<p>All evil is rooted in &quot;just&quot; Lobha-dosa-moha, and all good in a-*, so what's the point, good householder. And yes, the talk is given to those without refuge yet.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-06T07:36:44.600Z
2022-10-06T07:36:44.600Z
user24203
<p>I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://classicaltheravada.org/t/kalama-sutta-is-only-to-be-applied-for-lobha-dosa-moha/474" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha?</a></p>
<p>The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha
(<a href="https://aathaapi.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">aathaapi.org</a>) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma
sutta.</p>
<ol>
<li>Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for <strong>Non-Buddhists</strong></li>
<li>Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for <strong>Lobha-dosa-moha</strong> (and
Alobha-adosa-amoha)</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your
comments.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1ySYW.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1ySYW.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him.</p>
<p>So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating
other things mentioned in the Tipitaka.</p>
<p><strong>If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above</strong></p>
<p><em><strong>“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ
paṭicca vuttaṃ.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in
reference to this was it said.</strong></em></p>
<p>This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima
nikaya where,</p>
<ol>
<li>An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first.</li>
<li>Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases)</li>
<li>Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned.</li>
<li>At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for
Niddesa.</li>
</ol>
<p>Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc.</p>
<p><em><strong>Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:</strong></em></p>
<p>“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni,
…’ti <strong>– ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.</strong> “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni
veditabbānī’ti <strong>– iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?</strong>
‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ
manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti <strong>– iti yaṃ taṃ
vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.</strong></p>
<p>“‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ <strong>This is the
recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.</strong> ‘The six
interior sense fields should be understood.’ <strong>– That’s what I said, but
why did I say it?</strong> There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be
understood.’ <strong>– That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<theravada><pali-canon><sutras><pali-language><commentary>
Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?
# Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-05)

I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?

> [Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha?](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/kalama-sutta-is-only-to-be-applied-for-lobha-dosa-moha/474)
>
> The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha
> ([aathaapi.org](https://aathaapi.org)) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma
> sutta.
>
> 1. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Non-Buddhists**
> 2. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Lobha-dosa-moha** (and
>    Alobha-adosa-amoha)
>
> I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your
> comments.
>
> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1ySYW.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/1ySYW.jpg)
>
> Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him.
>
> So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating
> other things mentioned in the Tipitaka.
>
> **If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above**
>
> ***“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ
> paṭicca vuttaṃ.***
>
> ***So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in
> reference to this was it said.***
>
> This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima
> nikaya where,
>
> 1. An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first.
> 2. Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases)
> 3. Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned.
> 4. At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for
>    Niddesa.
>
> Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc.
>
> ***Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:***
>
> “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni,
> …’ti **– ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.** “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni
> veditabbānī’ti **– iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?**
> ‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ
> manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti **– iti yaṃ taṃ
> vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.**
>
> “‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ **This is the
> recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.** ‘The six
> interior sense fields should be understood.’ **– That’s what I said, but
> why did I say it?** There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose,
> tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be
> understood.’ **– That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.**

**Tags:** theravada, pali-canon, sutras, pali-language, commentary


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-10-06. Score: 1

All evil is rooted in "just" Lobha-dosa-moha, and all good in a-\*, so what's the point, good householder. And yes, the talk is given to those without refuge yet.


---

