Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2017, 09:20 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,003
 
To come to validly know for oneself

Since the development of the template for valid knowledge in the thread 'Right knowledge' is scattered across a multitude of postings these shall be condensed into one or two postings here to make it easier to access.
After that there will be practical applications of this template for valid knowledge.
-------------------------
Rationale
Quote:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born.
...
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....065.than.html

The Kalama sutta is often taken as evidence by those who want to justify their private beliefs and pretend that their private beliefs are compliant with buddhism.

However at close inspection although the subject is right knowledge expressed as 'when you know for yourselves' the sutta actually is an appeal to belief.
Why?
Because there isn't any mention of how one may get rid of uncertainty and doubt by means of acquiring valid knowledge.
From where does knowledge arise about what is skillful and unskillful? Skillful with reference to what aim?
From where does knowledge arise about what is blameworthy and blameless? Who rightly blames and who does not rightly blame something?
And finally from where does knowledge arise about who is wise and who is unwise or ignorant?

The Kama sutta actually is an appeal to believe in social conventions and in authorities accepted by those conventions, to believe that those are wise, to believe that the one who speaks to the Kalamas is wise because they asked him in the first place, to believe in him and what he says because all other possible sources of valid knowledge are denied.

Luckily despite of such anti-rational sermons in early buddhism later buddhism has developed a tradition of logic and rational analysis. The most prominent figures in the context of buddhist logic are certainly the founders of this tradition: Dignaga and his follower Dharmakirti.

Due to its brevity the Nyayabindu of Dharmakirti - translated by Wayman in his A Millenium of Buddhist Logic - could be a perfect guideline for coming to validly know for oneself. However Dharmakirti's treatise is extremely terse and Wayman's translation of it is kept very close to the sanskrit original which makes it unsuitable to foster consistent understanding. Therefore only the first chapter of it shall be referred to here and when it comes to the second chapter which actually is decisive since it covers inference for oneself Dharmakirti's logic will be exlained using K. M. Rogers' elaborations on Pur-bu-jok Lam-pa-gya-tso's The Topic of Signs and Reasonings from the 'Great Path of Reasoning' in Tibetan Logic. The Gelug school of tibetan buddhism nowadays is the a living tradition that has established a curriculum based on Dharmakirti's logic and thus its explanations are suitable to foster consistent understanding of it.
End of Rationale
-------------------------
First to Dharmakirti's Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 is titled 'Direct perception' and the opening statement is of prime validity:
Quote:
The success of all human aims is preceded by right cognition.
So valid knowledge is based on valid cognition and the successful pursuit of aims is based on valid knowledge. Every scientific professional should be able to agree to this.
-------------------------
Quote:
Right cognition is twofold: direct perception and inference.
Quote:
Among them, direct perception is free from constructive thought and is non-delusionary.
Quote:
Constructive thought is the cognitive dawning of an image able to coalesce with verbalism.

Cognition free from such (constructive thought), when not subject to disturbances such as eye-caul, whirling motion, embarking in a boat, and agitation is direct perception.
So direct perception on the basis of healthy senses and free from external disturbing conditions is also free from constructive thought and is non-mistaken as to its object of engagement.

Some have wrongly concluded that direct perception is absolutely passive cognition. But if direct perception would be absolutely passive then there wouldn't appear any object since the senses would only receive totally unstructured raw sense data not yet associated to phenomena/objects.
So even if direct perception is defined as free from constructive thought there must already be included some intentional kind of intuitive clustering of raw sense data in what is called 'direct perception' here.

Also some have wrongly concluded that full-fledged conceptual thought based on constructive thought cannot be non-erroneous in contrast to direct perception but that would be contradictory since inference has been defined as one of the two kinds of valid cognitions and inference necessarily is full-fledged conceptual thought.

So the difference is just that with inference a general image as intervening appearing object is involved so that it does not get directly at the particular object whereas direct perception is defined here to not have this intervening image involved which however does not mean that there is absolutely no - at least intuitive - construct involved.

Empirically this confirms the conventional experience that what one has seen with one's own eyes, heard with one's own ears, smelled with one's own nose, tasted with one's own tongue, touched with one's own fingers appears to be more reliable than what one is merely told by someone else. This is why direct perception is called 'right' or 'valid' cognition and the whole of science relies on direct perception.

