Kalama Sutta to Jamesian Pragmatism, and Beyond

There were many itinerant teachers at the time of the Buddha, going village to village begging for alms, and providing teachings to those who would listen. Not surprisingly, they would often contradict each other, thus confusing the people and perhaps even causing them distress. After all, we don’t just want to be told pretty stories, we want to know what’s true. And so it was that the Kalamas of Kesaputta were hoping that the Buddha might ease their troubled minds:

[They] said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans and contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound and glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, and disparage them. And then other brahmans and contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound and glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, and disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain and in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans and contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

Not much has changed in the 2,500 years or so since the Kalamas sought guidance from the Buddha, has it? Seekers still crave doctrinal certainty, and purveyors of belief still propound their own views and criticize those of others. And what were those doctrines on which the Kalamas sought clarity? Although not explicitly stated in the sutra, the existence of souls and the nature of karma were apparently at least two such matters.

This, I think, is a fascinating aspect of the Kalama Sutta (Sutra). The doctrinal views of others are not defined, but neither are those of the Buddha explicitly defined. There is no discussion of the inherent rightness or wrongness of any doctrine. Rather, the Buddha exhorts the Kalamas to examine the fruits of following such doctrine. Does a teaching lead one to live a positive life or not?

Now, the Buddhist teachings related to karma (the law of cause and effect) have never given me much pause. I’ve seen karma at work in my own life and in the world around me. For a time I even embraced the idea that karmic consequence extended into other future lifetimes via some mechanism involving reincarnation or the transmigration of the soul. However, there arose in me some doubt as to whether these ideas are actually consistent with more bedrock Buddhist teachings.

Sure, there are instances of the Buddha purportedly talking about his past lives. But did he really say these things, or are they stories that were later attributed to him by those seeking to advance their own understanding or point of view? And if these stories were indeed told by the Buddha, might they have been intended to be educational in nature, rather than taken as literal truth? There also exists amongst Buddhist teachings a sort of extrapolation of the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination to encompass past, present, and future lifetimes before and after the physical death of any particular being. However, this seems to me now to contradict those teachings related to the fundamentally empty nature of existence. What exactly is it that moves from this being to the next when this being is considered to be entirely dependent upon the five skandhas for its existence? (Merriam-Webster defines the five skandhas as the "transitory personal elements of body, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness whose temporary concatenation forms the individual self.")

As we are about to see, though, such logical dissection of doctrinal views should not be relied upon in totality (at all?). Rather, it is the fruit that arises from adherence to a particular doctrine that is most important. Says the Buddha:

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, 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 unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering” — then you should abandon them.

Without doubt, my own thoughts on the matter of reincarnation or transmigration are little more than logical conjecture, inference, and pondering. So let me now examine belief in reincarnation/transmigration, or lack thereof, through the lens of whether or not it yields good fruit or bad.

If there is a danger that denial of the existence of a soul might lead one down a path of nihilistic behavior that causes harm to oneself or others, then, yes, perhaps such a view should be abandoned. However, I’ve known many an atheist or agnostic who live very ethical lives dedicated to helping make the world a better place for everyone. Thus, I can draw no conclusion in that regard. Yes, behaving appropriately in this life so as to avoid negative repercussions in the next might be a strong motivation to “be good.” But it is certainly not the only one. A basic sense of compassion might be another, as would the realization that we are all quite inextricably bound together in this glorious world of hardship and joy. On the other hand, belief in a life after this one might actually prompt us to “kick the can down the road,” so to speak, to not strive as we could in this life to do what is good and right. After all, there will always be another life in which to pick up where we left off, won’t there? Thus, I am not particularly swayed one way or the other on this matter by examining the lives lived by those who believe as opposed to those who do not.

Notwithstanding my own personal exploration (you must do your own) of this matter, what the Buddha leaves us with is essentially a Jamesian Pragmatic approach to belief. In other words, regardless of truth or falsity, does belief (or acting as if one believes) yield good fruit in this life, or not? In this regard the Buddha provides us with a rationale for belief that serves us, and the world, regardless. If we have souls that reincarnate (and notice that the Buddha does not actually say here that we do), then our purity of action will serve us well. If we don’t have such souls, our lives will still be lived well in this world. If the karmic law of cause and effect does indeed hold true, then we and the world will be well-served by the purity of our action. If, on the other hand, karma is not sound teaching, then our life will still be one well-lived in this world. Here are the four assurances that the Buddha reportedly conveyed:

If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly and wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.

But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly and wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.

If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?

But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.

I suspect that we will still be pondering the existence of souls if we humans are still around in 2,500 years. Such questions cut straight to the heart of what it means to be alive. We simply cannot know these things. It is this shared human unknowing more than anything else that motivates me to want to live a life that is of benefit to all beings. Perhaps we will all one day have this veil of fundamental ignorance pulled away from our eyes, but until that day comes I will simply try to live a good life – or lives as the case may be!

Copyright 2020 by Mark Robert Frank