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












6















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























  • You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

    – PeterJ
    Jan 2 at 16:57











  • really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

    – user3293056
    Jan 3 at 19:03











  • @PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

    – ChrisW
    Jan 31 at 18:46











  • @ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

    – PeterJ
    Feb 1 at 10:32











  • Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

    – Bonn
    Feb 1 at 11:42
















6















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























  • You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

    – PeterJ
    Jan 2 at 16:57











  • really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

    – user3293056
    Jan 3 at 19:03











  • @PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

    – ChrisW
    Jan 31 at 18:46











  • @ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

    – PeterJ
    Feb 1 at 10:32











  • Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

    – Bonn
    Feb 1 at 11:42














6












6








6








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














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













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 30 '18 at 12:57









MumukshuMumukshu

313




313













  • You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

    – PeterJ
    Jan 2 at 16:57











  • really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

    – user3293056
    Jan 3 at 19:03











  • @PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

    – ChrisW
    Jan 31 at 18:46











  • @ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

    – PeterJ
    Feb 1 at 10:32











  • Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

    – Bonn
    Feb 1 at 11:42



















  • You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

    – PeterJ
    Jan 2 at 16:57











  • really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

    – user3293056
    Jan 3 at 19:03











  • @PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

    – ChrisW
    Jan 31 at 18:46











  • @ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

    – PeterJ
    Feb 1 at 10:32











  • Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

    – Bonn
    Feb 1 at 11:42

















You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

– PeterJ
Jan 2 at 16:57





You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance - huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/…

– PeterJ
Jan 2 at 16:57













really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

– user3293056
Jan 3 at 19:03





really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

– user3293056
Jan 3 at 19:03













@PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

– ChrisW
Jan 31 at 18:46





@PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

– ChrisW
Jan 31 at 18:46













@ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

– PeterJ
Feb 1 at 10:32





@ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

– PeterJ
Feb 1 at 10:32













Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

– Bonn
Feb 1 at 11:42





Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

– Bonn
Feb 1 at 11:42










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















4














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

































    3














    I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.



    I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.



    I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).



    And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!



    I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.



    Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.






    share|improve this answer
























    • "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      – Damith
      Feb 1 at 10:14











    • "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

      – Andrei Volkov
      Feb 1 at 12:47











    • @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

      – ChrisW
      Feb 2 at 21:27



















    2















    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 neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it 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 to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.





    While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.







    Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?



    Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))



    I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.



    a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -



    The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.



    He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1



    b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.



    The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.



    c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.



    Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.



    footnotes



    1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death;所以者何?既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception),報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

      – Val
      Dec 31 '18 at 9:40













    • Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

      – PeterJ
      Dec 31 '18 at 12:03











    • You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

      – Mishu 米殊
      Jan 1 at 13:28











    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

      – ChrisW
      Jan 1 at 17:20











    • @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

      – Motivated
      Jan 23 at 16:38



















    1














    In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.



    Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.



    Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.




    The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
    demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
    carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
    hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
    bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
    protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
    is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
    contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
    moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
    energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
    the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
    interior of the coals.



    If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
    protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
    just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
    sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
    performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
    vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
    to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
    liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
    the coals.



    I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
    I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
    walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
    burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
    not heal for weeks.



    My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
    but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
    days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
    Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
    my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
    badly burned.



    I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
    ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
    should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
    candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
    in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
    chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
    would be more revealing than traditional final exams.







    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

































        0














        It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise






        share|improve this answer































          0














          Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we. Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat. What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.






          share|improve this answer































            0














            Why Nibbana can't be described?



            This is my simple answer:



            How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?



            All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.



            For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.



            Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?



            Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.






            share|improve this answer

































              0














              Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms. All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.



              Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator. But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.






              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
                });


                }
                });














                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

























                9 Answers
                9






                active

                oldest

                votes








                9 Answers
                9






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                4














                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






























                  4














                  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




























                    4












                    4








                    4







                    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 Dec 30 '18 at 14:00

























                    answered Dec 30 '18 at 13:54









                    PeterJPeterJ

                    59818




                    59818























                        3














                        I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.



                        I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.



                        I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).



                        And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!



                        I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.



                        Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.






                        share|improve this answer
























                        • "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                          – Damith
                          Feb 1 at 10:14











                        • "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                          – Andrei Volkov
                          Feb 1 at 12:47











                        • @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                          – ChrisW
                          Feb 2 at 21:27
















                        3














                        I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.



                        I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.



                        I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).



                        And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!



                        I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.



                        Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.






                        share|improve this answer
























                        • "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                          – Damith
                          Feb 1 at 10:14











                        • "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                          – Andrei Volkov
                          Feb 1 at 12:47











                        • @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                          – ChrisW
                          Feb 2 at 21:27














                        3












                        3








                        3







                        I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.



                        I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.



                        I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).



                        And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!



                        I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.



                        Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.






                        share|improve this answer













                        I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.



                        I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.



                        I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).



                        And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!



                        I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.



