As I see, you have presented your interpretation of AN1.49-50 that the purified/luminous mind is always luminous and I also presented my interpretation of AN1.49-50 that the sutta points out instead that the purified mind is impermanent.
Firstly, such interpretation of something (besides Nibbāna) is permanent is not coherent with the rest of the sutta, a direct contradiction can be seen in sutta SN22.96 and SN22.97
Secondly, the wrong understanding about purified mind that I warned in my post will still apply to your interpretation of AN1.49-50 as “the mind is always luminous”. Please look again my post to see what I said about the event when “the purified mind that does not know” and the consequence when “the purified mind has no need to practice the Noble Eightfold Path.”
I don’t follow your logic and reasoning to see how you get such a confused impression. Please explain in more details why do you think from such statement as “[The potential/capacity to realize Nibbāna], that specific capacity/potential is within us.”, a logical conclusion can follow to declare that “Nibbāna is dependent upon the potential/capacity to experience it.”
As also stated in SN56.11 for the 3rd Noble Truth: “This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.” and for the 4th Noble Truth: “This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed.” I don’t see how you can come to a conclusion that the 3rd Noble Truth (which is to realized) can be a “process”. Meanwhile, we can see clearly that the 4th Noble Truth (which is to developed) is the one that can be considered as a “process”. So, I don’t think that your suggestion that “the 3rd Noble Truth is a process” is valid.
Also, those words that you thought sounds like conditioned words are attributes of Nibbāna. You can read again my post about the example of a frog and a tadpole above. If instead of saying “Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it.”, we say now like this: “Now this is the verifiable truth of the cessation of water. It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with no water left over; giving water away, letting water go, releasing water, and not adhering to water.” Will such statement be wrong when used to describe a land’s attributes?
As I told you in my post that, in contrast to what you originally thought that the 3rd Noble Truth is not about Nibbāna, the word Nibbāna is indeed mentioned 3 times in SN56.11. You are still not convinced that the 3rd Noble Truth is not about Nibbāna because you thought that the 3rd Noble Truth sounds like a conditioned process. It turns out to be untrue, the 3rd Noble Truth is not a process but a noun to be realized, as stated in SN56.11.
Now, let’s look again SN56.11, this statement from the Buddha clearly says what is goal of the practice: “And what is that middle way of practice? It is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. This is that middle way of practice, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.” So, the Buddha explicitly said the practice of the 4th Noble Truth leads to Nibbāna (Pali word is explicitly with the word Nibbāna while it was translated as extinguishment). I don’t see how we can’t come to the conclusion that the practice of the 4th Noble Truth leads to the result (a noun, not a process) declared in the 3rd Noble Truth. Can’t we come to conclusion yet that the 3rd Noble Truth is about Nibbāna?
I must emphasize here that I have never said such thing as anti-guru doctrine. You are mistakenly creating obstacles for yourself when saying something that I have never said. Please read my post again what I said. How did you manage to jump to the conclusion that I go for anti-guru?
It seems that you are bringing up this topic. Actually, I have already answered your theory but you didn’t understand me, you ignored my comment about difficulty you will meet to translate the Pali word “yadidaṁ”; so, I chose to move on.
I will say here in other words then: Such possibility from your theory must first stand the acid test of reasonable translation. That means: you firstly must get an approval from someone like Ven. @sujato or Ven. Bodhi to verify whether your translation/interpretation can really be twisted or squeezed out from the original Pali words. Before such process, I don’t see how your “theory” can even be called as a theory. We didn’t even have a theory on the table so I don’t see a need to oblige to your requirement to refute it.
Please read what the Buddha said (and gave definition) about “yoniso manasikara” in MN2. In contrast to what you originally thought, let’s see how the Buddha appreciated very highly in Ud1.3:
“When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
“Iti imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati,
When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.
imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati;
I don’t see how anyone in their right mind can deny that the above sentence by the Buddha does not look like logic and reasoning. It is very subtle but it’s still logic and reasoning.
By the way, I am not sure about your motivation to associate word as “logic and reasoning” to the adjective term “secular”???