Pali translation questions about "no self"

The Watercooler
,
21

As I have already said above, your statement does not have support in the Pali canon. By giving the ātman the attribute of “not conditioned”, you are clearly making a theory about the ātman. The Buddha has already explicitly told us to stay away from such action.

The comparison can be seen between these 4 things: unicorn, whale, dinosaur, R2-D2. The unicorn is very much debatable whether it exists. The whale is almost zero chance of debate whether it does not exist. The dinosaur is in the past while the R2-D2 is the thing in the future.

Let me quote myself and replace “unicorn” with “whale”, you will see the difference:

It does not matter whether a whale (or an unicorn) exist or does not exist, the end result is still the same: I do not delude myself or fooling my son. I told my son the truth (e.g. this is a lion, he will be humiliated if he takes it as an unicorn, a whale, etc.) and if he does not go into theorizing (yes, theorizing) about a whale or an unicorn, he will not be humiliated by anyone.

For clarification: a 3 year old boy may ask “what is an unicorn”. A 60+ years old man, very unlikely.

It is true but it’s not relevant to the story and the meaning of the story that I am trying to convey here.

The meaning of the story is: the Buddha don’t need to define ātman. He already told us which one is not ātman (e.g. form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness). He also told us if we do not take (e.g. “theorizing”) those things as ātman, we will not be suffered. As illustrated in the story, the Buddha doesn’t have to answer questions about whether the ātman exists or the ātman does not exist; meanwhile, he still achieved his goal of making sure we know the truth and not be suffered. Also as illustrated in the story, he didn’t achieved his goal by using via-negativa approach or making any theory about self.

Again, I don’t see such statement in the Pali canon. Please correct me if I am wrong.

22

Most of us, including many philosophers, are stuck in dualism; therefore, we are stuck in self view. If we believe in the existence of a self, we will reject the non-existence of the self. If we believe in the non-existence of a self, we will reject the existence of a self. Why? Because we are stuck in our normal logic that is dualism in nature.

When we believe in the non-existence of a self, we could believe that nothing exists that deserves to be called a self, or there is no self (from the beginning). When we believe in the existence of a self, we will argue that our body and experiential sense of self deserve to be called a self, and so on.

Even if we believe in both the existence and non-existence of a self, we will fall into one of the tetralemma of existence and nonexistence. We cannot go beyond them. Why? Because we are stuck in dualism.

Using our normal logic, we create many theories: True self, fake self, no self, not self, minimal self, multifaceted self, subjective self, objective self, intersubjective self, self beyond the All, unknowable self, indescribable self, ultimate self… The Buddha told us that all of these theories are just a thicket of views. They are called doctrines of self.

The Buddha cautions us that we should not affirm that “only this is the truth, everything else is false.” However, we often stick to our own beliefs and reject all the others that do not fit our beliefs. Why? Because that is how dualism works. If this is true, then it cannot be false at the same time. Something cannot be 1 and 0 at the same time. This is illogical to our normal logic.

‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.

Avoiding these extremes, the Buddha teaches the middle way: With ignorance as condition, volitional formations,… With the cessation of ignorance, cessation of volitional formations… In other words, with this condition, that arises, with that condition, that ceases.

Seeing the arising of the world, we cannot say that it is non-existence. Seeing the cessation of the world, we won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
The world arises and ceases depending on condition. With condition, we can refer to its existence and non-existence. However, without condition, we cannot say anything about its existence; therefore, exists, not exist, both exist and non-exist, neither existence nor non-existence are all invalid when there is no condition.

If we refer to a conditioned self or soul then we can refer to its existence or non-existence. With this condition, we cannot say that it is non-existence. With that condition, we cannot affirm its existence.

Existence and non-existence depends on condition. Without condition, we cannot say anything about existence or non-existence. Therefore, we cannot say anything about the Tathagatha since the Tathagatha is free from all conditions. Any attempt to describe or affirm the existence or non-existence of the Tathagatha (or the Buddhist’s atman) is simply incorrect, and this is called self view.

We may have different understanding about the unconditioned or Nibbana. We may think of Nibbana as a place, a state, a thing, an event or something else. However, as I understand, Nibbana is simply a term to refer to the unconditioned. The unconditioned means that when all of the conditions are ceased, when there is no more condition left then we reach the unconditioned. Nibbana is simply the absence of all conditions, or in other words, the absence of all conditions is called Nibbana. Therefore, when we say the Tathagatha is unconditioned, I think we mean that the Tathagatha is free from all conditions, not that the Tathagatha is Nibbana or the Tathagatha is the unconditioned! Whoever attains Nibbana is simply the one who is free from all conditions.

