The Kālāma Sutta is often cited with approval by Modernist Buddhists as affirming a Libertarian ideology in which one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful. > "Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement." (As good a definition as any) The part of the text so often cited is the negative criteria for decision making: > “Here Kālāmas: don't use revelation, don't use lineage, don't use quotations, don't use tradition; don't use speculation, don't use inference, don't use signs, don't use understanding based on views, don't uncritically accept what seems likely; don't use respect for a *sāmaṇa*. When you know for yourselves "these things are unskilful, offensive (sāvajja), criticised by the wise, these things undertaken and accomplished result in harm and misery‟ then you should abandon them.” My translation The negative criteria are phrased in Pāḷi as, for example *mā anussavena*, i.e. the prohibitive particle (*mā*) with an noun in the instrumental case and no verb. So in fact it is difficult to tell what the prohibition refers to except from the context. Buddhaghosa supplies the verb *gaṇhittha*, the past participle of *gaṇhati* "to grasp". So his view seems to be that the first criteria is "don't be gripped by revelation". The context shows that these are various means for making decisions about how to behave. They are not used for testing the validity of beliefs. - Does the Kālāma Sutta really encourage libertarianism? - Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs? - Do the Kālāmas themselves embody Libertarianism in their own lives, in this or any other sutra?

[Consensus Buddhism](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/category/buddhism/consensus-buddhism/) is a term invented by David Chapman. To me it seems to be another name for what Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls [Buddhist Romanticism](http://www.tricycle.com/feature/romancing-buddha) . [Here](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/the-crumbling-buddhist-consensus-preface/) are some characteristics of the supposed consensus, according to Chapman: > consensus Western Buddhism is—supposedly—egalitarian, democratic, anti-hierarchy, ecumenical, accepts all religious traditions (except of course Bad forms of Buddhism), respects and sometimes incorporates psychotherapy, is ecologically aware, talks about social justice, promotes internal and external peace, etc. [Moreover](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/nice-buddhism/) : > Western Buddhism kept some traditional Buddhist mythology (in the same way liberal Christianity keeps some traditional mythology), but you aren’t expected to believe in it. It’s a bunch of “teaching stories,” not Truth. > > Consensus Buddhists mostly don’t believe in Buddhas, either. The important thing is not enlightenment, but a morality of good intentions, harmonious behavior, and inoffensiveness. [And](https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/wholeness-connection-and-meditation-competing-visions/) : > The main practice of Consensus Buddhism is vipassana. This method is meant to shatter the self and break connections. Western Buddhists mostly want and expect the opposite results. When describing "Consensus Buddhism", Chapman writes a lot about "hegemony", "monopoly" that "Consensus Buddhists" want to achieve, as well as "suppressing other alternatives". And he writes that such an approach dominated Buddhism in the West for a long time and only recently that "consensus" is "starting to break down". Despite having contact with various Buddhist groups in the last years, I hardly came across anyone who fits with the description of Consensus Buddhism, so I have the following questions: 1. In your experience, does/did mainstream Buddhism in the West really match the definition of Consensus Buddhism? 2. In your experience, what was the period when it dominated the mainstream Western Buddhism (in terms of printed media, number of followers, etc.)? 3. In your experience, does/did it really try to supress its alternatives? 4. If the answer to the first question is "yes", was the phenomenon of "Consensus Buddhism" restricted to any particular country or part of the world? (I have a feeling that there may be big differences in this regard between, say, North America, Europe and Oceania.) 5. What are the names of the "Consensus Buddhist" groups you know about?

Buddhist scripture describes other worlds (i.e. "The Thirty-one Planes of Existence "), with various kinds of beings who may interact with our human world in varying degrees. - Do Buddhists accept the modern view of the universe , consisting of galaxies, solar systems, planets, discovered experientially by astronomers with their telescopes (which the Buddha and his followers don't seem to have thought about or discussed very much)? If so, how do Buddhists reconcile this modern view of the universe with the 31 lokas and their other-worldly inhabitants? - Do Buddhists feel that if the Buddha and Buddhist gurus did not speak or think about some things (for instance, about "the modern view of the universe" such as galaxies or solar systems), maybe those things aren't worth speaking or thinking about?