Nevertheless conceptual inference - if it complies with the rules of logical syllogisms expounded in this treatise - is said to be right or valid cognition too although it is indirect cognition.
This again is compliant with science since although science is primarily based on direct perception secondarily general rules are inferred from these direct perceptions. However before these rules are considered to be valid they must be finally confirmed by means of direct perceptions.
The latter is valid also in the context of this treatise on logic: if the subject, predicate and signs of logical syllogisms are not accessible to direct perception then the syllogisms cannot be reliable. It is important here to note that although abstract conceptual objects as such cannot be accessible to the senses their definitions nevertheless can be directly perceived. And if we have a sequence of abstract conceptual objects depending on each other at the end of a chain of definitions there always have to be particular objects directly accessible to the senses independent of definitions.



So even if both, direct perception and inference, are valid means of cognition, finally it is direct perception on which valid cognition is based generally.

In this way this kind of logic mirrors that which is known as scientific approach to valid knowledge today.
-------------------------
Next Dharmakirti lists the categories of his model of direct perception:
Quote:
It is fourfold -
1. Sense-organ cognition.

2. Mental perception
(which) is engendered by the immediately preceding condition, to wit, the cooperating sense-organ cognition as an object that immediately follows its own (partite) sense-object.
Now this is important here in Dharmakirti's model! Sense direct perception is necessarily followed by a mental direct perception. That allows for assigning a more active role to the sequence "sense direct perception -> mental direct perception" since - as mentioned already above - a total passive reception of mere unstructured raw sense data would make it impossible to posit a directly perceived object/phenomenon. The locus for structuring and clustering raw sense data can now be assigned to mental direct perception as a kind of conditioned intuitive intentional perception which at least causes the structured appearance of nameless and meaningless objects/phenomena out of the chaos of the unstructured raw sense data of a nameless and meaningless sense impression which is the multipartite sense object of mental direct perception.
Quote:
3. Introspection
(which) is of every thought and mental.
It is a wise move of Wayman to choose the word 'introspection' here since it may be widely accepted that there is something that is rightly called 'introspection'. Others choose the word 'apperception' which however is a word that in some circles causes painstaking but irrelevant epistemological debates.
Quote:
and 4. yogin's cognition
(which is) born of the vivid fulfilment from contemplating the true end.
Dharmakirti's treatise wouldn't be a buddhist treatise if there wouldn't occur the last category of direct perception, i.e. a yogin's cognition which is the direct cognition of a meditator meditating on 'the ultimate'.

So whereas introspection is called 'mental' and therefore actually is a sub-category of mental direct perception a yogin's cognition isn't called 'mental' and remains dubious at that point.
-------------------------
Dharmakirti continues:
Quote:
Its object is the individual character
I.e. the object of direct perception is the specifically characterized particular phenomenon.
Only directly perceptible phenomena can perform functions which is why rational purposive activity should focus exclusively on such phenomena. E.g. a directly perceptible bread can nourish my body. Bread exists because if it didn't I could not eat bread. And of course only directly perceptible bread performs the desired function. Merely thinking 'bread' does not perform the desired function of bread because the mere thought 'bread' is not a specifically characterized phenomenon but a generality of bread. The latter fact is referred to by the next quote:
Quote:
Different from it is the generality character.
This is the object of inference.
So inference which is a thought entails a generality of which there are multiple specifically characterized phenomena as its instances. And since specifically characterized phenomena are particular directly perceptibles what is inferred can be verified by means of direct perception.
Success of purposive activity is possible only when the object of purposive activity can be directly perceived.

-------------------------
The next Chapter 2 is titled 'Inference for oneself' and starts with
Quote:
Inference is twofold - for oneself and for others
Now considering the starting point, the Kalama sutta, only inference for oneself is relevant. Why? Because in the Kalama sutta it reads:
Quote:
When you know for yourselves ...
So it is completely irrelevant what others believe to know. And this means that the 3rd Chapter titled 'Inference for others' meaning 'autonomous syllogisms for others' can be ignored.
If the Kalama sutta would teach how to come to validly know for oneself then it should read:
Quote:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born.
...
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Only go by direct perception and rational reasoning based on direct perception. When you know for yourselves after having rationally analysed that, "These aims are not worthwhile to pursue - then you should abandon them.

"Now, Kalamas, 'Only go by direct perception and rational reasoning based on direct perception. When you know for yourselves after having rationally analysed that, "These aims are worthwhile to pursue - then you should rationally analyse by what rational means they can be attained and pursue them accordingly.
-------------------------
Now it is necessary to switch to K. M. Rogers' book to foster consistent understanding of syllogisms that are the verbal expression of inference.
There is the subject of a syllogism, the predicate as the property of the subject to be proven and the sign that proves the thesis.

