To come to validly know for oneself

[jonesboy]

Dharmakirti is from the Yogacara school. The mind only school.

Direct Perception doesn't mean one thing to one Buddhist and another to someone of a different tradition.

Direct Perception is Direct Perception...

Also, pretty interesting how you are making fun of sutras you were previously using to advance your points of view.

When you have to start belittling sutras, you know you have already lost the discussion.

All the best.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

you have repeatedly mixed up buddhism and hindu religion.

Not at all :) I show what they have in common but don't mix them up.

Like ignorant sheep, yes. They don't know how to know for oneself but follow the herd of believers. That is the audience the Kalama sutta is aimed at.
If you are advocating blind faith then you are actually off topic in this thread. Why? Because the topic is how to come to validly know for oneself and a generally valid template for coming to validly know for oneself has been provided. So there is nothing more to discuss. Either you apply the template or you don't.

The sutra is how can you tell a real teacher from a fake one. They then go on to follow the Buddhas teachings.. Not sheep at all.. wise.

How does one validly know such 'super powers' of another?

One cannot validly know such things at all. Why? Because one cannot know qualities that are not directly perceptible. Again you are advocating mere belief. you are off topic!

Ahh, you experience them and how they impact the quality of your life.

Pretty easy tbh.

yes, that is exactly what I am saying: do not accept any teacher but take authentic buddhist texts and apply rational analysis. This complies with what the budddha is telling audiences other than the Kalamas:

The Buddha has said many times, rational analysis will get you no where.

No, I rely on directly perceptible authentic buddhist texts and authentic buddhist rational analysis that is defined in directly perceptible authentic buddhist texts. My knowledge is valid.
you however rely on belief that is not valid knowledge.

Mine is more from that Direct Perception type thing.. You don't practice anything and so it is all thoughts, more thoughts, lost in thoughts.. The path is beyond them.

Sorry but again you are off topic. The direct perception I am referring to is the direct perception as expounded by master Dharmakirti. It is one of two valid cognitions, the second valid cognition is inference.

So you dismiss Mahayana and only want to use sutras from the Pali Canon but want to use a teacher Dharmakirti and his methods, who is from Tibet which you dismiss...

Dharmakirti is credited with building upon the work of Dignāga, the pioneer of Buddhist logic, and Dharmakirti has ever since been influential in the Buddhist tradition.[5] His theories became normative in Tibet and are studied to this day as a part of the basic monastic curriculum

Sounds like you really don't know what you are going on about.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Dharmakirti is from the Yogacara school. The mind only school.

Direct Perception doesn't mean one thing to one Buddhist and another to someone of a different tradition.

Direct Perception is Direct Perception...

Also, pretty interesting how you are making fun of sutras you were previously using to advance your points of view.

When you have to start belittling sutras, you know you have already lost the discussion.

All the best.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Not at all :) I show what they have in common but don't mix them up.





The sutra is how can you tell a real teacher from a fake one. They then go on to follow the Buddhas teachings.. Not sheep at all.. wise.



Ahh, you experience them and how they impact the quality of your life.

Pretty easy tbh.




The Buddha has said many times, rational analysis will get you no where.



Mine is more from that Direct Perception type thing.. You don't practice anything and so it is all thoughts, more thoughts, lost in thoughts.. The path is beyond them.




So you dismiss Mahayana and only want to use sutras from the Pali Canon but want to use a teacher Dharmakirti and his methods, who is from Tibet which you dismiss...



Sounds like you really don't know what you are going on about.

you are completely off topic.


This thread is not about traditions and their views.


This thread is not about beliefs and cultivating beliefs.


This thread is about how to come to validly know for oneself.

And for the purpose of coming to know validly for oneself a template of rational analysis and logical thinking has been provided which is based on the logic of Dignaga and Dharmakriti and which is completeley compatible with today's scientific approach which also is based on direct perception and valid inference exclusively.

