Hi Ciarán, Thanks for your comment,
kannada wrote: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.''