We can try to understand this difficult concept by exploring the quantum superposition. What can we say about it? Is it beyond our normal logic?

1 Like
23

I am trying to make you see how early-Buddhism works (as I comprehend it). My objective here is not to make you believe in what I say the ātman is or is not - but rather to say that unless you take the ātman for granted, anātman as a concept wouldn’t have any referential integrity, and without a referential integrity, the statements that the Buddha made with the adjective anātman, turn out to be hollow baseless lies.

I’ve said this much in different words over and over again but (with all due respect) it seems to still escape your comprehension. I have to use the words ātman and anātman to explain to you the way I understand Buddhism. You still come back and accuse me of not upholding the Buddha’s ban. OK I accept I have done what the Buddha asked me not to do. Now what? Does it mean I’ve become persona non grata to discuss any questions about Buddhism or explain how Buddhism works (as per my understanding)? Does whatever I say ipso-facto become unbelievable and not hear-worthy and un-Buddhist lies as a result?

24

Do not worry, I am trying to do the same thing.

I do not take “unicorn” or “whale” for granted. However, I still know pretty clear which one is not an unicorn, which one is not a whale. How? By positive answer, not by via-negativa approach as you assumed. I know via positive answers as follow: This is a lion, this is an elephant, etc. That’s how I still know clearly which one is not an unicorn, which one is not a whale.

At least we agree that the Buddha does not tell lies.

I was trying to tell you, the Buddha was not trying to define ātman, he does not need to do so. In contrast, he was giving positive answers: This is form, this is feeling, this is perception, etc. Because he was not trying to define ātman, he does not need to answer any question about existence or non-existence of ātman. Yet, he still achieved his goal: telling the truth while making sure we will not be suffered.

Do not worry, me too, yes, me too. I am trying to do the same thing. I understand you well here.

At least we come to an agreement.

As long as moderators allow, you can still say whatever your understandings are. Other people can believe you or not believe you, that’s totally different matter. In other words, it means you need to do A LOT MORE to convince me or other people to accept your understanding when it’s in direct contradiction with what the Buddha said (or when we can’t find anywhere that the Buddha said such thing at all).

Also, as I have given you explanations and alternatives, you can have another “theory” which does not contradict with what the Buddha said and that “theory” does not need to involve any affirmation about existence or non-existence of ātman. That “theory” also does not make high-claim about ātman that is “not conditioned”.

As I have given you the above illustrated story, it was clearly not a story trying to define unicorn (or whale) using via-negativa approach. Also, anyone can tell their child such story without much issue.

25

No, you do it by using circular logic. You’ve started with a statement that you know is obviously false, and you’ve arrived at the conclusion that it is therefore obviously false. Why? Because you knew it all along that there was no possibility of the statement being true, and your statement about some animal being a non-unicorn was vacuous, and you already had an a-priori idea of what a unicorn is and what animal a unicorn is not. Yet you make the vacuous claim that an animal isn’t a unicorn and still believe there can be no such thing as a unicorn (that you’ve imagined) in reality. So the claim that the animal isn’t a unicorn isn’t really meant to convey anything other than the fact that the animal doesnt fit a vacuous description (a nullity). After nullifying the referent in your vacuous description, you re-assert your original claim to complete the circle.

26

If it can’t me mentally grasped, and if it can’t be sensed with the other sense organs, how can anyone say there is an Ātman?

1 Like
27

I quote below the definition of circular logic from your link in Wikipedia:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”;[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.” Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.

Now let’s see how Circular reasoning has anything to do with what I am trying to tell you so far:

Premise 1: I am pointing to a lion and say “This is a lion.”
Premise 2: A lion is not a whale. A lion is not an unicorn.
Conclusion: This is not a whale. This is not an unicorn.

As long as Premise 1 is true and Premise 2 is true, the conclusion follows as true too. It does not matter whether a whale exists or an unicorn does not exist.

