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












4














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
















4














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














4












4








4







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

212




212












  • 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


















  • 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
















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










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















2














Great question!



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



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



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



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



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



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



Jan-I-Janan
Sentences of the Khajagan






share|improve this answer































    1














    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





























      1















      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



















      1














      Contemporary Mahayana answer here, so I apologize for my mixed use of traditional and modern terminology.



      Simple logic operates within a single "dimension", simple logic does not allow logical contradictions. The mind of Enlightenment operates across "dimensions", it embraces seemingly contradicting perspectives and coalesces them. Cutting through to Nirvana requires learning to operate outside of the confines of simple logic - while still remaining rational and functional. It's a different modus operandi that the student must master in practice, you can't "calculate" it or infer it, because all "calculations" stay within the confines of the unenlightened mind.



      That said, of course you can get very close with logic and philosophical analysis - which is what Madhyamaka is all about, it is getting you as close as possible to seeing the limits of conventional thinking - through the use of conventional thinking. But, of course, going completely beyond the limits of logic can't be done while staying within logic, by definition.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1




        I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
        – PeterJ
        Jan 1 at 14:38












      • Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
        – Andrei Volkov
        Jan 1 at 18:07










      • All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
        – PeterJ
        Jan 2 at 9:43










      • Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
        – Andrei Volkov
        Jan 2 at 21:43












      • These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
        – PeterJ
        Jan 3 at 15:50





















      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














          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








          New contributor




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


















            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

























            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes








            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            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




























              2














              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


























                2












                2








                2






                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

                45518




                45518























                    1














                    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


























                      1














                      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
























                        1












                        1








                        1






                        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

                        1,020213




                        1,020213























                            1















                            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
















                            1















                            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














                            1












                            1








                            1







                            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

                            1,784315




                            1,784315








                            • 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














                            • 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








                            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











                            1














                            Contemporary Mahayana answer here, so I apologize for my mixed use of traditional and modern terminology.



                            Simple logic operates within a single "dimension", simple logic does not allow logical contradictions. The mind of Enlightenment operates across "dimensions", it embraces seemingly contradicting perspectives and coalesces them. Cutting through to Nirvana requires learning to operate outside of the confines of simple logic - while still remaining rational and functional. It's a different modus operandi that the student must master in practice, you can't "calculate" it or infer it, because all "calculations" stay within the confines of the unenlightened mind.



                            That said, of course you can get very close with logic and philosophical analysis - which is what Madhyamaka is all about, it is getting you as close as possible to seeing the limits of conventional thinking - through the use of conventional thinking. But, of course, going completely beyond the limits of logic can't be done while staying within logic, by definition.






                            share|improve this answer



















                            • 1




                              I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 1 at 14:38












                            • Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 1 at 18:07










                            • All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 2 at 9:43










                            • Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 2 at 21:43












                            • These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 3 at 15:50


















                            1














                            Contemporary Mahayana answer here, so I apologize for my mixed use of traditional and modern terminology.



                            Simple logic operates within a single "dimension", simple logic does not allow logical contradictions. The mind of Enlightenment operates across "dimensions", it embraces seemingly contradicting perspectives and coalesces them. Cutting through to Nirvana requires learning to operate outside of the confines of simple logic - while still remaining rational and functional. It's a different modus operandi that the student must master in practice, you can't "calculate" it or infer it, because all "calculations" stay within the confines of the unenlightened mind.



                            That said, of course you can get very close with logic and philosophical analysis - which is what Madhyamaka is all about, it is getting you as close as possible to seeing the limits of conventional thinking - through the use of conventional thinking. But, of course, going completely beyond the limits of logic can't be done while staying within logic, by definition.






                            share|improve this answer



















                            • 1




                              I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 1 at 14:38












                            • Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 1 at 18:07










                            • All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 2 at 9:43










                            • Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 2 at 21:43












                            • These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 3 at 15:50
















                            1












                            1








                            1






                            Contemporary Mahayana answer here, so I apologize for my mixed use of traditional and modern terminology.



                            Simple logic operates within a single "dimension", simple logic does not allow logical contradictions. The mind of Enlightenment operates across "dimensions", it embraces seemingly contradicting perspectives and coalesces them. Cutting through to Nirvana requires learning to operate outside of the confines of simple logic - while still remaining rational and functional. It's a different modus operandi that the student must master in practice, you can't "calculate" it or infer it, because all "calculations" stay within the confines of the unenlightened mind.



                            That said, of course you can get very close with logic and philosophical analysis - which is what Madhyamaka is all about, it is getting you as close as possible to seeing the limits of conventional thinking - through the use of conventional thinking. But, of course, going completely beyond the limits of logic can't be done while staying within logic, by definition.






