Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta

Expand Messages
  • Dhammadarsa
    Dear Tenphel I hope this finds you well and happy. You end your email with the question is that right? In this regard, it is recorded that the Buddha taught
    Message 1 of 28 , May 4, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Tenphel



      I hope this finds you well and happy.



      You end your email with the question "is that right?" In this regard, it is
      recorded that the Buddha taught not to say "this is true/the truth/right" or
      "this is not true/the truth/right", but just, when we believe something, to
      say "I believe this [is true/the truth/right]" or "I don't believe this [is
      true/the truth/right]". He is then said to call speaking the latter way
      "safeguarding the truth, but it is not yet an awakening to the truth". [M 95
      : M ii 171:
      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html#blind%5d



      This advice seems to show the Buddha's valuing of personal experience, to
      express conditioned arising in everyday life, is encouraging honesty and
      seeing and expressing one's views as such [as they really are], rather than
      clinging to them as the truth. The latter leads to judgements and absolute
      statements which are part of dogmatism. In the past I found it quite easy to
      say the Buddha does not teach dogma, but difficult to identify my dogma
      about the Buddha's teaching.



      I do not accept that "there is no self" is a translation of "anatta". I
      think "there is no self" would be translated in Pali as "n'atthi attaa"
      which, from my study the Buddha is only quoted as saying, when he is
      pointing out that it is an extreme view that he does not teach [and the same
      with "atthi attaa"]. I think the main point in the idea of attaa, i.e.
      permanence, is the thing the Buddha is wont to dispel. If one believes in an
      impermanent self that is dependently arisen, I see no problem in that. It
      for this reason I prefer to translate "attaa" as "soul" or "Self" [self with
      a capital s]. The "soul" theory of Christianity seems to match reasonably
      well the Brahmin's idea of atman, both being religions with a creator god.



      "There is no self" seems to be a corruption of an essential teaching of the
      Buddha "all dhammas are not soul/Self"[sabbe dhammaa anattaa:
      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277 ].
      "Anattaa" seems to have been taken out of the context of the sentence and
      then the natural tendency to go to the other extreme [e.g. opposite to the
      one current at the time in Brahmanism] kicks in.



      I agree with the idea that the Buddha didn't teach there was "no
      self/soul/spirit" nor that there was one, and I see both as extreme views as
      you point out.



      Kind Regards







      <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect =
      Intelligence




      Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
      Buddhist Monk

      Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
      Wang Noi
      Ayuthaya
      Thailand


      <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa


      mobile:

      +66850941669





      <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&
      invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info

      <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want
      a signature like this?



      From: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      Gabriel Jaeger
      Sent: Monday, 3 May 2010 8:23 AM
      To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta





      Dear Dhamma Friends,

      I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a synonimous
      of annatta.
      Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
      self" or "selflessness".
      I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would be
      some major difference etc.

      I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude that
      there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
      "existence" and "no-existence". He would just negate the conception of self
      existent at his time, so annatta.

      Is that right?

      Warm regards,
      tenphel

      On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...
      <mailto:vangorko%40xs4all.nl> > wrote:

      >
      >
      > Dear DC,
      > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
      > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
      > Nina.
      > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
      >
      >
      > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
      > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul
      Dear tenphel, I think a lot of what the Buddha taught only makes sense in practice. So on a group discussion site like this we are always pointing toward
      Message 2 of 28 , May 5, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear tenphel,

        I think a lot of what the Buddha taught only makes sense in practice.
        So on a group discussion site like this we are always pointing toward experience without the benefit of a shared meditative experience.

        So for me, I watch my mind and I can see a "self" but it is a self that I create. If I pay attention long enough this "self" that I create will fade away. It aries and ceases.

        For me, the essence of the Buddha's message is ehipassiko, ie, come see for yourself. So I would suggest you sit and watch your citta(mind) and then you will know for sure whether or not you have a self. And then it won't matter what the texts or anyone else has to say because you will know it like you know the taste of honey.

        Best Wishes,
        Sumano



        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Jaeger <lotsawanet@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Dhamma Friends,
        >
        > I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a synonimous
        > of annatta.
        > Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
        > self" or "selflessness".
        > I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would be
        > some major difference etc.
        >
        > I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude that
        > there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
        > "existence" and "no-existence". He would just negate the conception of self
        > existent at his time, so annatta.
        >
        > Is that right?
        >
        > Warm regards,
        > tenphel
        >
        > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Dear DC,
        > > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
        > > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
        > > Nina.
        > > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
        > >
        > >
        > > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
        > > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Dhammadarsa
        Dear Tenphel On a bit more of a practical note: In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and delusion, the ending of which is called
        Message 3 of 28 , May 6, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Tenphel



          On a bit more of a practical note:



          In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
          delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
          in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
          that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
          towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
          consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
          Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampadaa
          Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.



