Buddha fearlessly rejected blind views of a generation, the scriptures or the opinions of teachers (AFP)

Accepting the fact that this feudalist teacher-student relations still exist to some extent Prof. Parakrama proposed as a way out a new theoretical approach which is not teacher-centred

It was to satisfy the thirst of Kalamas to learn what is right that Buddha delivered the Kalama Sutta under ten criteria

The call for independent thinking and free inquiry in Kalama Sutta, Buddha’s famed discourse, continues to appeal to scholars and dedicated teachers. This was in evidence when Prof.Arjuna Parakrama, former journalist and Emeritus Professor of English, University of Peradeniya who was invited to address the last Pre-State Literary Awards lecture, chose Lessons of Kalama Sutta as the basis for his presentation titled “Literature, Criticism and Society. The Need for New Theoretical Approaches and the Challenges they present.” 

Delivered in Sinhala the hour-long lecture was well within the trajectory of the present dilemma in the literary and educational field which calls for new theoretical approaches and the need to train one’s mind to be able to determine what is good for you and society.

Kalama Sutta is part of the Anguttara Nikaya which is one of the five collections of Discourses grouped at the first Buddhist Council held three months after Buddha’s Parinirvana. Although delivered over 2500 years ago, the Sutta is often quoted by scholars/teachers as it encourages disciples to reject teaching if it has not been put to the test and had not been practised through one’s own experiential wisdom.     

                     
Prof. Parakrama stated that training of the imagination is what is needed to develop. “This is what makes humanities unique, raises the humanities beyond the mundane sciences and make them understand the subject in relation to the world.”

He chose to open his Address with Prof. Ven. Walpola Rahula Thera’s comments on the revolutionary Teachings Buddha expounded in Kalama Sutta. Buddha fearlessly rejected blind views of a generation, the scriptures or the opinions of teachers. But, Venerable Rahula had lamented that no lessons had been learnt from these Teachings. “If a student expresses a view or that of the present society that makes the teacher very angry and threaten the student in numerous ways. The teacher attempts to submerge the student’s reasoning and critical intellect while questioning as to how a student is wiser than the teacher?  The effort of the teacher is to make the student his slave. This teaching  pattern has made many slaves among us.  Expressing an independent view among them is like playing music to deaf elephants.”

Accepting the fact that this feudalist teacher-student relations still exist to some extent Prof. Parakrama proposed as a way out a new theoretical approach which is not teacher-centred. The significance of it is that this teaching philosophy, rests on knowledge , the obtaining of knowledge, being open to questioning and which could be politically defined. 

Using Ven. Prof. Rahula Thera’s observations as his theme, Prof. Parakrama accepts that the duty and the responsibility of those in the teaching profession should be to analyse without being partial and be a significant part of the teaching and learning process. While doing so, he states that we must study options that have made a wide impact and learn lessons from them.

It was during one of His frequent sojourns that Buddha, accompanied by monks, arrived at the buzzling trade town of Kasamutta where its inhabitants known as the Kalamas, having heard of the Buddha as a great Teacher, met Him and posed some thought-provoking questions. 

They said that some contemplatives and brahmins who visit Kasamutta, expound and explain only their doctrine while they despise, revile and pull to pieces doctrines of others. Some other contemplatives and brahmins who also visit Kasamutta, expound and explain only their own doctrines despising those of others. Therefore, there is doubt and uncertainty in us as to which of them speak the truth?

It was to satisfy the thirst of Kalamas to learn what is right that Buddha delivered the Kalama Sutta under ten criteria:

Do not accept reports one hears repeatedly (anussava,) because it has become the traditional practice (paramparaya,) or things one hears through rumours or unconfirmed reports (itikiraya,) just because it is cited in a text or the scriptures (pitaka sampadana) or those based just on logical reasoning (takkahetu,) by concluding through logical deduction (nayahetu,) through pondering, superficial thinking or common sense ( akaraparivitakkena,) or agree with one’s preconceived opinions because the preacher appears to be acceptable and competent and just because something is stated by one’s admired and respected teacher.

Having presented the ten criteria Buddha spoke of the ill effects of lobha (greed,) dosa (ill will,) and moha (delusion,) how to overcome them and instructed the Kalamas that when you know for yourselves that these qualities are unskillful, blamabale, censured by the wise and when adopted and observed will lead to harm and suffer, then you should abandon them. 

But  Buddha asked the Kalamas if there is an absence of these three unwholesome roots – greed (lobha,) ill-will (dosa) or delusion (moha) and when you know that these qualities are skillful, not blamable, are praised by the wise and when these qualities are adopted and observed will lead to benefit and happiness, then you should abide by them. 

Overjoyed with what they heard, the Kalamas said that Buddha’s discourse was like a lamp carried into the darkness so that those with eyes can see things.

Prof. Parakrama, going along Buddha’s Teachings in the Kalama Sutta, delved deep into humanities imagination. If we take them up broadly, he said of language that it cannot be a neutral medium. It is used to fight or cover gender, ethnic, class, regional and educational issues. Whereas culture is both positive and negative. If however only the elite and not the poor and the general population are benefitted by it, it has to be deconstructed and examined on a fundamental basis. That is part of this humanities imagination.

His stance however is that studying humanities does not make someone better. You could be a wonderful poet and a horrible human being. But with training of the imagination, you could bypass and avoid the pitfalls and traps of things like hegemony as what Buddha said in Kalama Sutta.

Nationalism, like culture, can be unequal, discriminatory, hierarchical and wrong. But humanities can undo this and it is humanities imagination that can imagine a world outside of this petty nationalism and imagine a world that is international. 

           
Drawing parallels between science and humanities he said that scientists can govern a country because they think governing a country is based on facts. But when you deal with human beings, you need more than facts. You need to understand and engage with society.

And when you need judgment, science cannot give you judgment because there are no rules for judgment. When we act as human beings, what is required are people who can make judgments. Science is used in two senses. It is used to describe physics, biology, chemistry and other branches. Science was also used from the 14th to the 19th centuries as a basis of evidence. So when we say “scientific,” we are not referring to those branches of science. What is meant by it is, it is evidence-based. This is part of humanities and it can be argued that humanities are more scientific. 

Of clarity he said, sometimes the model of clarity we have inherited from science could be right. But not always. It is the humanities imagination that can understand the limit of clarity as well as its possibilities.