                            share|improve this answer














                            Contemporary Mahayana answer here, so I apologize for my mixed use of traditional and modern terminology.



                            Simple logic operates within a single "dimension", simple logic does not allow logical contradictions. The mind of Enlightenment operates across "dimensions", it embraces seemingly contradicting perspectives and coalesces them. Cutting through to Nirvana requires learning to operate outside of the confines of simple logic - while still remaining rational and functional. It's a different modus operandi that the student must master in practice, you can't "calculate" it or infer it, because all "calculations" stay within the confines of the unenlightened mind.



                            That said, of course you can get very close with logic and philosophical analysis - which is what Madhyamaka is all about, it is getting you as close as possible to seeing the limits of conventional thinking - through the use of conventional thinking. But, of course, going completely beyond the limits of logic can't be done while staying within logic, by definition.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Jan 1 at 18:06

























                            answered Dec 31 '18 at 18:31









                            Andrei VolkovAndrei Volkov

                            37.3k330107




                            37.3k330107








                            • 1




                              I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 1 at 14:38












                            • Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 1 at 18:07










                            • All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 2 at 9:43










                            • Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 2 at 21:43












                            • These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 3 at 15:50
















                            • 1




                              I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 1 at 14:38












                            • Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 1 at 18:07










                            • All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 2 at 9:43










                            • Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                              – Andrei Volkov
                              Jan 2 at 21:43












                            • These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                              – PeterJ
                              Jan 3 at 15:50










                            1




                            1




                            I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 1 at 14:38






                            I would generally agree but with the proviso that I feel it is a serious error to suggest that Buddhist logic allows contradictions (as do Priest. Melhuish etc.). Many people do this but it is a misunderstanding of ordinary logic.Nagarjuna shows that there are no true contradictions. Rather, reality would transcend dialectic logic as your last sentence suggests. Dialectic logic cannot function beyond the world of opposites, but it allows to calculate there is such a realm. As you say, it allows us get very close. . .
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 1 at 14:38














                            Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                            – Andrei Volkov
                            Jan 1 at 18:07




                            Agreed, that's why I qualify it as "simple" logic.
                            – Andrei Volkov
                            Jan 1 at 18:07












                            All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 2 at 9:43




                            All good. It's just that I'm fed up with the erroneous idea that Buddhist teachings contradict simple logic. It's an idea that does Buddhism no favours. .
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 2 at 9:43












                            Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                            – Andrei Volkov
                            Jan 2 at 21:43






                            Well, to give a very simple example, "my attainment is attainment of no attainment" and "A true Bodhisattva knows that there is in fact nothing that can be referred to as 'Bodhisattva' " - this is the kind of stuff that is "seemingly contradicting" according to the "simple logic". Of course, "seemingly" and "simple" are important qualifiers. Everything is a simplification, every dharma is - so no need to be upset or fed up with people of various levels partaking of simplifications.
                            – Andrei Volkov
                            Jan 2 at 21:43














                            These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 3 at 15:50






                            These examples may seem contradictory but are not logical contradictions. I guess what you're calling 'simple logic' is everyday unreflective logic, while what I would normally call simple is ordinary or Aristotelian logic. My problem is not with lay folk who use logic incorrectly, it's with professors who teach and write articles about Buddhism that are full of nonsense because they do not understand ordinary logic. I have no argument with what you say about 'simple' logic given how you define it.
                            – PeterJ
                            Jan 3 at 15:50













                            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 2 days ago

























                                answered Jan 3 at 17:03









                                ruben2020ruben2020

                                13.9k21241




                                13.9k21241























                                    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

                                        29k42484




                                        29k42484










                                        answered Dec 30 '18 at 14:18









                                        NachtflugNachtflug

                                        612




                                        612























                                            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








                                            New contributor




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























                                              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








                                              New contributor




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





















                                                0












                                                0








                                                0






                                                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








                                                New contributor




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









                                                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








                                                New contributor




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









                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer






                                                New contributor




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









                                                answered Jan 2 at 20:44









                                                Dev PradhanDev Pradhan

                                                1




                                                1




                                                New contributor




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





                                                New contributor





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






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






























                                                    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.





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


                                                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


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

                                                    But avoid



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

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


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




                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














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

                                                    Post as a guest















                                                    Required, but never shown





















































                                                    Required, but never shown














                                                    Required, but never shown












                                                    Required, but never shown







                                                    Required, but never shown

































                                                    Required, but never shown














                                                    Required, but never shown












                                                    Required, but never shown







                                                    Required, but never shown







                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                                                    ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                                                    Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?