Using variables, the thesis is:

{the subject} is {the predicate}
or
In {the subject} {the predicate} exists.

Using variables, the syllogism is:

{the subject} is {the predicate} because of {the sign}.
or
In {the subject} {the predicate} exists because of {the sign}.


In the following correct subjects and correct signs are explained
-------------------------
What are the conditions for a correct subject in a proof?

The subject of a proof must be a flawless subject.

What is a flawless subject?

A flawless subject is the basis of relation of the property of the subject, the sign. It is also the basis of inference because it is the basis in regard to which an inference is generated. And it is also the basis of investigation since knowledge of it is sought. And a flawless subject must be appropriate to the understanding of the one who wants to know the subject.


Something's being a flawless subject sought to be known in the proof of {a subject} as {a predicate} by {a sign} is thus defined:
That observed as the common locus of 1. being held as the basis of investigation in the proof of {a subject} as {a predicate} by {a sign} and of 2. there existing a person who, having ascertained that it, {the subject}, is {the sign}, is engaged in wanting to know whether or not it is {the predicate}.


Thus the person who applies inference for itself fulfills the necessary condition for something being a flawless subject if - and only if - this person has already ascertained that {the subject} it holds as the basis for investigation is {the sign} and if - and only if - this persons wants to know whether or not {the subject} is {the predicate}. Otherwise {the sign} cannot become the valid reason for {the subject} being {the predicate}.
When the person doubts that {the subject} is {the sign} then {the subject} is not the flawless subject necessary in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign}.
And when the person has already ascertained that {the subject} is {the sign} but does not want to know (is indifferent) whether or not {the subject} is {the predicate} then {the subject} is also not the flawless subject necessary in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign}.
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2017, 09:22 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,003
 
After having specified the subject as flawless subject and clarified the conditions for something's being a flawless subject it is now necessary to specify the property of the subject, the correct sign, through clarifying the conditions for something's being the property of the subject, i.e. the sign's being established in relation to the subject, in the proof of {a subject} as {a predicate}.
For that purpose one can again refer to Roger's book and find Pur-bu-jok's definition of the conditions for something's being the property of the subject:
Quote:
{the subject} is a flawless subject sought to be known in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign} and {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, with {the subject} in a manner of mutual difference with {the subject}
Here we will follow Rogers' analysis of Pur-bu-jok's definition considering the four key expressions:
1. 'mode of statement'
2. 'only existing with {the subject}'
3. 'mutual difference with the {the subject}'
4. 'ascertained by valid cognition'
-------------------------
1. 'mode of statement'

This expression refers to the two modes of statement of a syllogism:
a) copular mode, i.e. 'is' statements using 'to be'
b) ontological mode, i.e. 'exists' statements using 'to exist'

In the ontological mode the subject in all cases is a locus or location and the predicate of this locus actually is something the existence of which in this locus is asserted by the thesis.

-------------------------
Now that 'mode of statement' has been clarified it is possible to clarify ...

2. 'only existing with {the subject}'

... because it actually reads: 'only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement'


First, 'only existing with {the subject}' is different in meaning from 'existing only with {the subject}'. The position of 'only' is decisive here.

Second, in the copular mode the meaning of 'only existing with {the subject}' is 'each and every instance of {the subject} is {the sign} and {the sign} is with each and every instance of {the subject}'. This kind of mutual inclusion in case of the copular mode follows from the fact that the subject and the sign are of one entity. But they are not mutually inclusive in the sense that the sign can't be the property of different types of subjects too, because it can. This is because the sign is evidence for the predicate of the subject but there may be also different types of subjects that are the same predicate.
[We can also apply the wording of the ontological mode (s. below) here through regarding the entity of the subject as 'the locus' and the sign as property existing 'in' this 'entity locus'.]

Third, in the ontological mode the meaning of 'only existing with {the subject}' is 'each and every locus (= {the subject}) where {the sign} exists is a locus where {the predicate} exists too. Here the reverse is not applicable because {the sign} and {the predicate} are different entities and while {the sign's} existence is an effect of the {the predicate's} existence and when the effect exists its cause necessarily exists too, when a potential cause exists its potential effect does not necessarily exist too since a potential cause may always be obstructed.
-------------------------
3. 'mutual difference with the {the subject}'

In the context of ontological mode it is quite obvious that the sign and the subject are mutually different since they have a cause-effect relationship and therefore are different entities.

In the context of the copular mode however subject and sign are of one and the same entity. So what does 'mutual difference' mean?
It simply means different in name and meaning. Even if the sign is the property of the subject and both are of one entity the name of the subject and the name of the sign are different and so are their meanings.