  1. I didn’t use any premise such as “I already knew that whale exist” or “I already knew that unicorn does not exist”. I didn’t take for granted anything about “whale” or “unicorn”.
  2. I didn’t use via-negativa approach. I used instead “positive” approach.
  3. I didn’t need to define “what is a whale” or “what is an unicorn”. The person who wants to break premise 2 will only need to show “lion is whale” or “lion is unicorn” with whatever definition of unicorn or whale he could theorize.
  4. I didn’t make any conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of “whale” or “unicorn”.

If you want to break the conclusion, you need to break premise 1 or premise 2. Simple as that. Both premise 1 and premise 2 are not “begging the question” in the conclusion. This is not circular reasoning as you said.

Now, go further, we have:

Premise 1: The Buddha pointed to form and say “This is form.”
Premise 2: Form is not self (ātman).
Conclusion: This is not self (ātman).

If you want to break the conclusion, you will have to prove either “This is NOT form” or “Form is ātman”. If you can’t do either of these 2 things, the conclusion is true no matter whether ātman exists or ātman does not exist.

  1. The Buddha didn’t use any premise such as “I already knew that ātman exist” or “I already knew that ātman does not exist”. The Buddha didn’t take for granted anything about “ātman”.
  2. The Buddha didn’t use via-negativa approach. The Buddha used instead “positive” approach.
  3. The Buddha didn’t need to define “what is ātman”. The person who wants to break premise 2 will only need to show “Form is ātman” with whatever definition of ātman he could theorize.
  4. The Buddha didn’t make any conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of “ātman”.
28

As I said, the Buddha takes the ātman for granted, as an apriori postulate, as axiomatic and obvious, because the ātman is the one thing you cannot not be. It is not something that cannot be argued or wished away for you would be wishing yourself away, and therefore your conception that the ātman is unreal is you declaring your unreality to yourself i.e. a complete absurdity.

Hence the Buddha can use the adjective anātman to define that other things aren’t the ātman without positively describing ātman, for that is the via negativa approach, which in the upanishads (and advaita) is called the “neti neti” (i.e. na iti, na iti or “not this, nor that”) approach.

If the ātman could be sensed or mentally grasped, it would no longer be the ātman, for you would have objectified it (the subject) and reduced it to an anātman i.e. you would have conceptualized that the ātman is what it is not (anātman) which is patently absurd.

The idea is simple. Dukkha can only originate in what is not the ātman (else you will never be able to get away from dukkha if it were a feature of your own identity). So the purpose of identifying something as anātman is to avoid identifying yourself with something that is not you and thereby distancing oneself from the sources of dukkha. By not identifying your body and its volitions, sensations, thoughts, and feelings with yourself - you remain free of dukkha (or attain dukkhanirodha).

But this non-identification of the ātman with (things that are) anātman is easier said than done, as you’ve already a priori conceived of yourself as nothing else other than the sum of your body and its psycho-sensory faculties (i.e. rūpam “form”, vedanā “feelings”, saṃjñā “perceptions/observations”, saṃskārāḥ “thoughts/conceptions” & vijñāna “cognitive faculty”) Thus you crave for sensory experiences as they validate and seemingly reaffirm your current idea of yourself. So you crave for the ownership of things and their association brings you pleasure and purpose. However that is the source of dukkha. To get away from dukkha requires you to identify the objects of your senses as anātman, and to give up self-identification with them (as in not forming these mental associations with what the buddha calls anātman — etaṃ mama “this is mine”, eso’ham asmi “I am this”, eso me attā “this is my identity”).

29

It most certainly does matter whether you are making a truthful assertion in the first place.

If you a priori knew that a unicorn is unreal, to then make the assertion that a lion is not a unicorn would be empty of sense, a vacuous assertion having no meaning and not possible to say, as the concept of unicorn is an absurdity couched in the word unicorn which makes it appear like it was something that is there (or could potentially be there).

As long as you say unicorn, you are assuming it having some characteristics that fit your conception of what a unicorn is. Only to that extent the statement “a lion is not a unicorn” can be considered valid. If you remove the reality of the referent (unicorn) and declare its unreality and absurdity, then your first statement, having no referent against which to compare the lion with, becomes baseless, and a hollow falsehood.

If a unicorn is ab-initio unreal your statement that a lion is not a unicorn cannot be verified as being true, it becomes an absurd statement (as it is couches an absurdity within it that is ab-initio unreal, but disguised as an ostensibly conceivable object with a name called unicorn). You have to banish the image of the unicorn and replace it with a void in your mind when you say “a lion is not a unicorn” and then see if it makes any sense or if it is said truthfully.

