Aṅguttara Nikāya (Numbered Discourses)

Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.

What do you think, Kālāmas? Does greed come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

“Harm, sir.”

“A greedy individual, overcome by greed, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas? Does hate come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

“Harm, sir.”

“A hateful individual, overcome by hate, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas? Does delusion come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

“Harm, sir.”

“A deluded individual, overcome by delusion, kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

“Unskillful, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameworthy, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Criticized by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake them, do they lead to harm and suffering, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering. That’s how we see it.”

“So, Kālāmas, when I said: ‘Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering”, then you should give them up.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness’, then you should acquire them and keep them.

What do you think, Kālāmas? Does contentment come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

“Welfare, sir.”

“An individual who is content, not overcome by greed, doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas? Does love come up in a person for their welfare or harm? … Does understanding come up in a person for their welfare or harm? … Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

“Skillful, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameless, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Praised by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake them, do they lead to welfare and happiness, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness. That’s how we see it.”

“So, Kālāmas, when I said: ‘Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness”, then you should acquire them and keep them.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Then that noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused, aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of compassion to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of rejoicing to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won four consolations in this very life. ‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in this very life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.

When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in this very life.”

“That’s so true, Blessed One! That’s so true, Holy One! When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in this very life. …

Excellent, sir! Excellent! … We go for refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha. From this day forth, may the Buddha remember us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life.”

So I have heard. Now at that time Venerable Nandaka was staying near Sāvatthī in the stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother in the Eastern Monastery. Then Sāḷha, Migāra’s grandson, and Rohaṇa, Pekhuṇiya’s grandson went up to Venerable Nandaka, bowed, and sat down to one side. Then Venerable Nandaka said to Sāḷha:

“Please, Sāḷha and friend, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.

What do you think, Sāḷha? Is greed real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Covetousness’ is what I mean by this. A person who is greedy and covetous kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Sāḷha? Is hate real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Malice’ is what I mean by this. A hateful and malicious person kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Sāḷha? Is delusion real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Ignorance’ is what I mean by this. A person who is deluded and ignorant kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Sāḷha, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

“Unskillful, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameworthy, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Criticized by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake them, do they lead to harm and suffering, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering. That’s how we see it.”

“So, Sāḷha and friend, when I said: ‘Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering”, then you should give them up.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Please, Sāḷha and friend, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness’, then you should acquire them and keep them.

What do you think? Is contentment real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Satisfaction’ is what I mean by this. A person who is content and satisfied doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think? Is love real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Kindness’ is what I mean by this. A loving and kind-hearted person doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Sāḷha? Is understanding real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Knowledge’ is what I mean by this. A person who understands and knows doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What do you think, Sāḷha, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

“Skillful, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameless, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Praised by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake them, do they lead to welfare and happiness, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness. That’s how we see it.”

“So, Sāḷha and friend, when I said: ‘Please, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness”, then you should acquire them and keep them.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Then that noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused, aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of love … compassion … rejoicing … equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the scope of perception.’ Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’

They understand: ‘Formerly there was greed, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful. Formerly there was hate, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful. Formerly there was delusion, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.’ So they live without wishes in this very life, quenched, cooled, experiencing bliss, with self become divine.”

“There are, mendicants, these three topics of discussion. What three? You might discuss the past: ‘That is how it was in the past.’ You might discuss the future: ‘That is how it will be in the future.’ Or you might discuss the present: ‘This is how it is at present.’

You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if it needs to be answered categorically and they don’t answer it categorically; or if it needs analysis and they answer without analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer without a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they don’t set it aside, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if it needs to be answered categorically and they answer it categorically; or if it needs analysis and they answer after analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer with a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they set it aside, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.

You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they’re not consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they are consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.

You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they don’t dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.

You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion. When an individual is asked a question, if they don’t intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.

You can know whether or not an individual has what’s required by seeing how they take part in a discussion. If they actively listen they have what’s required; if they don’t actively listen they don’t have what’s required. Someone who has what’s required directly knows one thing, completely understands one thing, gives up one thing, and realizes one thing— and then they experience complete freedom. This is the purpose of discussion, consultation, sitting close, and listening well, that is, the liberation of the mind by not grasping.

Those who converse with hostility, too sure of themselves, arrogant, ignoble, attacking virtues, they look for flaws in each other.