          Hindu/Brahmin philosophy tries to merge [or obliterate] these, thinking that
          the distinction is the cause of suffering, but that was not accepted or
          taught by the Buddha. The ending of the distinction occurs in the first
          formless state of meditation [aruupa-jhaana] and the Buddha made very clear
          that the formless states were not necessary for enlightenment.



          Kind Regards







          <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect =
          Intelligence




          Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
          Buddhist Monk

          Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
          Wang Noi
          Ayuthaya
          Thailand


          <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa


          mobile:

          +66850941669





          <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&
          invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info

          <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want
          a signature like this?



          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com> , Gabriel Jaeger
          <lotsawanet@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Dhamma Friends,
          >
          > I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a
          synonimous
          > of annatta.
          > Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
          > self" or "selflessness".
          > I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would be
          > some major difference etc.
          >
          > I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude that
          > there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
          > "existence" and "no-existence". He would just negate the conception of
          self
          > existent at his time, so annatta.
          >
          > Is that right?
          >
          > Warm regards,
          > tenphel
          >
          > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > Dear DC,
          > > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
          > > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
          > > Nina.
          > > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
          > >
          > >
          > > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
          > > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ong Yong Peng
          Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa, I think egoistic is about self-centredness , self-pride , selfishness , big ego . I do not dispute that ego may be addressed by
          Message 4 of 28 , May 7, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa,

            I think "egoistic" is about "self-centredness", "self-pride", "selfishness", "big ego". I do not dispute that ego may be addressed by the Buddha in the suttas, but the term "atta" is not just "ego".

            "atta" may be used as a reflexive pronoun, such as "oneself", "myself", "ownself", etc.

            "atta" may also be used by the Buddha to refer to contemporary beliefs of a permanent independent individualistic identity, such as a soul.

            metta,
            Yong Peng.


            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammadarsa wrote:

            In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampadaa Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.
          • Gabriel Jaeger
            Thanks everyone! It seems to me that what Yong Peng cited: permanent independent individualistic identity, would be a kind of definition of atta . Would exist
            Message 5 of 28 , May 11, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks everyone!

              It seems to me that what Yong Peng cited: permanent independent
              individualistic identity, would be a kind of definition of "atta".
              Would exist the pali for this phrase "permanent independent individualistic
              identity". If yes, is it used to define atta?

              Thanks again,
              tenphel

              On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa,
              >
              > I think "egoistic" is about "self-centredness", "self-pride",
              > "selfishness", "big ego". I do not dispute that ego may be addressed by the
              > Buddha in the suttas, but the term "atta" is not just "ego".
              >
              > "atta" may be used as a reflexive pronoun, such as "oneself", "myself",
              > "ownself", etc.
              >
              > "atta" may also be used by the Buddha to refer to contemporary beliefs of a
              > permanent independent individualistic identity, such as a soul.
              >
              > metta,
              > Yong Peng.
              >
              >
              > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Dhammadarsa wrote:
              >
              > In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
              > delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
              > in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
              > that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
              > towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
              > consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
              > Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampadaa
              > Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Gabriel Jaeger
              Thanks Sumano, I really appreciate your point. But here instead of searching for instructions on the meditative experiences I was trying to understand better
              Message 6 of 28 , May 11, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Sumano,

                I really appreciate your point.
                But here instead of searching for instructions on the meditative experiences
                I was trying to understand better the word itself "atta" in a way that I
                could really translate it into my own language. We could say again: Try to
                see by yourself through practice and then you would be able to translate it
                the best way. Even I would think that it is possible that i can see or not,
                or if I see something could be that I am seeing something else then what I
                am looking for. And so, would misinterpret the meaning and translated it
                wrongly.