With the requirement of mutual difference nonsensical syllogisms of the following kind are excluded:
{the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the subject}

4. 'ascertained by valid cognition'

This requirement established the mutal dependency of being a flawless subject and being the property of the subject because in the definition of being a flawless subject acertainment of the subject being the sign is a condition and in the definition of being the property of the subject ascertainment of the sing as 'only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, with {the subject}' is a condition.

So the subject's being a flawless subject and the sign's being the property of the subject are the base of any valid syllogism together with the serious desire of wanting to know whether the subject is {the predicate} or not.
Or - in the ontological mode:
So the subject's being a flawless subject (i.e. locus) and the sign's existence in the locus are the base of any valid syllogism together with the serious desire of wanting to know whether the subject (i.e. locus) is a locus where {the predicate} exists or not.
-------------------------
Now that the conditions for something's being property of the subject have been clarified which is one of the three essential conditions for a correct sign, the other two essential conditions, namely being the forward pervasion and being the counterpervasion, need to be elaborated on.

Just as the property of the subject has the flawless subject as basis of relation, so the two, the forward pervasions and the counterpervasions also have a basis of relation, namely the similar class and the dissimilar class, resp.
The similar class of the forward pervasions is the class of phenomena that share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism and the dissimilar class of the counterpervasions is the class of phenomena that do not share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism.


Establishing the forward pervasion

{the sign's} being the forward pervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} is defined as follows:

{the sign} is the forward pervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} because:
(1) There exists a correct similar example that possesses both {the sign} and {the predicate} of the probandum, in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign};
(2) {the sign} is related with {the predicate}; and
(3) {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

The following expressions will now be clarified to clarify this definition:

1. There exists a correct similar example
2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}
3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.
3.1 {the sign} must exist in the similar class, in accordance with the mode of statement;
3.2 ... must exist in only the similar class;
3.3 ... must exist in only the similar class, as opposed to only existing in the similar class (the position of “only” is important);
3.4 ... must be ascertained as existent in only the similar class.
-------------------------
1. There exists a correct similar example

Copular mode:
An example in a proof is a correct similar example, if {the example} is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the pervasion (that whatever is {the sign} is necessarily {the predicate}) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this pervasion that {the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the sign}.

Ontological mode:
An example in a proof is a correct similar example, if {the sign's} existence in {the example} locus is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the pervasion (that wherever {the sign's} existence is observed there necessarily {the predicate's} existence can be observed too) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this pervasion that in the locus in question which is {the subject} {the predicate} exists because {the sign} exists [there].


2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}

{the sign} is different from {the predicate} in name and meaning which is the prerequiste that {the sign} may be related with {the predicate}.


3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

3.1 {the sign} must exist in the similar class, in accordance with the mode of statement;

{the sign} must exist in the class of phenomena which are similar with respect to the {the predicate} to be proven. E.g. If {the predicate} to be proven is 'impermanent' then the name of the similar class is 'the impermanent'.
If the mode of statement in the syllogism is copular then {the sign} must be {the predicate}. If the mode of statement in the syllogism is ontological then {the sign} must exist in 'the {the predicate}'.

3.2 ... must exist in only the similar class;

If {the sign} is a correct sign then is must exist in only the similar class which means it must not exist also in the dissimilar class which is contradictory with the similar class.

3.3 ... must exist in only the similar class, as opposed to only existing in the similar class (the position of “only” is important);

Here the position of 'only' is not before 'exist' but before 'the similar class' which means that not all members of the similar class are necessarily {the sign} but whatever is {the sign} is necessarily a member of only the similar class.

3.4 ... must be ascertained as existent in only the similar class.

For a person who has doubt as to whether {the sign} exists only in the similar class or not {the sign} cannot be a correct sign since the forward pervasion is not established.
-------------------------
Now that the conditions for something's being the forward pervasion have been clarified the conditions for something's being the counterpervasions need to be elaborated on. The procedure parallels the elaboration on the forward pervasion approximately but not exactly.

The dissimilar class of the counterpervasion is the class of phenomena that not only does not share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism but the dissimilar class is contradictory with the similar class with respect to {the predicate}.


