Talk:Kalama Sutta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deletion/revisions of the last paragraph raise an interesting issue about the notion of original research on Wikipedia. This is rightly discouraged even if it originates from expert editors. However, the question arises as to when a contribution is original research, and when it is an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge.

To take an extreme case, when (say) a celebrity who is married with one child gives birth to another child, an editor who amends the relevant entry to say the celebrity "has two children" could be challenged on the grounds of having contributed original research - to wit, that 1 + 1 = 2 - and must substantiate this claim (for the record, the proof that this is the case takes up an entire page of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica). This example is, I think we can agree, patently absurd, but serves to show that there is no clear dividing line between original research and obvious and uncontroversial extensions of extant knowledge.

In the specific case of the ref to Pascal's Wager in this entry, I would argue that the current (reinstated) final paragraph may well benefit from some expansion (in the form of direct quotes of the relevant passages), but that the connection with Pascal's Wager is not original research, but an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge (the arguments involved being identical to those dealt with by various contributors on the Pascal's Wager entry).

I am of course perfectly willing to take part in arbitration over this if this is still thought necessary. Pending that arbitration, I would however argue that the paragraph be left in place, on the grounds that the dispute is not over the accuracy of the statement, but over its status, and that even in its current form it provides useful information to those referring to this entry. Robma 11:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't really understand the proposed connection between the Kalama Sutta and Pascal's Wager. The Kalama Sutta, as I understand it, argues that practicing Buddhism is beneficial whether or not there is an afterlife. It's true that practicing Buddhism usually entails a belief in karma and rebirth, but this seems incidental to the point that is being argued, which seems to be the beneficial results of virtuous behaviour. On the other hand, Pascal's wager is about the utility in the afterlife of deciding to believe in Christiantiy—or at least to consider it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Robma and Nat. This is an interesting discussion. But it seems to me that the section on Pascal's Wager misunderstands/ misinterprets the relevant section of the Kalama Sutta. I think that on a superficial reading, there seems to be some similarity between Pascal's Wager and the Kalama Sutta. But when one looks more carefully, the differences are more significant than any perceived similarity. Firstly, it is factually inaccurate to state (as the section on Pascal's Wager does) that the Buddha explicitly "argues that there are direct and immediate benefits - the "Four Solaces" - to be gained from acting as if the difficult concepts of rebirth and kamma are valid, regardless of whether they are valid claims". The sutta is not concerned with any inner struggle over whether "the difficult concepts of rebirth and kamma are valid". That is not a particular issue of contention here. Nor is the sutta advocating an "as if" or "gamble" approach to life at all. This is nowhere stated or intimated in the sutta. Rather, the Buddha speaks of the practical effects on the mind by practising the Four Immeasurables (boundless loving-kindness, compassion, shared joy, viewing all beings impartially) and that this meditative practice has definite benefits/ is productive of well-being in the here and now (it brings freedom from enmity, from oppression, creates inner wellbeing and purity). It could also have benefits in a life beyond this present one. This is not a wager. There is no suggestion of potential loss here. It is simply recommending a particular state of mind (that of universal loving-kindness, etc.), the cultivation of a meditative practice because it is efficacious in the here-and-now and could extend its benefits beyond the present incarnation. There is no talk here of belief in "God" (as in Pascal) or in eternal life (again, as in Pascal) or eternal damnation. The whole mood and intellectual/ spiritual framework and context are different. So I agree with Nat on this one. I personally, however, would keep the Pascal Wager section in the article (as there is a superficial resemblance to one element of Pascal's Wager), but would modify it, so that it no longer says (wrongly) that the Buddha is advocating acting "as if" the doctrines of kamma and rebirth were true. That is not what this sutta - or even this small section of it - is concerned with at all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)