Why are direct perception and valid inference the exclusive means to come to validly know for oneself?
Because everyday life experience and science show that only direct perception and valid inference lead to valid knowledge which is independent of religious or ideological beliefs.

Originally Posted by Dharmakirti

The success of all human aims is preceded by right cognition.

Right cognition is twofold: direct perception and inference.

[jonesboy]

To know for oneself...

Buddhism is not about logical analysis.

As long as these scholars remain on their philosophical ground their demonstration must conform to logic and their textbooks, and the memory habit of erroneous intellection will ever cling to them. To make the matter worse, the simple-minded ones, poisoned by this erroneous view, will declare this incorrect way of thinking taught by the ignorant, to be the same as that presented by the All-knowing One.

But the way of instruction presented by the Tathágatas is not based on assertions and refutations by means of words and logic.

The assertion of philosophical views concerning the elements that make up personality and its environing world that are non-existent, assume the existence of an ego, a being, a soul, a living being, a "nourisher", or a spirit. This is an example of philosophical views that are not true. It is this combination of discrimination of imaginary marks of individuality, grouping them and giving them a name and becoming attached to them as objects, by reason of habit-energy that has been accumulated since beginning-less time, that one builds up erroneous views whose only basis is false-imaginations. For this reason Bodhisattvas should avoid all discussions relating to assertions and negations whose only basis is words and logic.

http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm


Your not teaching anyone to know for oneself.. Logic is not the means... as the Buddha above has pointed out.

I have also pointed out that direct perception is a realization. It is not a thought..

That realization is beyond any religion and belief... Your still stuck on the philosophy of it.. which is not a realization.

Do the PRACTICES and experience the truth, realize the truth... Don't just think you know... Like this thread is hoping you would do.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

To know for oneself...

Buddhism is not about logical analysis.

your buddhism is mere irrational belief, yes. you are a Kalama.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

your buddhism is mere irrational belief, yes. you are a Kalama.

I am just quoting the Buddha.

Argue with him...

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I am just quoting the Buddha.

Argue with him...

I am also quoting the buddha here:

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves, 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

So this figure of authentic buddhist texts is talking one way to the stupid Kalamas and is talking another way to monks. Now what do you think is the reason for his inconsistent talks?

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

I am also quoting the buddha here:


So this figure of authentic budddhist texts is talking one way to the stupid Kalamas and it talking another way to monks. Now what do you think is the reason for his inconsistent talks?

Yes you are quoting him and taking him out of context.

Quote the entire sutra not just one part.

This isn't rocket surgery.

"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:[2] 'What is the source of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair? How do they arise?' [What is their origin?]

"Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling [continued as in SN 22.7.] Change occurs in this man's body, and it becomes different. On account of this change and difference, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair arise. [Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness'].

"But seeing[3] the body's impermanence, its change-ability, its waning,[4] its ceasing, he says 'formerly as now, all bodies were impermanent and unsatisfactory, and subject to change.' Thus, seeing this as it really is, with perfect insight, he abandons all sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not worried at their abandonment, but unworried lives at ease, and thus living at ease he is said to be 'assuredly delivered.'"[5] [Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness'].

As I explained to you earlier this is a meditation technique and a very powerful one.

Use the body to observe how everything is fleeting. How your body reacts to emotions, pain, how it feels when you are upset.

By observing you realize that those feelings and sensations are not you.

Because they are not you it becomes much easier to let them go, to not get caught up in them.

This is basic stuff Ground and he is not teaching one thing to one group and one thing to another. Even though the Buddha is known for saying he will teach to the capacity to the audience... i.e. higher level teachings for those ready for them.

Also, notice it is a method of practice yet many like you try to use it as an example for not having a teacher... Show just how out of context it is and why one should just quote Buddha quotes but should really understand the sutras.

Hope this helps you out..

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Yes you are quoting him and taking him out of context.

Stop. This thread is about validly knowing for oneself.

Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things

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

How does one investigate to the very heart of things? By means of direct perception and valid inference.

Originally Posted by Dharmakirti

The success of all human aims is preceded by right cognition.

