Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

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

sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

clw_uk wrote: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.

Ben wrote:sabbe dhamma anatta
S iii.133

Translation: "All things are notself."

clw_uk wrote: 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

Individual wrote:

Ben wrote: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

Ben wrote:

Individual wrote:

Ben wrote: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.

clw_uk wrote: 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.

Greetings Craig,

clw_uk wrote: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.

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

Can you give a canonical reference for your view 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Sanghamitta wrote: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.

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.

Sanghamitta wrote: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...