                Thanks again! Your message remeber me of the real intention of the Buddha's
                words!
                tenphel

                On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Paul <paulocuana@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Dear tenphel,
                >
                > I think a lot of what the Buddha taught only makes sense in practice.
                > So on a group discussion site like this we are always pointing toward
                > experience without the benefit of a shared meditative experience.
                >
                > So for me, I watch my mind and I can see a "self" but it is a self that I
                > create. If I pay attention long enough this "self" that I create will fade
                > away. It aries and ceases.
                >
                > For me, the essence of the Buddha's message is ehipassiko, ie, come see for
                > yourself. So I would suggest you sit and watch your citta(mind) and then you
                > will know for sure whether or not you have a self. And then it won't matter
                > what the texts or anyone else has to say because you will know it like you
                > know the taste of honey.
                >
                > Best Wishes,
                > Sumano
                >
                >
                > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Gabriel Jaeger
                > <lotsawanet@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Dear Dhamma Friends,
                > >
                > > I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a
                > synonimous
                > > of annatta.
                > > Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
                > > self" or "selflessness".
                > > I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would
                > be
                > > some major difference etc.
                > >
                > > I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude
                > that
                > > there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
                > > "existence" and "no-existence". He would just negate the conception of
                > self
                > > existent at his time, so annatta.
                > >
                > > Is that right?
                > >
                > > Warm regards,
                > > tenphel
                > >
                > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Dear DC,
                > > > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
                > > > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
                > > > Nina.
                > > > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
                > > > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gabriel Jaeger
                ... That is very interesting! Thanks! tenphel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 28 , May 11, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  >>I do not accept that "there is no self" is a translation of "anatta". I
                  >>think "there is no self" would be translated in Pali as "n'atthi attaa"

                  That is very interesting!
                  Thanks!
                  tenphel


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Gabriel Jaeger
                  Thanks Bryan!!! Regards, tenphel ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 11, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Bryan!!!

                    Regards,
                    tenphel

                    On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Tenphel,
                    >
                    > "nairaatmya" is a Sanskrit not a Pali word. Its reflex in Pali would be
                    > neratta or neratya or neracca which I have never seen. The earliest recorded
                    > use of "nairaatmya" is I believe the Lalitavistara sutra, which is about 1st
                    > century A. D., whereas the Pali writings are much older.
                    > You are correct that the Buddha distrusted all opposites and his assertion
                    > of anatta must be viewed in the context of the Aryan Vedanta writings of the
                    > fifth century B. C. and earlier (e. g. the earliest Upanishads), which
                    > asserted the existence of a universal Ātman, which the Buddha denied. He
                    > accepted the existence of a self for practical purposes, according to
                    > worldly convention, but any assertion of existence or non-existence
                    > (including the existence of the atta or anatta) contradicts the Middle Way
                    > which goes beyond all opposites,
                    >
                    > Warm regards, Bryan
                    >
                    > See, for example, the nine ma~n~nitaani in the Dhaatuvibhaga Sutta (MN III
                    > 246) for some statements of the Buddha re the concept of the self. For
                    > conventional use of "I" see, SN I 15, Arahantasuttaṃ.
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: Gabriel Jaeger <lotsawanet@... <lotsawanet%40gmail.com>>
                    > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 6:23:07 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Dhamma Friends,
                    >
                    > I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a synonimous
                    > of annatta.
                    > Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
                    > self" or "selflessness" .
                    > I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would be
                    > some major difference etc.
                    >
                    > I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude that
                    > there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
                    > "existence" and "no-existence" . He would just negate the conception of
                    > self
                    > existent at his time, so annatta.
                    >
                    > Is that right?
                    >
                    > Warm regards,
                    > tenphel
                    >
                    > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@xs4all. nl>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Dear DC,
                    > > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
                    > > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
                    > > Nina.
                    > > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta , the
                    > > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Brett Morris
                    I think it important to remember that atta is used in different ways as Yong Peng has nicely stated. As far as the atta that the teaching of anatta (not-Self)
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 12, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I think it important to remember that atta is used in different ways as Yong Peng has nicely stated. As far as the atta that the teaching of anatta (not-Self) is aimed at, Peter Harvey in his book 'The Selfless Mind' comes up with a nice summary from the Pali cannon on what the characteristics of atta, as a metaphysical Self / Soul, are that we should be looking for in all aspects of existence. Below is my summary of Harvey's, argument as stated in a paper I am writing on this subject:
                      Harvey
                      (1995; 2.6-12) finds from analyzing the early texts and commentaries that a
                      metaphysical Self, the Self that not-Self teaching is aimed at, has the
                      following qualities: It has self-awareness and self-control; it is permanent,
                      not arising or passing away; it is unconstructed, unconditioned with its own
                      inherent and independent existence and essence; and most importantly it is not
                      subject to dukkha, therefore is completely
                      and permanently happy.

                      with metta,
                      Brett








                      ________________________________
                      From: Gabriel Jaeger <lotsawanet@...>
                      To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 12:42:52 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta


                      Thanks everyone!

                      It seems to me that what Yong Peng cited: permanent independent
                      individualistic identity, would be a kind of definition of "atta".
                      Would exist the pali for this phrase "permanent independent individualistic
                      identity". If yes, is it used to define atta?

                      Thanks again,
                      tenphel

                      On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@gmail. com> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa,
                      >
                      > I think "egoistic" is about "self-centredness" , "self-pride" ,
                      > "selfishness" , "big ego". I do not dispute that ego may be addressed by the
                      > Buddha in the suttas, but the term "atta" is not just "ego".
                      >
                      > "atta" may be used as a reflexive pronoun, such as "oneself", "myself",
                      > "ownself", etc.
                      >
                      > "atta" may also be used by the Buddha to refer to contemporary beliefs of a
                      > permanent independent individualistic identity, such as a soul.
                      >
                      > metta,
                      > Yong Peng.
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In Pali@yahoogroups. com <Pali%40yahoogroups .com>, Dhammadarsa wrote:
                      >
                      > In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
                      > delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
                      > in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
                      > that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
                      > towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
                      > consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
                      > Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampada a
                      > Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Ong Yong Peng
                      Dear Tenphel, I shall be brief, maybe other members can provide more details on this subject, or you may have to take up the study on your own. Brett s reply
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 14, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Tenphel,

                        I shall be brief, maybe other members can provide more details on this subject, or you may have to take up the study on your own. Brett's reply is helpful.

                        It is important to note a few things should you decide to pursue further research.

                        1. All other religions talk about eternalism, and even argue and fight over it. The Buddha dispelled eternalism in any form, however, it does not mean the Buddha supported nihilism. So, Buddhism is not about eternalism nor nihilism, and it is not both at the same time either.

                        2. The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space construct which we call the world. I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                        In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown". As the tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interact, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a tribe or a nation, but the Earth.

                        In our scientific age, Science helps us further the knowledge of "our world", namely, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, even multiverse.

                        3. If you follow Nina's postings on the Abhidhamma, that is the Theravada's explanation about our experiences, thought processes, etc., all of which points to the notion of anatta. At this point, it is very important to note that there is no pessimism or negativism in anatta. And, there is no way we can reject or deny our experiences, thought processes, etc.

                        You can also read up explanation by other Buddhist schools and traditions.

                        4. To fully understand anatta requires at least a good understanding of the framework of the Buddha's teachings, and must include at least the following: Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, and Dependent Origination.

                        metta,
                        Yong Peng.


                        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Jaeger wrote:

                        It seems to me that what Yong Peng cited: permanent independent individualistic identity, would be a kind of definition of "atta". Would exist the pali for this phrase "permanent independent individualistic identity". If yes, is it used to define atta?
                      • Ong Yong Peng
                        Dear friends, please allow me to expand one of the points: The Buddha s teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space (perhaps higher-dimensional)
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 14, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear friends,

                          please allow me to expand one of the points:

                          The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space (perhaps higher-dimensional) construct which we call the "world". I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                          In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown", "danger", "death". As the nomadic tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interacted, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a single tribe or nation, but is the Earth as we came to call it.

                          metta,
                          Yong Peng.


                          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:

                          2. The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space construct which we call the world. I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                          In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown". As the tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interact, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a tribe or a nation, but the Earth.

                          In our scientific age, Science helps us further the knowledge of "our world", namely, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, even multiverse.
                        • Ken O
                          Dear Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu ... KO:  the wrong thinking that there is a self arise because there is miccha ditthi.  Ego is mana, another dhamma.  When
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 15, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu

                            >
                            >In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
                            >delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
                            >in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
                            >that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
                            >towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
                            >consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
                            >Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampada a
                            >Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.
                            >
                            >Hindu/Brahmin philosophy tries to merge [or obliterate] these, thinking that
                            >the distinction is the cause of suffering, but that was not accepted or
                            >taught by the Buddha. The ending of the distinction occurs in the first
                            >formless state of meditation [aruupa-jhaana] and the Buddha made very clear
                            >that the formless states were not necessary for enlightenment.

                            KO:  the wrong thinking that there is a self arise because there is miccha ditthi.  Ego is mana, another dhamma.  When you experience no greed, hatred or delusion is not a impermanent self, it is panna that arise that understand anatta.   If there is a miccha ditthi arise, panna cannot arise, they are exclusive.  If oet think there is no permanent self, it is panna that understands and not otherwise.  When you are  thinking of benefiting others, it is dana or karuna, and it could arise with or without panna. 