30

I requote below what I wrote. Please read it again carefully:

Now look at what you said:

You are theorizing about definition of “unicorn” while all of the premise 1, premise 2 and conclusion do not have any trace of theorizing about “unicorn”.

I did not say anywhere in any of the premise that “unicorn does not exist” and I don’t need such premise to come to the conclusion “This is not a unicorn”. You are taking that additional premise and making an obstacle for yourself.

Now look at another of your claim:

To address your concern about “absurd statement”, you need to read again what I wrote here:

You didn’t come up with a proper theory for definition of “unicorn” to prove that “lion is unicorn”, therefore, you didn’t break premise 2.

Instead, your theory about definition of “unicorn” is: “unicorn does not exist”, which leads to premise 2 as: “lion is not ‘something that does-not-exist’”. Such statement “lion is not ‘something that does-not-exist’” is true and is not absurd as you claimed.

1 Like
31

You didnt speak about the unicorn but you have an image of it in your mind to be able to compare another animal against that mental-image and say “this animal is not a unicorn”. If you are comparing an animal to an absurdity, a nullity, a void, then your statement (“this animal is not a ???”) has no meaning and is devoid of truth. You can call an absurdity or a nullity with any name, but you cannot truly exclude what is real from what is absurd, by saying a lion is not that ???. As long as you call a unicorn a unicorn, you mean a unicorn and not anything else. So you are taking the referent as real. Then you declare that it is not real.

If you think the unicorn is unreal (or does not exist) you have a theory about the unicorn. You thereafter claim that you are not theorizing about it, which again is cognitive dissonance.

32

No, I don’t say “This animal is not a unicorn” in the premise. I said instead in the premise 2 as “A lion is not an unicorn”.

“This animal is not a unicorn” is not in the premise, it’s in the conclusion. You need to rearrange your thoughts more clearly.

As I said, such absurdity, a nullity, a void is the additional premise you make on your theory about unicorn. You are creating obstacle for yourself.

Also, I already told you, such conclusion as: When pointing to a lion and declare “This animal is NOT “an absurdity, a nullity, a void”” has true meaning and not devoid of truth as you are claiming. I am not sure about you but I will definitely NOT consider anyone who declares such conclusion as “deluding himself” or “cognitive dissonance”.

I did not taking the referent as real. I did not declare it is not real either. Those are your own theory about “unicorn” and now you are also making theory about my “cognitive dissonance”.

I did not think the unicorn is unreal either. These kind of statement are not in the premise and not in the conclusion either. You are simply making up theory and impose it on me.

Anyway, you can power up your imagination and work on a “theory” below:

Premise 1: I am pointing to a lion and say “This is a lion.”
Premise 2: A lion is not a corona virus 2019.
Conclusion: This is not a corona virus 2019.

Try to work on your theory in the year before 2019. Try to apply your “theory” to the people who is doing research on corona virus before 2019, are they deluding themselves when they point to a lion and declare “This is not a corona virus 2019”? How about normal people in the year before 2019? And finally, how about normal people in the year 2023?

33

OK thanks, I wish you all the best. It was a good discussion, but I need to disengage now for I have said all that I intended to say in every way it is possible.

It looks like you are not a native speaker of english and I doubt you’ve really comprehended what I’ve said - I didn’t for for sure comprehend the part where you were talking about ‘humiliating’ your son - so I guess we are talking to cross purposes using words and expressions that the other doesnt comprehend. I don’t know if you can read or understand Pali well or if you are trying to reinterpret canonical terms and expressions that you’ve not been able to grasp fully yet.

Update: Apologies for saying what I’ve said above (whether you are a native speaker of English, and whether you know Pali or not, is certainly none of my business to judge). Please therefore consider those comments of mine retracted, as they were personal in nature.

34

Can you provide a sutta/sutra quote to support this claim?

35

And me too.

Again, I have the same impression.
On the other hand, I think I have a good understanding of what you are saying but I just don’t agree with it.
Look at these 2 premises and 1 conclusion again in its simplest form:

Premise 1: X is A.
Premise 2: A is NOT B.
Conclusion: X is NOT B.

While I was saying, unless you can prove “X is NOT A” or “A is B”, you will not be able to bring down the conclusion “X is NOT B”. It does not matter B is true or false or absurd/not real/does not exist/void/nullity as you were trying to claim, the conclusion “X is NOT B” still holds when both the premises are true.

Somehow, you are creating an obstacle for yourself by saying premise 2 is absurd when B is something not real/absurd/void. You also try to bring up some additional assumptions about my mental image about B. Instead of proving “A is B” to falsify premise 2, you try to claim that premise 2 is absurd when B is absurd/void/nullity.

To that concern, I already told you, the premise 2 will simply becomes “A is NOT ‘something that is absurd/void/nullity’”. While we already had premise 1 that anchors A to “X is A”, there is nothing wrong with premise 2; in fact, it becomes clearer that premise 2 is true.

As an exercise, you can try to have a look at the following:

Premise 1: This man is Mr. Anderson.
Premise 2: Mr. Anderson is NOT “Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)”.
Conclusion: This man is NOT “Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)”.

If anyone uses your approach, he will start saying “Premise 2 is absurd when ‘Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)’ is not real/absurd/void/nullity”. However, it can be the case that there was not a crime scene but instead a film scene; or there was nobody named Mr. Smith. According to your approach, it leads to nowhere and you even start claiming about “cognitive dissonance”.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with a flow from premise 1, premise 2 to the conclusion. And the result with the approach I have given to you is: Mr. Anderson’s innocence is intact.

I agree with you on this, and the same saying to you too.

36

To support what claim? That the Buddha took the ātman for granted (as axiomatic)?

Why do you think you need a sutta to tell you a point about grammar and semantics? I can clarify that no sutta is going to give you that kind of an assertion, because what you need is grammatical clarity, and the suttas are not there to replace grammar, or to fill the semantic void caused by an ignorance of Pali or Sanskrit grammar (and resulting confusions that arise by relying wholly or mainly on translations and/or mistranslations, or loss of meaning that happens as a matter of course when you switch languages).

You need to understand the difference between a paryudāsa-pratiṣedha and a prasajya-pratiṣedha in regard to the use of a nañ-samāsa. There, in grammar, and the construction of word-forms and compounds (as they apply to Sanskrit and Pali) you will find the answer to how you cannot semantically nullify a positive referent that you’ve compounded with ‘na’ to form an adjective.

37

In other words there is no such text to support your claim. Rather its something you think the Buddha thought, because of your own logic. Of course its quite possible the Buddha didn’t think the way you thought, and so you would disagree with him. Based on what the earliest text say, the Buddha didn’t take the atta as axiomatic. Rather the thought doing that was part of the problem to begin with.

1 Like
38

That’s alright, you can claim what you want. I think we have nothing more to inform one another on this topic, so thank you for engaging thus far.

39

If I affirm to you that “A lion is not a heo. ” I first should expect that you understand what “heo” is, at least in this context. That means “heo” should be identifiable by definition or explanation or understanding, or some other means… Otherwise, you will not understand my statement, and you cannot agree or disagree with the statement.

If your understanding of “heo” in this context is different than mine then you will not be able to agree with me or you will misunderstand my statement, and the communication will be in trouble.

When we say “heo” exists or does not exist, we imply that we and others have a similar understanding of what “heo” is, at least in this context. Therefore, there must be some agreement about what “heo” is before we can make the conversation meaningful. Otherwise, we will talk one way while others may understand the other way.

When we believe that “heo” is unreal, then we can accept that a car is not a “heo” since we all know what “car” is. In this case, we are comparing the unrealness of “heo” with the realness of the car based on our current understanding and belief.

Similarly, when the Buddha refers to ātman and anattā, he was talking about the ātman and anattā that people at the time understood at least in the context of the conversation. If they do not understand what “ātman” or “anattā” is, or they have different understanding of these terms then they will not understand or will misunderstand what the Buddha says.

As I understand, ātman is the ultimate goal of some religious seekers at the time. It normally can be understood as “eternal, imperishable, unchanging, ever-free, never-bound, the realized purpose, liberation, essence, divine and pure,…” At least, it should be the ultimate happiness source from which we can get and be able to control our happiness at will, and the happiness should be lasting as long as we wish for. Otherwise, it is not the ultimate happiness no matter what it is, and if this is not so, it is not the ultimate goal or final destination of a holy life. I think this could be the acceptable aspect of the ātman that people are seeking.