                        Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered Jan 31 at 19:23









                        ChrisWChrisW

                        29.8k42485




                        29.8k42485













                        • "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                          – Damith
                          Feb 1 at 10:14











                        • "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                          – Andrei Volkov
                          Feb 1 at 12:47











                        • @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                          – ChrisW
                          Feb 2 at 21:27



















                        • "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                          – Damith
                          Feb 1 at 10:14











                        • "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                          – Andrei Volkov
                          Feb 1 at 12:47











                        • @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                          – ChrisW
                          Feb 2 at 21:27

















                        "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                        – Damith
                        Feb 1 at 10:14





                        "I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" -- Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

                        – Damith
                        Feb 1 at 10:14













                        "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                        – Andrei Volkov
                        Feb 1 at 12:47





                        "There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

                        – Andrei Volkov
                        Feb 1 at 12:47













                        @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                        – ChrisW
                        Feb 2 at 21:27





                        @Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

                        – ChrisW
                        Feb 2 at 21:27











                        2















                        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 neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it 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 to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.





                        While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.







                        Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?



                        Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))



                        I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.



                        a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -



                        The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.



                        He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1



                        b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.



                        The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.



                        c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.



                        Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.



                        footnotes



                        1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death;所以者何?既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception),報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 1





                          Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                          – Val
                          Dec 31 '18 at 9:40













                        • Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                          – PeterJ
                          Dec 31 '18 at 12:03











                        • You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                          – Mishu 米殊
                          Jan 1 at 13:28











                        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                          – ChrisW
                          Jan 1 at 17:20











                        • @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                          – Motivated
                          Jan 23 at 16:38
















                        2















                        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 neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it 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 to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.





                        While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.







                        Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?



                        Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))



                        I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.



                        a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -



                        The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.



                        He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1



                        b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.



                        The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.



                        c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.



                        Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.



                        footnotes



                        1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death;所以者何?既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception),報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 1





                          Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                          – Val
                          Dec 31 '18 at 9:40













                        • Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                          – PeterJ
                          Dec 31 '18 at 12:03











                        • You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                          – Mishu 米殊
                          Jan 1 at 13:28











                        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                          – ChrisW
                          Jan 1 at 17:20











                        • @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                          – Motivated
                          Jan 23 at 16:38














                        2












                        2








                        2








                        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 neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it 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 to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.





                        While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.







                        Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?



                        Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))



                        I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.



                        a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -



                        The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.



                        He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1



                        b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.



                        The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.



                        c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.



                        Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.



                        footnotes



                        1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death;所以者何?既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception),報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」






                        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 neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it 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 to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.





                        While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.







                        Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?



                        Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))



                        I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.



                        a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -



                        The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.



                        He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1



                        b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.



                        The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.



                        c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.



                        Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.



                        footnotes



                        1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death;所以者何?既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception),報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited Jan 1 at 13:12

























                        answered Dec 30 '18 at 14:55









                        Mishu 米殊Mishu 米殊

                        1,860316




                        1,860316








                        • 1





                          Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                          – Val
                          Dec 31 '18 at 9:40













                        • Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                          – PeterJ
                          Dec 31 '18 at 12:03











                        • You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                          – Mishu 米殊
                          Jan 1 at 13:28











                        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                          – ChrisW
                          Jan 1 at 17:20











                        • @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                          – Motivated
                          Jan 23 at 16:38














                        • 1





                          Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                          – Val
                          Dec 31 '18 at 9:40













                        • Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                          – PeterJ
                          Dec 31 '18 at 12:03











                        • You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                          – Mishu 米殊
                          Jan 1 at 13:28











                        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                          – ChrisW
                          Jan 1 at 17:20











                        • @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                          – Motivated
                          Jan 23 at 16:38








                        1




                        1





                        Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                        – Val
                        Dec 31 '18 at 9:40







                        Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

                        – Val
                        Dec 31 '18 at 9:40















                        Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                        – PeterJ
                        Dec 31 '18 at 12:03





                        Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

                        – PeterJ
                        Dec 31 '18 at 12:03













                        You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                        – Mishu 米殊
                        Jan 1 at 13:28





                        You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

                        – Mishu 米殊
                        Jan 1 at 13:28













                        Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                        – ChrisW
                        Jan 1 at 17:20





                        Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                        – ChrisW
                        Jan 1 at 17:20













                        @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                        – Motivated
                        Jan 23 at 16:38





                        @Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

                        – Motivated
                        Jan 23 at 16:38











                        1














                        In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.



                        Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.



                        Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.




                        The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
                        demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
                        carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
                        hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
                        bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
                        protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
                        is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
                        contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
                        moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
                        energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
                        the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
                        interior of the coals.



                        If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
                        protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
                        just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
                        sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
                        performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
                        vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
                        to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
                        liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
                        the coals.



                        I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
                        I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
                        walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
                        burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
                        not heal for weeks.



                        My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
                        but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
                        days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
                        Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
                        my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
                        badly burned.



                        I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
                        ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
                        should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
                        candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
                        in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
                        chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
                        would be more revealing than traditional final exams.







                        share|improve this answer






























                          1














                          In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.



                          Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.



                          Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.




                          The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
                          demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
                          carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
                          hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
                          bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
                          protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
                          is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
                          contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
                          moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
                          energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
                          the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
                          interior of the coals.



