To come to validly know for oneself

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

... so that's only Tibetan Buddhism teaching which is not profitable to other Buddhism teaching. ...

No it is in the pali kanon:

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves,[1] be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no other. Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....043.wlsh.html

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

No it is in the pali kanon:

Scriptures are not knowing anything about karma Buddha only said , how not to make bad karma. But others who said, how to cease karma is just nonsense. Not knowing anything of karma.

I need to do some work so I'll come back one hour later. Others can continue for the discussion.

[django]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I posted this earlier...





I am not a Buddhist and have not look at all of the different practices but I am sure they involve meditation.

Reading the Nipata sutta, there are many recorded sayings that encourage a great degree of personal free will and self-direction, for example this from the chapter "Purity of heart" http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/Sutta-nipataBM6.pdf (p6)

Anyone who’s free
denies there’s liberation
by another
or by what he sees
and hears,
by rules of morality,
rites and rituals
or through what
he thinks.

If you abandon
one thing
just to cling to
another
you’ll never
free yourself.

You’re like
a monkey
letting go of
one branch,
grasping another.

You immerse yourself
in religious practices,
favour certain ways
of seeing things
and go up
and down.

The wise one sees
the way things are
through insight,
no longer swings
from high to low

And also this from 'The rhinocerous sutta", considered to be one of the very earliest Buddhist Sutras:

5. As a beast unbound in the forest goes feeding at pleasure, so let the wise man, considering (only his) own will, wander alone like a rhinoceros. (38)

6. There is (a constant) calling in the midst of company, both when sitting, standing, walking, and going away; (but) let one, looking (only) for freedom from desire and for following his own will, wander alone like a rhinoceros. (39)

Overall, I think there is enough material in the Buddhist canon, especially in the very early material, to justify the desire that some people have to make their own way and come to their own conclusions, guided as they choose by Buddhist thought.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

Reading the Nipata sutta, there are many recorded sayings that encourage a great degree of personal free will and self-direction, for example this from the chapter "Purity of heart" http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/Sutta-nipataBM6.pdf (p6)

Anyone who’s free
denies there’s liberation
by another
or by what he sees
and hears,
by rules of morality,
rites and rituals
or through what
he thinks.

If you abandon
one thing
just to cling to
another
you’ll never
free yourself.

You’re like
a monkey
letting go of
one branch,
grasping another.

You immerse yourself
in religious practices,
favour certain ways
of seeing things
and go up
and down.

The wise one sees
the way things are
through insight,
no longer swings
from high to low

And also this from 'The rhinocerous sutta", considered to be one of the very earliest Buddhist Sutras:

5. As a beast unbound in the forest goes feeding at pleasure, so let the wise man, considering (only his) own will, wander alone like a rhinoceros. (38)

6. There is (a constant) calling in the midst of company, both when sitting, standing, walking, and going away; (but) let one, looking (only) for freedom from desire and for following his own will, wander alone like a rhinoceros. (39)

Overall, I think there is enough material in the Buddhist canon, especially in the very early material, to justify the desire that some people have to make their own way and come to their own conclusions, guided as they choose by Buddhist thought.

Paccekabuddha ( a lone Buddha ) according to what I have read are said to only arise in ages when there is no Buddha and Dharma has been lost. I presume they reach enlightenment through contemplating dharma.

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

Paccekabuddha ( a lone Buddha ) according to what I have read are said to only arise in ages when there is no Buddha and Dharma has been lost. I presume they reach enlightenment through contemplating dharma.

In the 2 quotes I posted, it seems to me that these are instructions for all dedicated seekers, maybe monks in particular, but not for the rarest of the rare.

It is possible that the Buddha recommended this sort of approach for some - the wise ones - as these quotes do come from very early sutras, but that as time went by the Sangha rules and restrictions multiplied.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

In the 2 quotes I posted, it seems to me that these are instructions for all dedicated seekers, maybe monks in particular, but not for the rarest of the rare.

It is possible that the Buddha recommended this sort of approach for some - the wise ones - as these quotes do come from very early sutras, but that as time went by the Sangha rules and restrictions multiplied.

I think the two quotes you posted refer to different things, Rhino Sutta is lone Buddha's and the Nipata Sutta refers to grasping and clinging etc:
Mybe I am wrong but they do seem to be completely different subjects.

[sky]

Someone who wants purity
and thinks to find it by gazing
at the pure
might say,
“I see something pure
excellent free of decay.
Seeing it purifies me.”

If seeing
or some intellectual process
could rid you of pain
the purifying agent would be
outside you
and you’d be left still eager to grasp.
This view describes
a grasping person
not any path to purity.

Anyone who’s free
denies there’s liberation
by another
or by what she sees
and hears,
by rules of morality,
rites and rituals
or through what
she thinks.

Neither good
nor evil affect her.
She’s given up
the grasping self.
Her action now
is neither good
nor bad.

If you abandon
one thing
just to cling to
another
you’ll never
free yourself.
You’re like
a monkey
letting go*of
one branch,
grasping another.

You immerse yourself
in religious practices,
favour certain ways
of seeing things
and go up
and down.

The wise one sees
the way things are
through insight,
no longer swings
from high to low.

You need not defend yourself
against anything you see,
hear, touch, taste,
smell or think
Who can define you?
You live so openly.

You take
no theoretical position,
claiming it
as the ultimate.
All things are equal.

You’ve disentangled
the knot*that used to bind you.
No longing now
for anything in the world.

You’re free.
You’ve understood
the way things are.
There’s nothing
you would grasp.

You’ve gone beyond
all limitations,
have no taste for desire
or its absence.
There’s nothing left to do.

Here's another interpretation.....

[Ground]

Originally Posted by django

Reading the Nipata sutta, there are many recorded sayings that encourage a great degree of personal free will and self-direction, for example this from the chapter "Purity of heart" http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/Sutta-nipataBM6.pdf (p6)

As long as you are grasping at suttas as being proof for the correctness of your view this isn't worth anything and a case of belief and doubt.
Why?
Because you still do not validly know for yourself.

Suttas only can be the starting point for coming to valid know for oneself if they deal with phenomena than can be directly perceived and thus be validly known.

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves,[1] be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no other. Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....043.wlsh.html

This is a recommendation to 'investigate to the very heart of things' but with that nothing is asserted about these things although there are implications in the text. But these implications are not objects of belief but mere hypotheses and valid theories only if one comes to know for oneself. This follows the scientific approach.


So there is a difference between valid knowledge of buddhism based on direct perception of authentic buddhist texts and valid knowledge of the correctness or the falsity of what buddhism says in its authentic texts.

Believers only argue on the level of what buddhism says in its authentic texts while valid knowers validly know whether buddhism is right or wrong in what it says in its authentic texts.

Most users here even ignore what buddhism is since they ignore what buddhism says in its authentic texts but prefer their private beliefs.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

As long as you are grasping at suttas as being proof for the correctness of your view this isn't worth anything and a case of belief and doubt.
Why?
Because you still do not validly know for yourself.

Suttas only can be the starting point for coming to valid know for oneself if they deal with phenomena than can be directly perceived and thus be validly known.



This is a recommendation to 'investigate to the very heart of things' but with that nothing is asserted about these things although there are implications in the text. But these implications are not objects of belief but mere hypotheses and valid theories only if one comes to know for oneself. This follows the scientific approach.


So there is a difference between valid knowledge of buddhism based on direct perception of authentic buddhist texts and valid knowledge of the correctness or the falsity of what buddhism says in its authentic texts.

Believers only argue on the level of what buddhism says in its authentic texts while valid knowers validly know whether buddhism is right or wrong in what it says in its authentic texts.

Most users here even ignore what buddhism is since they ignore what buddhism says in its authentic texts but prefer their private beliefs.

I quote the Zen way of practice. That's different from Tibetan Buddhism way of practice. In Tibetan Buddhism they rote all the saying in scriptures texts so that they believe there's certain power in the writing. That's why Tibetan Buddhism get to use the magic figure or sign and incantations and medium as their secret practice. And all the priest or Guru know how to do it. You can also find the spell on drawing papers that's a traditional medium practice when googling them that's the originally ..... from Tibetan Buddhism.

I paste it here for you to understand other Buddhism practices........

But Zen practice are different:


.
Quote: [The Zen teaching was a separate transmission outside the scriptural teachings that did not posit any written texts as sacred. Zen pointed directly to the human mind to enable people to see their real nature and become buddhas.[27]]

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

Someone who wants purity
and thinks to find it by gazing
at the pure
might say,
“I see something pure
excellent free of decay.
Seeing it purifies me.”

If seeing
or some intellectual process
could rid you of pain
the purifying agent would be
outside you
and you’d be left still eager to grasp.
This view describes
a grasping person
not any path to purity.

Anyone who’s free
denies there’s liberation
by another
or by what she sees
and hears,
by rules of morality,
rites and rituals
or through what
she thinks.

Neither good
nor evil affect her.
She’s given up
the grasping self.
Her action now
is neither good
nor bad.

If you abandon
one thing
just to cling to
another
you’ll never
free yourself.
You’re like
a monkey
letting go*of
one branch,
grasping another.

You immerse yourself
in religious practices,
favour certain ways
of seeing things
and go up
and down.

The wise one sees
the way things are
through insight,
no longer swings
from high to low.

You need not defend yourself
against anything you see,
hear, touch, taste,
smell or think
Who can define you?
You live so openly.

You take
no theoretical position,
claiming it
as the ultimate.
All things are equal.

You’ve disentangled
the knot*that used to bind you.
No longing now
for anything in the world.

You’re free.
You’ve understood
the way things are.
There’s nothing
you would grasp.

You’ve gone beyond
all limitations,
have no taste for desire
or its absence.
There’s nothing left to do.

Here's another interpretation.....

Thanks for pointing that out Sky, maybe I was taking it out of context, but I wonder if in context it's still more than just grasping and clinging, I see what you're saying, but I also see more than that in it. I will try to find a commentary on 'Purity of Heart' to understand further.