Logical Thought and Anatta/Voidness

[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.

_/|\_

[kannada]

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 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.

_/|\_

Well said Dan, thank you...

My only additional comment would be that this 'ultimate sense' is simply non-conceptuality, for it is conceptuality which is the engine-room of delusion. Concepts and attachment to concepts are the bricks and mortar of this delusion.

These dhamma-makers (concepts) are the creators of all existents (dutifully manufactured and served by logic and science), without which conditionality could not be. The only 'unconditioned' there is, is the absence of these conditions. In relation to Dhamma – all notions are wrong notions...

Best wishes

k