user151: How do we better determine when it is time to use logic and reason and when it is a time to just see things as they are?
Note: We don't have to disclose the specific kind of meditation that we practice but it might make our answers less ambiguous -metta

user362: To "see things as they are" in Buddhism, is to see things with the perspective of the Four Noble Truths. 
Until you "see things as they are" through full understanding of the Four Noble truths, you have to use logic and reason to reach full understanding of things of the Four Noble Truths. 

user8044: Almost all past publications have translated anicca, dukkha, anatta as impermanence, suffering, and no-self. So for your question… How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism?..  This is one instance that we’ve got to use our logic and reason as The Buddha has warned strongly against blind faith and encouraged the way of truthful inquiry.
In the Samyutta Nikaya (Anicca Vagga), when one refers to AjjhattaniccaSutta, Bahiranicca Sutta, Yadanicca sutta etc. the Buddha stated that the three characteristics of “this world” (all six  senses) are related to each other - i.e., “if something is anicca, dukkha arises, therefore anatta”. Taking the long held interpretation of anicca to be impermanent and anatta to be “no-soul”, the above would read “if something is not permanent, suffering arises, and as a result one becomes “no-self””.
Permanence/Impermanence are properties of “things” (living beings and physical things) or “events”. On the other hand, nicca/anicca are perception’s in one’s mind about those “things” and “events” in this world of 31 realms. We cannot maintain anything to our satisfaction including “our” own body and that is anicca. Thus we become distraught and that is dukkha. Since we are helpless in preventing this, we are helpless, and nothing is with any real substance in the end; that is anatta.
“Impermanence” is something that is inevitable - a property that cannot be changed in this world. But “anicca” is a perception in someone’s mind and that perception can be changed. That is how one gets rid of suffering.
The Buddha has said,”Sabbe Dhamma anatta“. Could it then be “all dhamma are “no-self”? Dhamma includes everything including the inert. Does it mean to say, “a tree has “no-self”” or “a mountain has “no-self””? The correct interpretation is that nothing in this world is of any real substance in the end. They all come into being and are destroyed in the end, and that is anatta.

user6994: It depends on what you want to abandon or negate. In general, there are two ways of negating (or abandoning) an object of negation. 

We oppose an affliction by way of generating a mind that is its opposite. For instance, a mind of love opposes a mind of anger... the virtuous intention to give (generosity) opposes miserliness... the wisdom of emptiness opposes ignorance (that is the mistaken conception of inherent existence)
We negate a non-existent object of negation by way of logic. For instance, we refute inherent existence  by way of applying logic, such as the reasoning of the diamond sliver, that of dependent-arising, etc.

Things are "organic" however. You can very well analyze death and impermanence so as to generate a consciousness in the entity of non-attachment, or of non-desire, or of renunciation, etc. According to Pabongka Rinpoche, once the mind of non-attachment has arisen (for instance), because it has found its way there through reasoning (and through paying attentions to things we usually overlook), there is no more need to apply logic anymore. We apply logic to find our way there again, and that way becomes easier to find every time we take it. Reasoning is just a means.
The reason we become angry without planning, "In five minutes, I will get angry" is that we are accustomed to it. We got there so many times in the past that our mind "naturally" takes the same course and find its way there again and again. When we are angry, even when we try to think "It's ridiculous and I am just telling myself stories, I am projecting, etc." we tend to think "Yes, but still... I have my reasons to be angry!" And we find ourselves reasons to be unhappy, we just feed it. The way we look at things and what we look at when we are angry are determined by anger. So, there is a need to apply logic to oppose this story telling by telling ourselves a story that is concordant with reality.
We have to do that until, one day, there will be no more need because loving kindness, compassion, generosity, etc. will manifest as naturally and effortlessly as our breathing goes. We will no longer get in our own way by thinking in a manner that lead us towards non-virtue.