Establishing the counterpervasion

{the sign's} being the counterpervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} is defined as follows:

{the sign} is the counterpervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} because:
(1) There exists a correct dissimilar example which possesses neither {the sign} nor {the predicate} of the probandum, in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign};
(2) {the sign} is related with {the predicate}; and
(3) {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

The following expressions will now be clarified to clarify this definition:

1. There exists a correct dissimilar example
2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}
3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.
3.1 {the sign} must be nonexistent in the dissimilar class;
3.2 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class;
3.3 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class, as opposed to being nonexistent in only the dissimilar class (the position of “only” is important);
3.4 ... must be ascertained as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class.
-------------------------
1. There exists a correct dissimilar example

Copular mode:
An example in a proof is a correct dissimilar example, if {the example} is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the counterpervasion (that whatever is not {the predicate} is necessarily not {the sign}) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this counterpervasion that {the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the sign}.

Ontological mode:
An example in a proof is a correct dissimilar example, if {the predicate's} nonexistence in {the example} locus is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the counterpervasion (that wherever {the predicate's} existence cannot be observed there necessarily {the sign} does not exist) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this counterpervasion that in the locus in question which is {the subject} {the predicate} exists because {the sign} exists [there].


2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}

{the sign} is different from {the predicate} in name and meaning which is the prerequiste that {the sign} may be related with {the predicate}.


3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

3.1 {the sign} must be nonexistent in the dissimilar class;

{the sign} must not exist in the dissimilar class of phenomena which are dissimilar with respect to the {the predicate} to be proven. E.g. If {the predicate} to be proven is 'impermanent' then the name of the dissimilar class is 'the permanent'.

3.2 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class;

If {the sign} is a correct sign then is must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class which means that none of the members of the dissimilar class of phenomena is {the sign} (copular) or in none of the members of the dissimilar class of locuses where {the predicate} cannot be observed does {the sign} exist (ontological).

3.3 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class, as opposed to being nonexistent in only the dissimilar class (the position of “only” is important);

Here the position of 'only' is not before 'the dissimilar class' but before 'nonexistent' which means - in copular mode - that all members of the dissimilar class are necessarily not {the sign} but that does not exclude that also some members of the similar class may be not {the sign}.

3.4 ... must be ascertained as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class.

For a person who has doubt as to whether {the sign} is only nonexistent in the dissimilar class or not {the sign} cannot be a correct sign since the counterpervasion is not established.
-------------------------
To summarize: There are 3 essential valid ascertainments that are inevitable conditions for a syllogism's functioning as valid proof for an investigator:

1. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the property of {the subject}. The relationship to be established is one between {the subject} and {the sign}. The basis of relation is {the subject}.
2. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the forward pervasion. The relationship to be established is one between {the sign} and {the predicate}. The basis of relation is {the sign}.
3. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the counterpervasion. The relationship to be established is one between {the sign} and the opposite of {the predicate}. The basis of relation is {the sign}.

After establishing a strictly defined logical relationship between {the sign} and {the predicate} (-> items 2 and 3) - which means that if {the predicate} is eliminated {the sign} necessarily is eliminated, too - the mind must focus on the {the subject's} being {the sign} (item 1) to realize the thesis of the syllogism, i.e. that {the subject} is {the predicate}.

It is obvious that coming to validly know for oneself that the thesis of a syllogism is right cannot be achieved through casual reasoning but needs a certain level of concentration which is dynamic since the mind's focus is changing.
-------------------------
Now to conclude this brief abstract about coming to validly know for oneself by means of buddhist logic there still remains the topic of categories of correct signs.

There are three 3 main categories of correct sigs:

1. Effect signs
2. Nature signs
3. Nonobservation signs

As to 1:
A correct effect sign is the three modes and the predicate of the syllogism is the sign's cause. So the sign is the effect which proves its cause. That means that predicate and sign are different entities.

Please note that the reverse is not valid: it is not possible to prove an effect by its cause as sign. Why? Because a potential cause always may be obstructed.


As to 2:
A correct nature sign is the three modes and the subject of the syllogism is both, the predicate and the sign. That means that predicate and sign are of one entity, i.e. two different properties of the subject.

As to 3:
A correct nonobservation sign is the three modes and the thesis of the syllogism is based on a negation of a predicate, e.g. 'is not {the predicate}' or '{the predicate} does not exist in ...' or '{the subject} is empty of {the predicate}' and the like.
There may be a several relationships between the nonobservation signs and the negative predicate:

3.1 Nonobservation of a Cause
Where a specific cause cannot be observed its effect must be absent too.

3.2. Nonobservation of a Pervader
Where a certain type of phenomena that contains the predicate cannot be observed the predicate must be absent too. E.g. where there are not trees, there are no oaks.

