user24191: 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?
The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha
(aathaapi.org) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma
sutta.

Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Non-Buddhists
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.

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,

An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first.
Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases)
Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned.
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.


user24203: 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.

24191: <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.stack.imgur.com/1ySYW.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/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>
 24203: <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>
