Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?












1














I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    1














    I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      1












      1








      1







      I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.







      nirvana enlightenment language






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 3 hours ago









      Mumukshu

      62




      62




      New contributor




      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Mumukshu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Great question!



          It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.



          So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.



          Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.



          It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.



          Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...



          “Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”



          Jan-I-Janan
          Sentences of the Khajagan






          share|improve this answer































            0














            Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
            Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
            They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
            For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
            All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
            Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
            This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
            Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.



            Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you, which precisely means nibanna.
            That's called dhammakaya.



            So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.



            It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
            THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.



            Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.



            Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.




            For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
            Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
            origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
            cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
            cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
            rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
            resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
            here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
            clinging-sustenance—non-return.”



            That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
            Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



            “Those who don’t discern stress,



            what brings stress into play,



            & where it totally stops,



            without trace;



            who don’t know the path,



            the way to the stilling of stress:



            lowly



            in their awareness-release



            & discernment-release,



            incapable



            of making an end,



            they’re headed



            to birth & aging.



            But those who discern stress,



            what brings stress into play,



            & where it totally stops,



            without trace;



            who discern the path,



            the way to the stilling of stress:



            consummate



            in their awareness-release



            & discernment-release,



            capable



            of making an end,



            they aren’t headed



            to birth & aging.1




            here is another one




            “Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
            contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
            ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
            bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
            generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
            commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
            discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
            contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
            world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
            contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
            as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
            is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
            contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
            of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
            there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”




            https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


























              0















              Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason




              Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.



              What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...




              ONLY meditation is the way




              No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.



              Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it is the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.



              Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge for this type of person to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.






              share|improve this answer





















                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "565"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });






                Mumukshu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30496%2fwhy-cant-we-reason-or-logic-our-way-to-nirvana%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                1














                Great question!



                It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.



                So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.



                Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.



                It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.



                Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...



                “Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”



                Jan-I-Janan
                Sentences of the Khajagan






                share|improve this answer




























                  1














                  Great question!



                  It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.



                  So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.



                  Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.



                  It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.



                  Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...



                  “Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”



                  Jan-I-Janan
                  Sentences of the Khajagan






                  share|improve this answer


























                    1












                    1








                    1






                    Great question!



                    It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.



                    So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.



                    Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.



                    It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.



                    Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...



                    “Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”



                    Jan-I-Janan
                    Sentences of the Khajagan






                    share|improve this answer














                    Great question!



                    It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.



                    So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.



                    Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.



                    It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.



                    Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...



                    “Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”



                    Jan-I-Janan
                    Sentences of the Khajagan







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 2 hours ago

























                    answered 2 hours ago









                    PeterJ

                    43617




                    43617























                        0














                        Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
                        Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
                        They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
                        For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
                        All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
                        Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
                        This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
                        Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.



                        Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you, which precisely means nibanna.
                        That's called dhammakaya.



                        So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.



                        It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
                        THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.



                        Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.



                        Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.




                        For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
                        Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
                        origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
                        cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
                        cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
                        rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
                        resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
                        here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
                        clinging-sustenance—non-return.”



                        That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
                        Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



                        “Those who don’t discern stress,



                        what brings stress into play,



                        & where it totally stops,



                        without trace;



                        who don’t know the path,



                        the way to the stilling of stress:



                        lowly



                        in their awareness-release



                        & discernment-release,



                        incapable



                        of making an end,



                        they’re headed



                        to birth & aging.



                        But those who discern stress,



                        what brings stress into play,



                        & where it totally stops,



                        without trace;



                        who discern the path,



                        the way to the stilling of stress:



                        consummate



                        in their awareness-release



                        & discernment-release,



                        capable



                        of making an end,



                        they aren’t headed



                        to birth & aging.1




                        here is another one




                        “Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
                        contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
                        ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
                        bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
                        generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
                        commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
                        discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
                        contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
                        world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
                        contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
                        as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
                        is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
                        contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
                        of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
                        there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”




                        https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.























                          0














                          Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
                          Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
                          They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
                          For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
                          All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
                          Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
                          This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
                          Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.



                          Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you, which precisely means nibanna.
                          That's called dhammakaya.



                          So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.



                          It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
                          THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.



                          Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.



                          Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.




                          For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
                          Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
                          origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
                          cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
                          cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
                          rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
                          resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
                          here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
                          clinging-sustenance—non-return.”



                          That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
                          Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



                          “Those who don’t discern stress,



                          what brings stress into play,



                          & where it totally stops,



                          without trace;



                          who don’t know the path,



                          the way to the stilling of stress:



                          lowly



                          in their awareness-release



                          & discernment-release,



                          incapable



                          of making an end,



                          they’re headed



                          to birth & aging.