3.3 Nonobservation of a Nature
Where there is no valid perception of an object that object is absent. This is because perception of an object and existence of that object are equivalent in nature.

3.4 Correct Signs That Are an Observation of an Object That Is Contradictory in the Sense of Not Abiding Together
E.g. cold and fire do not abide together.

3.5 Correct Signs That Are an Observation of an Object That Is Contradictory in the Sense of Mutual Exclusion
I.e. although the objects may abide together they are mutually exclusive. E.g. although a car and a tree may abide together that which displays the characteristics of a car is not a tree.

-------------------------
If you are interested in more details about the topic please be referred to the literature mentioned in the beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-08-2017, 12:59 PM
jonesboy jonesboy is online now
Master
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,828
  jonesboy's Avatar
The Sutra in a nutshell is saying.

Get a teacher and experience the truth of my teaching.

The people he is talking to then go on to say okay we see your point and will work with your monks to experience that which you say is true.

It's all about the importance of having a teacher and doing the practices :)

When you do the practices you will experience a change within and know the teachings to be true.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-08-2017, 02:45 PM
jonesboy jonesboy is online now
Master
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,828
  jonesboy's Avatar
Here is a dharma talk by Thich Nhat Hanh on Direct Perception.


https://tnhaudio.org/2014/01/28/perception-reality/

The audio:

https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/tn...2014-01-19.mp3
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-08-2017, 03:34 PM
naturesflow naturesflow is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: In my cocoon.
Posts: 6,114
  naturesflow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
The Sutra in a nutshell is saying.

Get a teacher and experience the truth of my teaching.

The people he is talking to then go on to say okay we see your point and will work with your monks to experience that which you say is true.

It's all about the importance of having a teacher and doing the practices :)

When you do the practices you will experience a change within and know the teachings to be true.

That makes so much more sense. Thanks for sharing this.
__________________
A divinely brilliant life has no regret when DEATH comes along.
And you say," Yes, I'm well prepared ! "
Kazeronnie Mak
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-08-2017, 06:04 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,003
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
The Sutra in a nutshell is saying.

Get a teacher and experience the truth of my teaching.
Says one who mixes buddhism with Hindu religion


The issue of how to validly know whether a person is ignorant or wise still remains.

Quote:
"Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teacher who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...an.html#sorts3

Quote:
"Therefore, Ananda, each of you should remain with your self as an island, your self as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...an.html#island


Quote:
"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

"The Dhamma" are the authentic buddhist texts and the investigation is nothing but rational analysis.

Therefore beware of so called 'teachers'. On order to come to validly know for yourself you take authentic buddhist texts and apply rationality. How to apply rationality? The template of buddhist logic has been provided above.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2017, 03:41 PM
jonesboy jonesboy is online now
Master
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,828
  jonesboy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
Says one who mixes buddhism with Hindu religion


The issue of how to validly know whether a person is ignorant or wise still remains.

"The Dhamma" are the authentic buddhist texts and the investigation is nothing but rational analysis.

Therefore beware of so called 'teachers'. On order to come to validly know for yourself you take authentic buddhist texts and apply rationality. How to apply rationality? The template of buddhist logic has been provided above.


I don't confuse Buddhism and Hinduism at all.

You are taking quotes out of context.

The last paragraph of the Kalama Sutta. Notice they go to the monks and learn and practice.


Quote:
"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. We go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

Your next quote:

Quote:
"Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teacher who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...an.html#sorts3

You left out what type of teacher the Buddha recommends and the super powers he has because of such realization.


Quote:
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs & inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability — the monk directs & inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. When a disciple of a teacher attains this sort of grand distinction, Lohicca, that is a teacher not worthy of criticism in the world, and if anyone were to criticize this sort of teacher, the criticism would be false, unfactual, unrighteous, & blameworthy.

Your next quote:

Quote:
"Therefore, Ananda, each of you should remain with your self as an island, your self as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...an.html#island

Did you not read the rest of the paragraph?

Quote:
Remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge. And how does a monk remain with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge? How does he remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is how a monk remains with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge. For those who — now or after I am gone — remain with their self as an island, their self as their refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as their refuge, without anything else as a refuge, they will be the highest of the monks who desire training."

The Dhamma and you are one and the same. It is a method, it is not saying go it alone. He is saying use your body to observe.

He is talking to a monk, one of his monks as a hint.

Your next quote goes into much more detail.. which you leave out... of course.

Quote:
"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

Quote:
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'].

This is a very powerful technique.

A step by step method that i like is called Insight Dialogue.

https://metta.org/insight-dialogue-3/


I think you are trying to find sentences that meet your views instead of really researching and finding out the Buddhist view.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2017, 04:56 PM
jonesboy jonesboy is online now
Master
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,828
  jonesboy's Avatar
Direct perception is much deeper than what you are writing.

First it is important to know what reality is in Buddhism.

Quote:
In Dzogchen, perceived reality is considered to be relatively unreal.

The real sky is (knowing) that samsara and nirvana are merely an illusory display.[5]
— Mipham Rinpoche, Quintessential Instructions of Mind, p. 117

According to contemporary teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, all appearances perceived during the whole life of an individual, through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations in their totality, are like a big dream. It is claimed that, on careful examination, the dream of life and regular nightly dreams are not very different, and that in their essential nature there is no difference between them.

The non-essential difference between the dreaming state and ordinary waking experience is that the latter is more concrete and linked to attachment; the dreaming experience while sleeping is slightly detached.

Also according to this teaching, there is a correspondence between the states of sleep and dream and our experiences when we die. After experiencing the intermediate state of bardo, an individual comes out of it, a new karmic illusion is created and another existence begins. This is how transmigration happens.

According to Dzogchen teachings, the energy of an individual is essentially without form and free from duality. However, karmic traces contained in the individual's mindstream give rise to two kinds of forms:

forms that the individual experiences as his or her body, voice and mind
forms that the individual experiences as an external environment.

What appears as a world of permanent external phenomena, is the energy of the individual him or herself. There is nothing completely external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the 'Great Perfection' that is discovered in Dzogchen practice.[6]

It is possible to do yogic practice such as Dream Yoga and Yoga Nidra whilst dreaming, sleeping and in other bardo states of trance. In this way the yogi can have a very strong experience and with this comes understanding of the dream-like nature of daily life. This is also very relevant to diminishing attachments, because they are based on strong beliefs that life's perceptions such as objects are real and as a consequence: important. If one really understands what Buddha Shakyamuni meant when he said that everything is (relatively) unreal, then one can diminish attachments and tensions.

The teacher advises that the realization that life is only a big dream can help us finally liberate ourselves from the chains of various emotions, different kinds of attachment and the chains of ego. Then we have the possibility of ultimately becoming enlightened.[1]

Different schools and traditions in other strains of Tibetan Buddhism give different explanations of what is called "reality".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

While the above talks about direct perception the quote below goes in to much greater detail.


Quote:
rom the Guhyagarbha-Tantra

Samantabhadra and Sentient beings are gathered indivisibly in immaculate existential space, and in order to demonstrate experientially the direct Perception of Vajrasattva's face, deliberately, Samantabhadra speaks:

In direct Perception of this mundane World, where things are never what they seem, where all is delusory enchantment, like hallucination, seeing all and everything as a continuity like the reflection of the moon in water, that is The Buddha's pristine awareness, and a flash of undivided recognition of that gives us a unitary experience of total presence. A finger snap of ungrounded limitless space, in timeless existential space, the here and now, that is Vajrasattva wielding an utterly inviolable Vajra. When vision and conduct are in sync with direct Perception, we see his face in the intrinsic purity of the Mandala.

That boundless existential space is oneself in a union of utter purity, and all is spontaneously Awakened. Whoever experiences this realization he is seeing with the eye of pure awareness and he sees the immaculate matrix of being, and he is utterly inviolable, adamantine, imperturbable. Intrinsic existential space radiates clear Light which is the immaculate voice of pristine being (sattva). In that recognition is direct Perception of his face.

With this spontaneity of perfect equipoise, the Mind is filled with the magnificent self-sprung Mandala of the Five Tathagathas, the five aspects of awareness, and in this unitary Mind free of subject and object contemplating the Buddhas' radiance as nothing at all, without seeing or hearing or any sensation, here is the clear Light of pure awareness of intrinsic presence and everything is realized as intrinsically empty and in reality there is no substance whatsoever.

Just as the victorious Buddha sat as a focus in the middle of the hosts of Mara all gathered around the Bodhi tree, miserable in their state of malignancy trying to cut the tree but quite unable, so is Vajrasattva: when oneself is at one with Samadhi that is direct Perception of the Vajra-face.
Vajrasattva-1dsa.jpg

The Mind filled with Vajrasattva, Samadhi saturated with radiance, everything becomes his Vajra-nature, and since he is everything, nothing can harm him; with oneself and sattva inseparable action accords with whatever appears, and the vision and activity of oneself and sattva are one and that is direct Perception of the Vajra-face.

Now, the immaculate Mandala of reflected images: conjoined by means of the coarse and tangible (thabs) apprehending sensory distinctions, perfect Insight (Prajna) is realized and the non-dual connection of means and Insight is sublime skilful means. All and everything as the space of that manifold Insight, all Appearances and existence, everything whatsoever, unmoving from the intrinsical here and now, are neither existent nor non-existent and their being and non-being are indivisible: all is gathered into the space of existential sameness and such a communion never coming into being, everything, in that way, inseparable from sameness, is inviolable. That is the abode of sattva and the supreme order who realize that, their status in accord with sattva, they see directly the Vajra-face.

All transforming Illusion, the psycho-organism and the elements of Perception, is one in the suchness of the ground of being, and illusory Appearances, all reflected images, lack any substance in their very nature; yet that very absence of substance displays multiplicity: the five aspects of the psycho-organism are the Five Tathagathas, sense organs and conciousnesses are the bodhisattvas, the objects and times are the goddesses the four concepts of the self are the four wrathful male guardians, the four extreme views of eternalism and nihilism are the four wrathful female guardians. That Awakened Mind – known as intrinsic presence – all as existential space, Samantabhadra, that is Vajrasattva. Whoever recognizes that, his Buddha-Mind in Harmony with sattva, He sees the Vajra-face.

All things, all experience without exception, can be expressed by representational name, word, letters and Sound, but like all those letters, names and sounds nothing whatsoever has any substance. That very absence of substance appears as multiplicity, the nature of Appearances is nothing at all; although there is a Constant stream of creativity it is no-thing and that is immaculate. The utterly inviolable here and now is not insensate matter; it is radiantly clear Light, and Vajrasattva abides there. Whoever recognizes that is a member of the supreme order, and indivisible from the Vajra-order he has direct Perception of the Vajra-face.
Vajrasattva-4l.jpg

The eminent man or woman with high creativity can realize the meaning of such universal identity; but the result is intangible, for the place in which Enlightened Mind exists is like a womb or an egg. Although unreal, obscurations do arise, and just as in the process of their creation they dissolve so the forms of Thought are abandoned instantaneously. In that way he is empowered by all things and he becomes a being of the sublime order.

Identical to Vajrasattva, the supreme Siddhis are perfected in him; he attains the blissful Pure land, supreme Wisdom becomes his display, and he is an exemplar to gods and men; he is empowered in Body speech and Mind and whatever he imagines is actualized.

He is mastered by the four boundless states, his activity everywhere is supreme awareness of bliss, and he has reached the place where Suffering has ceased – the Suffering of birth, old age, sickness and Death.

Reaching the supreme Vajra-status, through the Blessings of great Compassion he leads all beings without exception into that Vajra-order.

Annihilating the hosts of Mara, taming the passions impeccably he turns the Wheel of Dharma; to all beings without exception he teaches the nature of Impermanence in a way compatible with their every path – to the shravakas the way of the Arhat, to the bodhisattvas the way of the self-born, to the spontaneously originated Buddhas of the unsurpassable approach, inviolable existential space. Without moving from intrinsic existential space he reveals to everyone immutability, and all paths without exception are accomplished in that space.

Thus he spoke the Vajra-secret word! The word spoken by himself to himself!

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia...of_Vajrasattva

Direct perception is a realization. Not some logical tool where one is to intellectualize the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2017, 11:43 PM
naturesflow naturesflow is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: In my cocoon.
Posts: 6,114
  naturesflow's Avatar
Quote:
Direct perception is a realization. Not some logical tool where one is to intellectualize the truth.

Wow you just hit my DP (direct perception) spot and it smiled in recognition.
__________________
A divinely brilliant life has no regret when DEATH comes along.
And you say," Yes, I'm well prepared ! "
Kazeronnie Mak
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-08-2017, 04:21 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,003
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
I don't confuse Buddhism and Hinduism at all.
you have repeatedly mixed up buddhism and hindu religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
The last paragraph of the Kalama Sutta. Notice they go to the monks and learn and practice.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
You left out what type of teacher the Buddha recommends and the super powers he has because of such realization.

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!



Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
The Dhamma and you are one and the same.
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:
Quote:
"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

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
I think you are trying to find sentences that meet your views instead of really researching and finding out the Buddhist view.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesboy
Direct perception is much deeper than what you are writing.

Direct perception is a realization. Not some logical tool where one is to intellectualize the truth.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharmakirti
The success of all human aims is preceded by right cognition.

Right cognition is twofold: direct perception and inference.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums