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

[Ceisiwr]

@srkris

Let`s start with what we know from the EBTs. The catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) is never used in the context of ātman and anātman. So here we are left with A and ~A as the only options, where ~A (anātman) is by definition whatever ‘A (ātman) is not’. In a similar vein, what is not sukha is duḥkha, and what is not nitya is anitya. The triad of anitya, dukkha and anātman is collectively a feature of all objective reality (i.e. everything that can be seen, heard, tasted, smelt, touched or thought). So if you are moving away from the territory of the samsāric triad (duḥkham, anitya & anātman), you are moving towards the nirvāṇic triad (which by definition is what samsāra is not).

So applying the catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) to ātman and anātman would detract from the EBT’s conception of it.

The tetralemma are ontological categories applied to the atta. The Buddha said none of these apply.