Xtofu80 wrote:However, the Kalama Sutta which is sorted into chapter three does not contain the word three at all.
Why did it get sorted into this chapter then?
These ten inadequate sources of knowledge may be divided into three categories:
(1) The first, comprising the first four criteria, are propositions based on tradition. These include i.“oral tradition” (anussava), generally understood to refer to the Vedic tradition; ii.“lineage” (parampara), an unbroken succession of teachings or teachers; iii.“hearsay” (or “report”; itikira), popular opinion or general consensus; and iv.“a collection of scriptures” (Pitakasampada), a collection of texts regarded as infallible. In the Buddha’s day these would have been orally transmitted rather than written.
(2) The second set comprises the next four terms referring to four types of reasoning; their differences need not detain us here, but since the Buddha himself often uses reasoning, they must all involve reasoning from hypothetical premises rather than from empirical observation.
(3) The third set, consisting of the last two items, contains two types of personal authority: the first, “seeming competence” (bhabbarupata), is the personal charisma of the speaker (perhaps including his external qualifications); the second is the authority of the speaker as one’s guru (Pali garu being identical with Skt guru)
Blackbird wrote:To hazard a guess, it is possible that it was placed in the 3s because Greed, hatred and delusion are addressed in the sutta.
(1) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When greed arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”...
(2) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When hatred arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?” ...
(3) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When delusion arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest