Logical Thought and Anatta/Voidness

[clw_uk]

Greetings


In relation to my on going debate again, how does logical thought get explained in Buddhism in relation to Anatta/Voidness


Its not something ive really thought about before


My view at the moment is that since its anicca its still dukkha and anatta but how does it get explained without appeal to a self in Buddhism? (since logical thought naturally makes us feel there is a doer"

metta

[Ben]

sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

[Individual]

Greetings


In relation to my on going debate again, how does logical thought get explained in Buddhism in relation to Anatta/Voidness


Its not something ive really thought about before


My view at the moment is that since its anicca its still dukkha and anatta but how does it get explained without appeal to a self in Buddhism? (since logical thought naturally makes us feel there is a doer"

metta

I disagree that logical thought makes us feel there is a self. However, Skeptical doubt, which might masquerade as logical thought, might make us feel there is a self. Notself is perfectly logical, as we can all clearly examine evolution and neurochemistry for ourselves, in addition to the moments of experiencing notself during moments of extreme emotion, stress, or concentration. Now, you may note the bit "for ourselves," and that's a problem of language. Language and consciousness is self-referential by nature (see the book "I Am a Strange Loop" for more on this), and yet if this fact contradicts empirical reality, it would seem to be illogical to say that this overrules reality, but rather, it is merely a limitation of language and of consciousness.

And so, there is nothing "natural" at all about the view of self. The view of self is something that is artificially created, a mental fabrication, a defilement, a delusion.

sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

Translation: "All things are notself."

[mikenz66]

In relation to my on going debate again, how does logical thought get explained in Buddhism in relation to Anatta/Voidness

Why does logical thought require a self any more than walking requires a self?

"For there is suffering, but none who suffers;
Doing exists although there is no doer;
Extinction is but no extinguished person;
Although there is a path, there is no goer."

Visuddhimagga, XVI, 90.

Mike

[Ben]

sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

Translation: "All things are notself."

More correctly, all phenomena (which include thoughts) are not-self. All phenomena, mundane and supramundane are not-self and conversely, a self cannot be found to exist anywhere, not even within Nibbana.

sabbe dhammā aniccā :the whole of the visible world, all phenomena are evanescent
--Nyanaponika Thera, Pali-English Dictionary

[Individual]

sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

Translation: "All things are notself."

More correctly, all phenomena (which include thoughts) are not-self. All phenomena, mundane and supramundane are not-self and conversely, a self cannot be found to exist anywhere, not even within Nibbana.

sabbe dhammā aniccā :the whole of the visible world, all phenomena are evanescent
--Nyanaponika Thera, Pali-English Dictionary

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

[acinteyyo]

since logical thought naturally makes us feel there is a doer

this isn't a logical thought. what do you think what makes you feel there is a doer?
in case of beeing strict logical no thing (dhamma) can be found which is a "doer".
but with ignorance (avijjā; this is obviously not beeing logical) quite anything (but mostly one or all of the five aggregates of grasping (pañc’upādānakkhandhā)) can be seen as a "doer" contrary to logical thinking. it's a very subtle act because avijjā protects itself from seeing avijjā as avijjā. (a better explanation §24 P.33 "Clearing the Path") but the question is not about avijjā so for me there's nothing more to say for now except for:
Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā;
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā;
sabbe dhammā anattā.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Craig,

In relation to my on going debate again, how does logical thought get explained in Buddhism in relation to Anatta/Voidness

Its not something ive really thought about before

My view at the moment is that since its anicca its still dukkha and anatta but how does it get explained without appeal to a self in Buddhism? (since logical thought naturally makes us feel there is a doer"

Do you mean like "mind consciouness" or the mental aspect of "nama-rupa".

Each of which are of course anicca, anatta and dukkha.

Metta,
Retro.

[kannada]

In relation to my on going debate again, how does logical thought get explained in Buddhism in relation to Anatta/Voidness... My view at the moment is that since its anicca its still dukkha and anatta but how does it get explained without appeal to a self in Buddhism? (since logical thought naturally makes us feel there is a doer"

Hi clw_uk

Logical thought doesn't get explained in relation to anatta. Anatta is not a logical premise, as it voids the first law of logic, that of identity or A = A. Anatta is alogical, that is it stands outside (or beyond) the laws of logic.

Shunyata is zero-self, an alternate means of expressing anatta, it is not 'voidness' or 'emptiness'. It too does not come within the purview of logic for the same reasons.

Regards

[Sanghamitta]

Can you give a canonical reference for your view Kannada ?

[kannada]

For what? Anatta or Shunyatta.

The view af anatta is based on the laws of logic.

The translation of Shunyata is based on Sanskrit translation. Shunya = 'zero' atta = 'self'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals

[Sanghamitta]

Can you give a Buddhist canonical reference to support your view of Anatta or Shunyata, specifically their not being subjecct to logic, I dont mean a restatement of your view or a definition of the words, i know their meaning.

[kannada]

Can you give a canonical reference to support your view of Anatta or Shunyata, specifically their not being subjecct to logic, I dont mean a restatement of your view or a definition of the words, i know their meaning.

I don't see the relevance of the question, neither have I read all of the Theravada teachings. As I've stated they are my views, based on the rules of linguistics and logic in answer to clw_uk's introductory post.

[Sanghamitta]

The relevance is surely that this being a Theravada Forum it is not unreasonable to ask that views expressed should be demonstrably in line with the teachings of the Buddha, and that the definitive way to demonstrate that that are in line with the Buddha's teaching is to point to the canonical reference that supports that view. That seems extremely reasonable to me.

[kannada]

The relevance is surely that this being a Theravada Forum it is not unreasonable to ask that views expressed should be demonstrably in line with the teachings of the Buddha, and that the definitive way to demonstrate that that are in line with the Buddha's teaching is to point to the canonical reference that supports that view. That seems extremely reasonable to me.

I am well aware of what forum I am on, I need no reminding. I would think the relevance of my statement to be obvious, after all that is why I posted in the first place.

Anatta is a statement of no-self (not-self, non-self).

The mind thinks in terms of concepts that stand for things.

How could a thinking mind ascertain that which is not a thing.

Therefore logical thought cannot ascertain anatta...

[Ben]

The relevance is surely that this being a Theravada Forum it is not unreasonable to ask that views expressed should be demonstrably in line with the teachings of the Buddha, and that the definitive way to demonstrate that that are in line with the Buddha's teaching is to point to the canonical reference that supports that view. That seems extremely reasonable to me.

I am well aware of what forum I am on, I need no reminding. I would think the relevance of my statement to be obvious, after all that is why I posted in the first place.

Precisely!

Kannada, to be absolutely clear, you are welcome to discuss this subject here.

Kind regards


Ben

[kannada]

Thank you Ben,

Your kindness is admirable...

Best wishes

k

[Macavity]

Anatta is not a logical premise, as it voids the first law of logic, that of identity or A = A. Anatta is alogical, that is it stands outside (or beyond) the laws of logic.

This isn't the Buddha's teaching of anatta as it's preserved in the Pali suttas. The Buddha taught that "rupa (vedana, sañña, etc.) are not self," which is not at odds with any law of logic at all. The Buddha's statement of anatta isn't saying that A is not A. What it's saying is that when A is seen correctly, it will be seen to lack one of the properties that we deludedly attribute to it.

Had the Buddha intended to "void the first law of logic" he would have said "rupa is not rupa, vedana is not vedana... etc."

Kind regards,
Ciarán

[kannada]

Hi Ciarán, Thanks for your comment,

Anatta is not a logical premise, as it voids the first law of logic, that of identity or A = A. Anatta is alogical, that is it stands outside (or beyond) the laws of logic.

This isn't the Buddha's teaching of anatta as it's preserved in the Pali suttas.

No, it is part of my response to clw_uk's post. There is no attempt to re-write Buddhist teachings, just a view expressed on what they mean.

The Buddha taught that "rupa (vedana, sañña, etc.) are not self," which is not at odds with any law of logic at all.

“All things (dhammas) are not self” means that a thing is not a thing, it has no self-nature, it is a compound of other things - reductio ad absurdum. Logic deals in identities (id-entities), concrete asserted 'thingness' or dhammas. Logic and anatta are polar opposites to each other on this issue.

The Buddha's statement of anatta isn't saying that A is not A. What it's saying is that when A is seen correctly, it will be seen to lack one of the properties that we deludedly attribute to it.

We are not discussing how things are seen, we are discussing the conceptual processes post-seeing, correct seeing has no follow-up conceptual processes.

Conceptual superimpositions are the corner-stone of delusion, for they either implicitly define a 'self' and explicitly define 'other', explicitly define a self while implicitly defining 'other', or explicitly define both. Not one property but all properties aimed at defining the visual spectrum are indeed delusory. Only non-conceptual clarity defines neither.

Had the Buddha intended to "void the first law of logic" he would have said "rupa is not rupa, vedana is not vedana... etc."

As above... If “all things are not self” then surely rupa and vedana are not self either.''

Best wishes

k

[Dan74]

The problem comes from conflating the categories.

In the conventional sense there are dharmas, in the ultimate sense there aren't.

The language of prajnaparamita (insight into emptiness) is a tool for dislodging the notion of existing dharmas. Dharmas (things) are useful designations, in that sense they are real, it the ultimate sense they are all empty of any self-nature, interdependent, ever-changing and therefore don't exist (as separate entities).

So there is no logical contradiction nor any paradox, just wrongly entrenched notions of existence, separateness, permanence and self.

_/|\_