This is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth.
And it’s very common as well.
Here’s the original version, from Access to Insight:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
The Buddha is talking to some people who live near his home country. These people, the Kalamas, are confused by the multiplicity of teachings that they hear. Many teachers arrive, who extoll their own teachings and disparage the teachings of others. And the Kalamas want to know, “Which of these venerable brahmans and contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who say it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.
— Buddha Quote (@BuddhaQuote) June 9, 2012
The Buddha’s reply is very full, but it’s clear he says that “reason” (logical conjecture, inference, analogies, agreement through pondering views) and “common sense” (probability) are not sufficient bases for determining what the truth is. It’s not that these things should be discarded, but ultimately it’s experience and the opinion of the wise that is our guide.
So this brings up at least two questions:
1. If experience is to be our guide, does that mean we have to test out every theory and practice? No. If a teacher says something like “taking drugs is the path to happiness” you don’t have to try drugs. Your experience includes observation of other people’s experience, so that if you have seen others suffering through taking drugs you don’t have to repeat their mistakes.
2. Who is to say who the wise are? You are. Through your experience (see point 1, above). Who have you found to be reliable and insightful in the past? They’re the wise. Now you don’t have to take everything they say as being the absolute truth. You can use your reason, your common sense, and your experience as a guide. Not all of “the wise” will agree, for example, so you’re still going to have to figure things out for yourself ultimately.
It’s this second criterion that is often overlooked.
The first instance of this version of the quote that I’ve found is in a libertarian book by the pseudonymous author, “John Galt” — Dreams Come Due. I strongly suspect that Galt’s libertarianism caused him to alter the quote in order to make it supportive of his position.
Incidentally, the “no matter where you read it” is an anachronism, since spiritual teachings were orally transmitted at the time of the Buddha.
Great site; can’t believe I took this long to find it! Good ol’ Tricycle.
Regards,
Bill
Thanks, Bill. The site’s not as old as it looks. I used to write these FBQ posts on my personal blog, and then decided to import them to a new blog so that it would be more of a “thing.” So although some of the posts are venerable and ancient, the blog itself is only two months old.
Thanks to Gordy Turner who shared your link on FB. I look forward to much wisdom reading your blog.
Thank yo very much for this website !! For long years I was reading buddhist quotes from the internet and I could not trust the real source of them. Simply I don’t trust in many internet websites made of copy&paste from others wich we cannot verify where it came from, what book, page, etc. I saw your comment on facebook pic. Thank you. kisses from Argentina.
Thank you for enlightning the minds of people with correct Dharma. In aworld where lot of people are in serch of the truth I beleive your efforts will help some of them if not all !!!! , May the tripple gem bless all………
Thanks for clearing this up. This is a very common mis-quote. More people should read this post.
Greetings & Salutations my dear Friend Bodhipakśa _/|\_
I fully concur! This is probably, in my perception, this most frequently sited, commonplace atrocious “misquote” is truly a FAKE QUOTE.
The reasons that you’ve outlined are excellent. The difference between what one’s “Common Sense” confirms, and the advice given to the Kalamans (Kalama Sutta, Pali Canon, AN 3.65 ) about ONLY trusting EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE once proven SKILLFUL, definitely makes this “interpretation” a Bonafide FAKE BUDDHA QUOTE.
Namaskar _/|\_ With Metta & Sati, your Friend,
~Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani
I guess I need to change the attribution if I ever use that quote again. How about ~some Libertarian/Buddhist guy?
I guess that works. Or you could have “Not the Buddha.”
I almost used this quote, but I’m glad that I did a search before doing that.
But be it reason, common sense or experience, until we attain enlightenment, I think ultimate truth is beyond us as long as ignorance is obscuring our perception.
Thanks for clearing the air.
Pingback: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Buddha* « SatNav for the soul®
“Logical conjecture” is not the same as reason; in fact, it is the opposite. Look up conjecture in a dictionary and you will see what I mean. The process the Buddha advises the Kalamas to take is one based on reason: “Does the behavior cause harm? If so, avoid it. Simple. The translator’s note in the Access to Insight link you provided makes the point clear that reason IS what the Buddha is talking about. “Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one’s understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one’s beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention.”
I thought I would point that out.
Thanks, Timothy. I have to say that formal logic is not my strong point.
The word “conjecture” seems to be an “educated guess,” so I wouldn’t have thought that’s the opposite of reason, but a particular kind of reason. Questions could be raised in any given instance of what the observational basis is for making the conjecture (is your data sample representative, biased, etc.) or how sound your reasoning is, but conjecture doesn’t seem, in essence, to be a “un-reasonable” activity.
The actual Pali term used for “conjecture” is takahetu, which my old friend Jayarava interprets as “reasoning disconnected from experience and especially from emotions and values; what we might call speculation.” He goes on to say “There‟s nothing wrong with reason per se, but one can‟t decide moral questions from pure reason, one must understand it from experience,” which I quite agree with.
Jayarava’s interpretation here is the same as mine. Reason isn’t enough. It’s necessary, but not sufficient. One has to have a observational basis for your reason for it to be spiritually helpful.