                            One must be distinct and clear on the dhamma that arise so there is no confusion in the application in our daily lifes or the development of the path one taken to practise


                            thanks
                            ken O
                          • Peter Tomlinson
                            I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that science has revealed anything not know
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 15, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past.  It is not,  Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.

                              Surely not.
                              Pete Tomlinson




                              ________________________________
                              From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>
                              To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 9:13:53 PM
                              Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta

                               
                              Dear friends,

                              please allow me to expand one of the points:

                              The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space (perhaps higher-dimensional) construct which we call the "world". I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                              In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown", "danger", "death". As the nomadic tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interacted, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a single tribe or nation, but is the Earth as we came to call it.

                              metta,
                              Yong Peng.

                              --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:

                              2. The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space construct which we call the world. I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                              In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown". As the tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interact, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a tribe or a nation, but the Earth.

                              In our scientific age, Science helps us further the knowledge of "our world", namely, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, even multiverse.




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Ong Yong Peng
                              Dear Peter, I do not want to speculate your background, but I guess it is some Abrahamic religious background, given your name. I would say fanatic ideologies
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 15, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Peter,

                                I do not want to speculate your background, but I guess it is some Abrahamic religious background, given your name. I would say fanatic ideologies exist in both political and religious realms in too many forms. But, Buddhism does not fall into such category.

                                The Buddha acknowledged other religions and philosophies. The Buddha also mentioned that what he taught his disciples was only a very minute portion of what he knew.

                                Western Buddhists should not perpetrate such ill attitude and intolerance mentality towards Science. The Dalai Lama who is openly holding dialogs with scientists should be your example.

                                Also, I do not really know the "fat brown guy in a funny outfit" you mention. I believe there is a limit to idolising the Buddha. He would probably laugh if he sees how much people overdo it.


                                metta,
                                Yong Peng.


                                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:

                                I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past.  It is not,  Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.
                              • Dhammadarsa
                                Replies interwoven below. Integrating Emotion and Intellect = Intelligence Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu Buddhist Monk
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 15, 2010
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Replies interwoven below.









                                  <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect = Intelligence




                                  Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
                                  Buddhist Monk

                                  Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
                                  Wang Noi
                                  Ayuthaya
                                  Thailand


                                  <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa


                                  mobile:

                                  +66850941669




                                  <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info

                                  <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want a signature like this?



                                  From: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Tomlinson
                                  Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2010 2:18 AM
                                  To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta



                                  Hello Peter

                                  I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past. It is not, Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.

                                  [Dhammadarsa] As Ong Yong Peng pointed out, it is recorded that the Buddha said, he only taught what was necessary to end suffering and there was much more that he didn’t teach, which was not necessary. So, even though I could accept that Buddhas might know everything [though it seems the Buddha only claimed to know the five aggregates completely and without a break] I DO think Dhamma is one thing and science everything else, [but the Buddha may have known both, not just the former]. J Therefore I don’t follow your line of reasoning.

                                  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.

                                  [Dhammadarsa] I understand the Buddha-Dhamma to be anti-ritual and an explanation of the then unknown, that is the mind, which still seems to be unknown by those seeking such knowledge in a ‘scientific’ [read objective] manner, the psychologists. I understand that the mind must be known subjectively and objectively [internally and externally as it says in the section on Cittaanupassanaa in the Satipa.t.thaana Sutta].

                                  Surely not.
                                  Pete Tomlinson

                                  [Dhammadarsa] Kind Regards



                                  ________________________________
                                  From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@... <mailto:palismith%40gmail.com> >
                                  To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 9:13:53 PM
                                  Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta


                                  Dear friends,

                                  please allow me to expand one of the points:

                                  The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space (perhaps higher-dimensional) construct which we call the "world". I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                                  In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown", "danger", "death". As the nomadic tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interacted, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a single tribe or nation, but is the Earth as we came to call it.

                                  metta,
                                  Yong Peng.

                                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com> , Ong Yong Peng wrote:

                                  2. The Buddha's teachings talk about Samsara, existence in a time-space construct which we call the world. I had an interesting discussion many years ago with a friend in university about our understanding of the "world", which I summarise as follows:

                                  In the tribal times, the "world" is the tribe, anything else is "unknown". As the tribe became territorial and expanded, the concept of "world" expanded too. And slowly, as cultures interact, and as people and goods moved around, the "world" is no longer a tribe or a nation, but the Earth.