                          But those who discern stress,



                          what brings stress into play,



                          & where it totally stops,



                          without trace;



                          who discern the path,



                          the way to the stilling of stress:



                          consummate



                          in their awareness-release



                          & discernment-release,



                          capable



                          of making an end,



                          they aren’t headed



                          to birth & aging.1




                          here is another one




                          “Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
                          contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
                          ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
                          bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
                          generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
                          commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
                          discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
                          contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
                          world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
                          contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
                          as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
                          is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
                          contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
                          of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
                          there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”




                          https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html






                          share|improve this answer










                          New contributor




                          Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                            0












                            0








                            0






                            Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
                            Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
                            They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
                            For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
                            All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
                            Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
                            This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
                            Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.



                            Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you, which precisely means nibanna.
                            That's called dhammakaya.



                            So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.



                            It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
                            THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.



                            Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.



                            Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.




                            For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
                            Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
                            origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
                            cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
                            cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
                            rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
                            resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
                            here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
                            clinging-sustenance—non-return.”



                            That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
                            Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



                            “Those who don’t discern stress,



                            what brings stress into play,



                            & where it totally stops,



                            without trace;



                            who don’t know the path,



                            the way to the stilling of stress:



                            lowly



                            in their awareness-release



                            & discernment-release,



                            incapable



                            of making an end,



                            they’re headed



                            to birth & aging.



                            But those who discern stress,



                            what brings stress into play,



                            & where it totally stops,



                            without trace;



                            who discern the path,



                            the way to the stilling of stress:



                            consummate



                            in their awareness-release



                            & discernment-release,



                            capable



                            of making an end,



                            they aren’t headed



                            to birth & aging.1




                            here is another one




                            “Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
                            contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
                            ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
                            bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
                            generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
                            commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
                            discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
                            contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
                            world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
                            contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
                            as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
                            is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
                            contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
                            of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
                            there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”




                            https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html






                            share|improve this answer










                            New contributor




                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
                            Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
                            They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
                            For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
                            All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
                            Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
                            This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
                            Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.



                            Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you, which precisely means nibanna.
                            That's called dhammakaya.



                            So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.



                            It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
                            THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.



                            Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.



                            Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.




                            For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
                            Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
                            origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
                            cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
                            cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
                            rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
                            resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
                            here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
                            clinging-sustenance—non-return.”



                            That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
                            Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:



                            “Those who don’t discern stress,



                            what brings stress into play,



                            & where it totally stops,



                            without trace;



                            who don’t know the path,



                            the way to the stilling of stress:



                            lowly



                            in their awareness-release



                            & discernment-release,



                            incapable



                            of making an end,



                            they’re headed



                            to birth & aging.



                            But those who discern stress,



                            what brings stress into play,



                            & where it totally stops,



                            without trace;



                            who discern the path,



                            the way to the stilling of stress:



                            consummate



                            in their awareness-release



                            & discernment-release,



                            capable



                            of making an end,



                            they aren’t headed



                            to birth & aging.1




                            here is another one




                            “Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
                            contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
                            ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
                            bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
                            generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
                            commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
                            discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
                            contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
                            world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
                            contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
                            as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
                            is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
                            contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
                            of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
                            there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”




                            https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html







                            share|improve this answer










                            New contributor




                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 1 hour ago









                            ChrisW

                            29k42484




                            29k42484






                            New contributor




                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 1 hour ago









                            Nachtflug

                            192




                            192




                            New contributor




                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            Nachtflug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                0















                                Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason




                                Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.



                                What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...




                                ONLY meditation is the way




                                No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.



                                Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it is the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.



                                Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge for this type of person to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.






                                share|improve this answer


























                                  0















                                  Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason




                                  Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.



                                  What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...




                                  ONLY meditation is the way




                                  No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.



                                  Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it is the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.



                                  Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge for this type of person to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.






                                  share|improve this answer
























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0







                                    Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason




                                    Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.



                                    What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...




                                    ONLY meditation is the way




                                    No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.



                                    Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it is the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.



                                    Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge for this type of person to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.






                                    share|improve this answer













                                    Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason




                                    Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.



                                    What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...




                                    ONLY meditation is the way




                                    No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.



                                    Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it is the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.



                                    Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge for this type of person to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.







                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered 1 hour ago









                                    Mishu 米殊

                                    1,774315




                                    1,774315






















                                        Mumukshu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded


















                                        Mumukshu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                        Mumukshu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                        Mumukshu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30496%2fwhy-cant-we-reason-or-logic-our-way-to-nirvana%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Morgemoulin

                                        Scott Moir

                                        Souastre