Right cognition is twofold: direct perception and inference.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

Stop. This thread is about validly knowing for oneself.



How does one investigate to the very heart of things? By means of direct perception and valid inference.

Through the practices duh... Isn't that what Buddhism is all about.

Arguing that one finds it through logic is not Buddhism.

Here is another meaning of a Island unto oneself...

Taking refuge is something Buddhists do in Buddha, his Teachings, and the Community.
There are nevertheless a few instances where Buddha advised his audience to seek refuge in themselves. Unfortunately this is at times interpreted as an invitation to reach an undesirable state of mind i.e. egoïsm, or self-centredness and so on.

Much investigation has therefore been done in finding out what in matter of fact Buddha says when he says "Be a lamp unto yourself" (old rendering), or "Be an island unto yourself" (new rendering).

We find this exhortation in a number of texts throughout the Small Vehicle canons of the Theravādin (the Pali canon), the Chinese (the Āgama), and the Tibetan (the Kanyur).

The best known instance is that of the Dhammapāda (238) of the Pali canon where it says:
Be an island unto yourself! Strive quickly; be wise!
Without impurities and clear, you will never again come to birth and aging. (Tr. Pali-class NTU). In Pali:
"so karohi dipam attano khippaj vayama pandito bhava niddhantamalo anavgano na punaj jatijaraj upehisi" (without the nessecary diacretic marks).

We find a slightly different rendering in the Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta where it says:
"Therefore, Ānanda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. (Tr. vipassana.com)
Tasmātihānanda, attadīpā viharatha attasaranā anaññasaranā, dhammadīpā dhammasaranā anaññasaranā.

In years gone by the Pali word dīpa used to be rendered as "lamp" following such passages as "extinguish the lamp of disease (ignorance)!" (telappadīpo āropito.) which we equallly find in the above Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. Walpola Rahula, in his 'What the Buddha taught' points to this discussion.

Since then translations have been made of the possibly oldest text-layers of the Pali Sutta Nipāta, more specifically book V, the teaching to Kappa (PTS F199 : 1092-1095) where Buddha says:
"There is an island, an island which you cannot go beyond. It is a place of nothingness(*), a place of non-possession and of non-attachment. It is the total end of death and decay, and this is why I call it nibbāna." (tr.H. Saddhatissa)
oghe jāte mahabbhaye
jarāmaccuparetānam dīpam pabrūmi Kappa te
akiñcanam anādānam etam dīpam anāparam,
nibbānam iti nam brūmi, jarāmaccuparikkhayam.

(*) (The 4th meditative state of jhāna/dhyana where there is no experience at all.)

Saddhatissa translated the Sutta Nipāta in the year 1994. Since that day we not only know how to translate the word dīpa, especially when it stands in conjunction with 'refuge' (saraná), but at the same time we know the full meaning of Buddha's words. He did not say: retire into yourself because solitude in itself is best, or, no-one else can be trusted, or, there you find the safest place.

Since according to the given Sutta Nipāta-fragment Buddha speaks with Kappa, a disciple of the revered Vedic priest Bāvari, we understand that Buddha used Kappa's religious parlance, but gave it his own interpretation. Talk of 'islands' must have been on the religious-philosophical menu of the day. We find a remnant of it in the Mahāyāna Lankāvatāra Sutra where "the other island" is given as the dwelling-place of a Vishnu-avatar. There it is presented as a vedic or hinduïstic concept.

The island (dīpa) in Buddha's words is no longer the dwelling-place of a godhead, it rather is identical with Enlightenment, nibbāna (nirvāna in Sanskrit), the safe ground, or terra firma as Amazonia-specialists say today. It is "the dhamma" (teaching), the fourth jhānic meditation to be found within our own mind-body-complex, hence the words "Be an island unto yourself."

http://www.buddha-dharma.eu/lamp-or-island.html

Here it is going even deeper than what I was describing and saying it is referring to ones innate Buddha Nature.

Also, what is Direct Perception to you?