Hello Meindzai,meindzai wrote:Ok, let everybody interpret the Kalama Suttas as they will. But let me say that I think that in general, discussions about the approach we should take to dhamma focus too much on that Sutta. Actually it's kind of ironic. If the Kalama sutta says not to rely too much on the Tipitaka, which itself is a part of, then why such a fierce defense of the Kalama Sutta? To get a more complete picture I would seriously advise people to read the Canki Sutta and the Apannaka Sutta as well.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... x.than.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-M
I take the Canki Sutta to be the best description I have read of how one deals with what is and is not true. I dont think anything I have put forth is out of line with that particular Sutta either.
Of course the Kalama sutta does not refer to the Tipitika. It refers to scriptures in a general way. The Tipitika is a scripture. It is a story about something which happened a long time ago.
Metta
Gabe