Critique on Kalama Sutta: Is Buddhism bad for Buddhism?

Yes humanist intellectuals love their fantasy of being a free thinker. According to them, being a free thinker is the pinnacle of humanity and not being a free thinker is horrible... As usual from secular rationalist puthujjanas, what they claim has nothing to do with the dhamma.

The point given to the Kalamas is that it is normal to be confused by philosophers, by people who create worldviews and philosophies. Then the buddha says that for the confused people who know they are confused, they can only rely on what they know is bad and what is claimed bad by the wise, on what they know as good and what is claimed good by the wise.

THe problem is that most puthujjanas, especially the intellectual ones who hype what they call "rationality", clinging to their fantasy of reason, logic, philosophy, are just too weak to progress alone, let alone to stop being a puthujjana alone, because they refuse to see they do not know what is good and bad. THey are walled-in in their views and they either say the dhamma is wrong, or they try to mix their views with the dhamma in order to pass for good people with respect to their views and to the dhamma.

The Buddha’s advise to the people of Kalama in the Kalama Sutta, is to see whether whatever that is understood, and is practised, helps one to remove greed, hate, and ignorance (greed and hate arise due to ignorance). This basis of seeing gives a filtering mechanism to weed out the doctrines that are clearly not worth pursuing. Thus the scientific method shown in the Kalama Sutta can be used as “pre-screening” to get rid of obviously unsuitable paths or “theories”.

Buddha Dhamma is not a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word “religion”. One attains Nibbana by purifying ONE’S OWN mind. The Buddha just showed WHY one should strive for Nibbana and HOW to purify one’s mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

1)
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs...

Unfortunately, this is a universal human problems regardless of religion. There are good and lousy monks, priest, rabbis, preachers, imams, and etc.

2)
Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation...

Reincarnation is a Hindu concept. The Buddha taught of rebirth, and rejected reincarnation.

The practise of identifying a born-again person is uniquely attributed to Tibetan Buddhism. And the Tibetan Buddhists rinpoches/rishe/lamas/monks already knew that not all born-again persons are able to retain the qualities and attributes of their former selves. They took a bet with Osel Hita and they lost.

3)
Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check...

And hence, this is where the Kalama Sutta speaks volume. Yes, that Sutta can't prove or disprove the Bardos, Rebirth, One-True-God, and etc. But you can use the guidelines and "test kits" in there on your spiritual journey. As a matter of fact, you can also apply it in a scientific study.

A lot of the "question" sounds like a vector for anti-Buddhist propaganda or just trolling -- or just off-topic i.e. trying to introduce non-Buddhist theories, or to contrast or compare Buddhist doctrine with assertions made by non-Buddhists -- but anyway I'll try to answer the question as-asked.

Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases?

From memory the Kalama sutta says,

• Don't believe a doctrine just because the teacher is famous
• Believe what you "know for yourselves" to be true
• Believe doctrines which are "praised by the wise"
• These rhetorical or Socratic questions show that you agree with the doctrines of the noble truths, i.e. that craving leads to suffering

I think that's what the Kalama sutta says.

Terms like "free thinker" come with cultural/historical baggage. It refers to people who don't believe in the literal truths of doctrines taught by the Christian churches and/or don't believe they have a monopoly on the truth.

It may be a fallacy to assume that a "free thinking" attitude, which you decide is an appropriate reaction to Church doctrine, is also an appropriate lens through which to view Buddhist doctrine.

I usually try to concentrate on what Buddhist doctrine actually says.

On reviewing the kalama sutta now I see it's not exactly about the doctrine of the four noble truths, rather it's about the doctrine of the three poisons and the Four Brahmaviharas.

It ends with something analogous to Pascal's wager which I find odd or off-topic because I think of the Dhamma being, you know, immediate, visible here-and-now. To some extent there maybe a "hereafter" though, and I think that different bits of the doctrine appeal to different people with different concerns.

Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?

Yes and no, I guess.

An answer like this one might imply something about not being too attached to specific Buddhist views or doctrines.

But, I don't know, maybe that's like anything else -- e.g. in my opinion the doctrines of Newtonian mechanics are more or less true, and useful if not invaluable for certain types of problem.

Anyone might "go beyond" Newtonian mechanics, e.g. because they're a layperson who doesn't address that type of problem at all, or because they're a physicist with a need for more-advanced (e.g. relativistic) theories. Even so you don't disparage Newton's theories, it wouldn't occur to me to try to claim that they're like flat-earther theories.

It's true that when someone says vaccines are good, you should question it and find out whether vaccines are truly good.

However, it takes too much time to do double blind scientific studies yourself, to discover whether vaccines are truly good.

The best you can do is to read enough of other people's scientific studies to determine whether vaccines are good, then finally get yourself vaccinated.

However, in your question, you are proposing that you should spend your whole life questioning vaccines without getting vaccinated. If you do that, you will probably die early from the disease that could have been prevented using the vaccine, and you would get no benefit from the vaccine.

What's even worse is if you convince other people to perpetually question and avoid the vaccine.

1)
Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment...

• During the time of the Buddha, the Hindu Vedas and the Trimurthis (as we know it today) - do not yet exist.

• The Jesus of the New Testament may had many run-ins with the rabbis
  of his time, but he never preached of abandoning God. And, the Testaments certainly do not mention any concept similar to Samsara.

• Very little is known of Lao Tse except of his work the Tao Te Ching, and nothing in there mentioned anything similar to Samsara, or any divinities, or "soul", and etc. And no - Lao Tse is not the founder/originator of Taoism (the religion).

2)
Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?

The Sutta did not say that at all.

During the time of the Kalamas (in the sutta), they wanted very much to believe every gurus that passed through their village. The problem was that the gurus contradicted each other and caused confusions. And so one day the Kalamas asked the Buddha for input, and he gave them a set of "test kits". And then - the Buddha said "Yeah, you can also use those test kits on my teachings too. No problem. Please do it. Please test.".

"Free-Thinker" is a modern connotation, created by and used by people from a culture and society with entrenched beliefs in the concept of One-True-God, ie you are labeled as "religious" or a "free-thinker".

Since the Kalamas were confused in what they should or not believe, The Buddha instructed that they should be pragmatic and adopt only views and conduct which would lead to their well-being and peace of mind insted of keep bothering themselves with unverifiable competing doctrines which would lead to nowhere but to stressful mind states.

This is unrelated to the examples you give regarding the traditional customs of the monks and the Sangha because the customs are not harmful per se, they may be actually a source of joy, which serves to propel the practice. It all comes to how you relate to it, as long as there is Right View, there is no harm.

The monks would be sabotaging themselves if they start raise against traditional customs just because their wrong personal view (disregarding the issue of dukkha) say so (which is conceit, ingratitude and cling to self-view). The practice delineated by the Buddha intend to end all stress building up the proper conditions, and to do so, is necessary to settle the attention to the proper frame of reference. Any other preoccupation is merely the mind being dragged by its passion over sensory phenomena.

This world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It’s to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.

SN 12:15

For complementary explanantion of why clinging to personal views are nothing more than fuel to the fetters, See: AN 10:93 and MN 63

Regarding the rebirth doctrine as it is decribed, it's a attempt to explain a insight of the Buddha himself. So it's suppose, for those who follows the Buddha's footsteps, to have such experience (whatever it may be) as well at some point. No one is demanding you to believe in it. However, aside of the feeling of samvega (disenchantment due the briefness nature of the sensory phenomena), having conviction in rebirth, will turn the practioner much more eager to go forth.