151: <p>How do we better determine when it is time to use logic and reason and when it is a time to just see things as they are?</p>

<p>Note: We don't have to disclose the specific kind of meditation that we practice but it might make our answers less ambiguous -metta</p>
 362: <p>To "see things as they <strong>are</strong>" in Buddhism, is to see things with the perspective of the <strong>Four Noble Truths</strong>. </p>

<p>Until you "see things as they <strong>are</strong>" through full understanding of the Four Noble truths, you have to use logic and reason to reach full understanding of things of the Four Noble Truths. </p>
 8044: <p>Almost all past publications have translated anicca, dukkha, anatta as impermanence, suffering, and no-self. So for your question… <strong>How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism?</strong>..  This is one instance that <strong>we’ve got to use our logic and reason</strong> as The Buddha has warned strongly against blind faith and encouraged the way of truthful inquiry.</p>

<p>In the Samyutta Nikaya (Anicca Vagga), when one refers to AjjhattaniccaSutta, Bahiranicca Sutta, Yadanicca sutta etc. the Buddha stated that the three characteristics of “this world” (all six  senses) are related to each other - i.e., “if something is anicca, dukkha arises, therefore anatta”. Taking the long held interpretation of anicca to be impermanent and anatta to be “no-soul”, the above would read “if something is not permanent, suffering arises, and as a result one becomes “no-self””.</p>

<p>Permanence/Impermanence are properties of “things” (living beings and physical things) or “events”. On the other hand, nicca/anicca are perception’s in one’s mind about those “things” and “events” in this world of 31 realms. We cannot maintain anything to our satisfaction including “our” own body and that is anicca. Thus we become distraught and that is dukkha. Since we are helpless in preventing this, we are helpless, and nothing is with any real substance in the end; that is anatta.</p>

<p>“Impermanence” is something that is inevitable - a property that cannot be changed in this world. But “anicca” is a perception in someone’s mind and that perception can be changed. That is how one gets rid of suffering.</p>

<p>The Buddha has said,”Sabbe Dhamma anatta“. Could it then be “all dhamma are “no-self”? Dhamma includes everything including the inert. Does it mean to say, “a tree has “no-self”” or “a mountain has “no-self””? The correct interpretation is that nothing in this world is of any real substance in the end. They all come into being and are destroyed in the end, and that is anatta.</p>
 6994: <p>It depends on what you want to abandon or negate. In general, there are two ways of negating (or abandoning) an object of negation. </p>

<ol>
<li>We oppose an affliction by way of generating a mind that is its opposite. For instance, a mind of love opposes a mind of anger... the virtuous intention to give (generosity) opposes miserliness... the wisdom of emptiness opposes ignorance (that is the mistaken conception of inherent existence)</li>
<li>We negate a non-existent object of negation by way of logic. For instance, we refute inherent existence  by way of applying logic, such as the reasoning of the diamond sliver, that of dependent-arising, etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>Things are "organic" however. You can very well analyze death and impermanence so as to generate a consciousness in the entity of non-attachment, or of non-desire, or of renunciation, etc. According to Pabongka Rinpoche, once the mind of non-attachment has arisen (for instance), because it has found its way there through reasoning (and through paying attentions to things we usually overlook), there is no more need to apply logic anymore. We apply logic to find our way there again, and that way becomes easier to find every time we take it. Reasoning is just a means.</p>

<p>The reason we become angry without planning, "In five minutes, I will get angry" is that we are accustomed to it. We got there so many times in the past that our mind "naturally" takes the same course and find its way there again and again. When we are angry, even when we try to think "It's ridiculous and I am just telling myself stories, I am projecting, etc." we tend to think "Yes, but still... I have my reasons to be angry!" And we find ourselves reasons to be unhappy, we just feed it. The way we look at things and what we look at when we are angry are determined by anger. So, there is a need to apply logic to oppose this story telling by telling ourselves a story that is concordant with reality.</p>

<p>We have to do that until, one day, there will be no more need because loving kindness, compassion, generosity, etc. will manifest as naturally and effortlessly as our breathing goes. We will no longer get in our own way by thinking in a manner that lead us towards non-virtue.</p>
