Anatta: type theory, formal logic and mathematics can help us understand each other better

[Dogen]

Another chapter that I feel like could be helpful in us deciphering what atman means in the suttas, and how to express it formally.

The Dhammapada Chapter on Self is a curious thing. I think, if all concepts of self were harmful and/or akusala, we wouldn’t have the wisdom in it. Instead of rejecting a view of self, it promotes a healthy, almost selfish perspective, to progress along the path.

It is interesting to analyse whether actions promoted in this vagga constitute I-Making and Mine-Making that’s alluded to in AN 6.104.

If you knew your self as beloved,
you’d look after it so well.
In one of the night’s three watches,
an astute person would remain alert.

The astute would avoid being corrupted
by first grounding themselves
in what is suitable,
and then instructing others.

Once again, we have the mastery over aspect of Self - if form were self, you could compel, etc.

I don’t think Buddha-dhamma describes a completely mechanical universe - we can affect change due diligence and right effort. Because we’re able to change some things, then does it stand to reason those are fit to be called self? We can compell ourselves, our mental states, or practice, to an extent - to the ultimate extent, otherwise the path would be useless and it wouldn’t reliably lead to Nibbāna. See below:

@Dhabba

In the Attakārīsutta AN 6.38, when a brahmin told him that “Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”, the Buddha replied “I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one—moving forward by himself, moving back by himself —say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?

For the evil that is done by oneself,
born and produced in oneself,
grinds down a simpleton,
as diamond grinds a lesser gem.

(…)

For it is by oneself that evil’s done,
one is corrupted by oneself.
It’s by oneself that evil’s not done,
one is purified by oneself.
Purity and impurity are personal matters,
no one can purify another.

Another bit about personal responsibility.

Never neglect what is good for yourself
for the sake of another, however great.
Knowing well what is good for yourself,
be intent upon your true goal.

This is a very important section, I believe. There’s a healthy bit of self-ish view introduced, that warns against sacrifice at the cost of self.

I think these are still concepts that is abandoned on the way to enlightenment, for sure. But to way to abandon these views is IMO not finding out that it can be proved definitely that self doesn’t exist; but by finding out that any attempts to locate or dislocate self is ultimately useless and impossible.

It can not be proved that self does not exist.

In order to prove self doesn’t exist, one must convincingly declare a function that satisfies what self is, and also demonstrably prove that such a thing does not exist. I don’t think Nikaya/Agamas do that. I think abundantly it warns us against doing that.

I think there’s wisdom in recognising that fact (atman can not be defined, proved or disproved) that’s glossed over in quest against atman.