                          If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
                          protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
                          just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
                          sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
                          performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
                          vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
                          to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
                          liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
                          the coals.



                          I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
                          I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
                          walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
                          burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
                          not heal for weeks.



                          My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
                          but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
                          days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
                          Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
                          my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
                          badly burned.



                          I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
                          ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
                          should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
                          candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
                          in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
                          chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
                          would be more revealing than traditional final exams.







                          share|improve this answer




























                            1












                            1








                            1







                            In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.



                            Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.



                            Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.




                            The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
                            demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
                            carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
                            hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
                            bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
                            protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
                            is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
                            contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
                            moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
                            energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
                            the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
                            interior of the coals.



                            If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
                            protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
                            just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
                            sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
                            performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
                            vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
                            to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
                            liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
                            the coals.



                            I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
                            I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
                            walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
                            burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
                            not heal for weeks.



                            My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
                            but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
                            days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
                            Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
                            my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
                            badly burned.



                            I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
                            ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
                            should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
                            candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
                            in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
                            chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
                            would be more revealing than traditional final exams.







                            share|improve this answer















                            In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.



                            Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.



                            Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.




                            The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
                            demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
                            carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
                            hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
                            bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
                            protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
                            is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
                            contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
                            moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
                            energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
                            the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
                            interior of the coals.



                            If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
                            protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
                            just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
                            sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
                            performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
                            vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
                            to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
                            liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
                            the coals.



                            I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
                            I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
                            walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
                            burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
                            not heal for weeks.



                            My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
                            but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
                            days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
                            Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
                            my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
                            badly burned.



                            I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
                            ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
                            should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
                            candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
                            in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
                            chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
                            would be more revealing than traditional final exams.








                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Jan 5 at 4:57

























                            answered Jan 3 at 17:03









                            ruben2020ruben2020

                            15.1k31243




                            15.1k31243























                                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






























                                  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




























                                    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















                                    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














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:30









                                    ChrisW

                                    29.8k42485




                                    29.8k42485










                                    answered Dec 30 '18 at 14:18









                                    NachtflugNachtflug

                                    3622




                                    3622























                                        0














                                        It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise






                                        share|improve this answer




























                                          0














                                          It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise






                                          share|improve this answer


























                                            0












                                            0








                                            0







                                            It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise






                                            share|improve this answer













                                            It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise







                                            share|improve this answer












                                            share|improve this answer



                                            share|improve this answer










                                            answered Dec 31 '18 at 9:45









                                            ValVal

                                            1,148213




                                            1,148213























                                                0














                                                Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we. Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat. What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.






                                                share|improve this answer




























                                                  0














                                                  Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we. Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat. What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.






                                                  share|improve this answer


























                                                    0












                                                    0








                                                    0







                                                    Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we. Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat. What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.






                                                    share|improve this answer













                                                    Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we. Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat. What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.







                                                    share|improve this answer












                                                    share|improve this answer



                                                    share|improve this answer










                                                    answered Jan 2 at 20:44









                                                    Dev PradhanDev Pradhan

                                                    1




                                                    1























                                                        0














                                                        Why Nibbana can't be described?



                                                        This is my simple answer:



                                                        How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?



                                                        All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.



                                                        For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.



                                                        Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?



                                                        Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.






                                                        share|improve this answer






























                                                          0














                                                          Why Nibbana can't be described?



                                                          This is my simple answer:



                                                          How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?



                                                          All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.



                                                          For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.



                                                          Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?



                                                          Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.






                                                          share|improve this answer




























                                                            0












                                                            0








                                                            0







                                                            Why Nibbana can't be described?



                                                            This is my simple answer:



                                                            How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?



                                                            All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.



                                                            For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.



                                                            Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?



                                                            Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.






                                                            share|improve this answer















                                                            Why Nibbana can't be described?



                                                            This is my simple answer:



                                                            How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?



                                                            All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.



                                                            For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.



                                                            Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?



                                                            Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.







                                                            share|improve this answer














                                                            share|improve this answer



                                                            share|improve this answer








                                                            edited Feb 1 at 10:16

























                                                            answered Feb 1 at 9:26









                                                            DamithDamith

                                                            62215




                                                            62215























                                                                0














                                                                Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms. All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.



                                                                Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator. But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.






                                                                share|improve this answer






























                                                                  0














                                                                  Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms. All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.



                                                                  Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator. But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.






                                                                  share|improve this answer




























                                                                    0












                                                                    0








                                                                    0







                                                                    Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms. All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.



                                                                    Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator. But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.






                                                                    share|improve this answer















                                                                    Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms. All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.



                                                                    Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator. But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.







                                                                    share|improve this answer














                                                                    share|improve this answer



                                                                    share|improve this answer








                                                                    edited Feb 1 at 13:18

























                                                                    answered Feb 1 at 10:31









                                                                    Murathan1Murathan1

                                                                    33925




                                                                    33925






























                                                                        draft saved

                                                                        draft discarded




















































                                                                        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.




                                                                        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

                                                                        Bressuire

                                                                        Cabo Verde

                                                                        Gyllenstierna