suffering.  So it appears to us in this case.” (Ibid, pp. 65-66)

There are two things about the last passage that should be reflected upon. The first is the reference to the “the wise”. Who are considered to be the wise, if this discourse itself is concerned with the fact that the claims of all the self-proclaimed wise men are in doubt? It seems likely that the reference to “the wise” refers to those who are commonly recognized as virtuous and admirable. They are not even necessarily teachers, ascetics or priests in any formal sense. This is good to know, for even in our culture there are those who are almost universally recognized as “good people”, and this recognition seems to transcend all sectarian boundaries and disagreements. So, it seems as though there may be standards or criteria that go beyond the mere conceptual confusion of truth claims after all.  One of the obvious examples would be Jesus, who is recognized by almost everyone in the world as one who “went about doing good”, even if not everyone believes that he is the Messiah or the Son of God.

The final remark of the Kalamas, “So it appears to us in this case.” has also been translated as: “Thus it strikes us here.” Going by the latter translation, their comment is no mere assent to the observations that the Buddha elicited from them with his questions. This statement expresses an acknowledgement from the core of their being. It is an acknowledgement of the Dharma which they knew all along but are now certain of, the Dharma which lay at the periphery of their conscious ruminations about life, but which has now taken center stage due to the prompting of the Buddha. What is wholesome? What is unwholesome? What is Truth? These are things which we can forever talk circles around, but which we can only really know from the preconscious core of our lives out of which we live and move and have our being. Along these lines, Frank Herbert’s classic Dune contains the following remark that seems to beautifully express the experience of the Kalamas:

All men must see that the teaching of religion by rules and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensation which tells you this is something you’ve always known. (Dune, p. 505)

In the following passages, the Buddha turns the attention of the Kalamas to the benefits of being free of the negative qualities that have just been discussed. He then repeats the theme that Truth is something that the Kalamas can verify for themselves, it does not need to come from some privileged source.

“What do you think, Kalamas? When non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion arise in a person, is it for his welfare or harm?” — “For his welfare, Lord.” — “Kalamas, 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 sexual misconduct 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, Lord.”

“What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome?” — “Wholesome, Lord.” — “Blamable or blameless?” — “Blameless, Lord.” — “Censured or praised by the wise?” — “Praised, Lord.” — “Undertaken and practiced, do they lead to welfare and happiness or not, or how is it in this case?” — “Undertaken and practiced, these things lead to welfare and happiness. So it appears to us in this case.”

“It was for this reason, Kalamas, that we said: Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by a reflection on reasons, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves, ‘These things are wholesome, these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced lead to welfare and happiness’, then you should engage in them. (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p. 66)