When the Buddha says that “Rūpa is anattā, ” he explains that if rūpa were attā then it wouldn’t lead to affliction, and we should be able to demand that “let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.” Obviously, by saying that, he at least expects that people understand what attā means as above. If people do not understand attā that way, then his explanation has no meaning or is incomprehensible to them.

When the Buddha questions if rūpa is permanent or impermanent, he is showing the stableness of rūpa. Since it is impermanent then it is suffering; therefore, it is not fit to the above goal which should be the ultimate happiness.

We can also see that the Buddha expects the audience to agree that impermanence will lead to suffering. Otherwise, he will not be able to convince the audiences. Why impermanence will lead to suffering? Because impermanence is what will force happiness to change its state no matter if we want it or not. What state will it change to besides suffering?

Saying that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness are anattā does not mean that the Buddha proves that there is no attā (which means there is no ultimate happiness in this sense.) In fact, there is ultimate happiness, but it does not come from those five aggregates. If there is no ultimate happiness that means the goal cannot be found, then the holy life is worthless.

The Buddha’s teaching is to find the ultimate happiness which is the end of all sufferings since if there is suffering then it cannot be the ultimate happiness. That is the goal of Buddhism. It is not designed to prove that “I am right and you are wrong.” Therefore, I think the teaching of anattā is not designed to prove that there is no attā, and Hinduism is wrong! I do not believe that the Buddha who already uprooted all conceits would be interested in that. He instead shows us that if we are seeking for attā, we should not cling to the five aggregates. He points the seekers to what he called “Tathagatha” which is what “attā” should be.

40

I agree. What you wrote above is for the listener, not for the speaker. However, if you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I did not define “heo” in my premise or conclusion. Furthermore, I don’t have to do so either.

As the listener, if anyone wants to challenge the conclusion “This is not heo” from premise 1 and premise 2, then that person has to come up with the definition (or theory) about “heo”.

This is where I don’t agree. The communication will not be in trouble when the listener states out his definition of “heo”. Afterwards, there will be a “talk”. As in the case with the Buddha, after the listener states out his definition of “self”, there will be a Dhamma talk.

Again, as I said many times above. I do not define “heo” and I do not make any declaration about the existence or non-existence of “heo” in any of the premise or the conclusion. When I say “This is not heo”, that statement is a definition of “This”, that statement is not a definition of “heo”. In contrast, when I say “Heo is not blahblahblah”, then that statement is a definition of “heo”. In the Pali canon, the Buddha never said “Self is not form”, he instead said “Form is not self”. Again, the listener made a definition of “self”, the Buddha didn’t take “self” as granted or axiomatic.

Look again the premise 1, premise 2 and the conclusion. This time with “heo”:

Premise 1: I am pointing to a lion and say “This is a lion.”
Premise 2: A lion is not “heo”.
Conclusion: This is not “heo”.

No matter what “heo” is, “heo” can be conditioned thing, unconditioned thing, inanimate thing, sentient being, a number, an unreal thing, an absurdity. As long as premise 1 and premise 2 are true, the conclusion is true. If the listener wants to challenge premise 2, the listener needs to prove indeed that “A lion is ‘heo’”. In order to do so, the listener has to come up with definition (or theory) about “heo”. Then, we will have a “talk”.

Now back to the situation with self or ātman:

Premise 1: The Buddha pointed to form and say “This is form.”
Premise 2: Form is not self (ātman).
Conclusion: This is not self (ātman).

The Buddha was talking about “This”, he didn’t make any definition about “ātman”.

Meanwhile, @srkris or people in other religion (e.g. Ādi Śaṅkara from Advaita Vedānta) is thinking something like below:

Premise 1: Self exists.
Premise 2: (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) are conditioned.
Premise 3: [neti neti:] Self is not (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness).
Conclusion: Self must be unconditioned.

Clearly, the Buddha never said anything remotely like “self is unconditioned”. Explicitly in MN22, Ariṭṭha was heavily criticized by the monks and also by the Buddha. What was Ariṭṭha’s theory? I quote below in MN22:

Now at that time a mendicant called Ariṭṭha, who had previously been a vulture trapper, had the following harmful misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.”

If anyone has a theory about self as “self is unconditioned”, then of course that person can do all the “obstructions”. The reason is: there can not be any “obstructions” for the “unconditioned”.

So, can we agree that “self is unconditioned” is a harmful theory?

Also, look again of premise 3 of Advaita Vedānta and contrast it with what the Buddha said instead:

(Form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) are not self.