[wepoiyub]

yes I wasn't aware you consider "reasoning" to mean "mental perceiving".

I see a difference between perceiving and processing the raw data that is perceived. When that data is put into a larger framework, it is reasoning. Without being placed in a larger framework, it is meaningless.



The reason why I don't think it is possible to gain complete cessation just through abstract thought is because it just doesn't fit in with what the suttas say about Nibbhana or the practice towards Nibbhna. I haven't come across statements like "Sariputta was sitting under a tree thinking about not-self and suddenly it struck him". I think it's very likely that Gautama was sitting under a tree thinking about it when it struck him, seeing as how disciplined, focused thinking and processing of experience is integral to the jhanas, as described above.

You don't have to personally realize the highest attainment to consider scriptural citations as "fact available to you at the moment" and go from there. How do Buddhist think Nibbhana is even possible before attaining it? This is what we all do when learning Dhamma. You listen to someone, take that upon faith, practice and verify it for yourself. I don't think we always have to base our statements on personal attainments and nothing else. Personal statements, no. Knowledge, yes. Otherwise, it's belief. I don't take anybody's teachings on faith, including that of the Pali Canon. I'm a fan of the Kalama Sutta because my experience has verified it so many times. I suspend judgement about any teaching until direct experience has verified it. Until it does, it's just a hypothesis or an anecdote.


Really? Considering your active, enthusiastic participation in the same I thought you were enjoying it. Therein lies a couple of the dangers that come along with personalizing and assuming. I haven't particularly enjoyed this discussion. I thought we might both benefit from it, that's all. Discussion is not always hair-splitting, but if you feel that that's what I'm doing, then I'm fine with dropping it and moving along. I don't see much chance of anything positive coming from the discussion as I see it going so far, anyway. We're each working with different understandings of what the reasoning process involves and it doesn't look like either of us is willing to redefine. No sweat. Happens all the time. Whatever you believe is fine with me. I'm not proselytizing.