                                  In our scientific age, Science helps us further the knowledge of "our world", namely, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe, even multiverse.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Peter Tomlinson
                                  Dear Ong Yong Peng, Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn t it true
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 15, 2010
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Ong Yong Peng,
                                    Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn't it true that He often refused to respond to questions about whether ther was a god, whether the sould was eternal or non eternal etc.  I mention Culamalunkyaputta Sutta here.  And wouldn't we see in the simile of the poisoned arrow the trap of conflating science with Dhamma?  Lord Buddha isn't concerned with those issues of the origins of the Universe, brain science whether there is or is ot "self".  

                                    What I say here isn't a bad attitude towards science or any "modern" point of view.  Simply they are incapable of solving the problem of existence which only Buddha Dhamma approaches wisely and effectively if one wishes to end samsara.
                                    Science has no such interest or indeed wisdom and viriya to achieve.

                                    Lord Buddha is the little brown fat guy in funny robes.  And believe me I think Ajahn Chah and others would fulfill that picture nicely.  




                                    ________________________________
                                    From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>
                                    To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 8:23:11 PM
                                    Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta

                                     
                                    Dear Peter,

                                    I do not want to speculate your background, but I guess it is some Abrahamic religious background, given your name. I would say fanatic ideologies exist in both political and religious realms in too many forms. But, Buddhism does not fall into such category.

                                    The Buddha acknowledged other religions and philosophies. The Buddha also mentioned that what he taught his disciples was only a very minute portion of what he knew.

                                    Western Buddhists should not perpetrate such ill attitude and intolerance mentality towards Science. The Dalai Lama who is openly holding dialogs with scientists should be your example.

                                    Also, I do not really know the "fat brown guy in a funny outfit" you mention. I believe there is a limit to idolising the Buddha. He would probably laugh if he sees how much people overdo it.

                                    metta,
                                    Yong Peng.

                                    --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:

                                    I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past.  It is not,  Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Anton Bjerke
                                    Dear everyone, Just some thoughts from someone involved in translation. I think that the sutta referred to is the best answer to this discussion. The
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 16, 2010
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear everyone,

                                      Just some thoughts from someone involved in translation. I think that
                                      the sutta referred to is the best answer to this discussion. The
                                      discussion has concerned mostly the definition of the concept atta -
                                      anatta, so my thoughts are more of a side-topic really.
                                      Of course a translation should always convey /meaning/ from one language
                                      to another, and in that sense as a translator one should always search
                                      for a word, whose meaning in the target language is most similar to that
                                      of the source language. But then there is the danger of this word in the
                                      target language having too many or too strong denotations that are
                                      contradictive with the meaning in the source language (perhaps an
                                      example would be using words like 'angel', 'gospel' in Buddhist
                                      translations).
                                      So when it comes down to transferring a new meaning into another
                                      language we always have to presume that the reader anyhow will have to
                                      understand the meaning not merely by looking at this one word, but
                                      rather by reading a whole text or a bulk of texts that explains it. It
                                      is not reasonable to think that you can express all meanings in all
                                      languages - a language always exists in semantical and pragmatical
                                      dependency of a cultural tradition, and meaning has to be conveyed in
                                      context. Words themselves are arbitrary labels and individuals can
                                      easily connect slightly different meanings to the same words. So I don't
                                      think one should get stuck on whether this or that word conveys this or
                                      that /interpretation/ of some meaning to 100 % - that is not realistic.
                                      In the case of Buddhist thought one does have to assume that the reader
                                      will be making an effort himself to understand what this or that term
                                      would mean (and with the guiding of a teacher). So of course you should
                                      make an effort to find the best translation, but be realistic.
                                      Another aspect is that when translating to English the audience will
                                      probably be just as culturally homogeneous as "the population of
                                      Eurasia", i.e. to a very small extent.
                                      Language meaning in human language is basically the same as language
                                      behaviour, and something that is /defined and altered/ by the speakers.
                                      A terminology on the other hand, as e.g. Buddhist terminology, cannot be
                                      allowed to be defined and altered by common language use, so there is a
                                      fundamental difference between meaning of "common" words and e.g.
                                      "Buddhist" words - the latter have a meaning that is defined not by
                                      language use but by Buddha through the Tipitaka and commentaries, i.e.
                                      something basically extra-linguistic.
                                      I guess that the most important thing is that the Buddhist translator
                                      have the right education and perhaps some kind of "realization"...
                                      Though not being able to qualify as a Buddhist translator in that sense,
                                      I personally feel perfectly alright with 'selfless', and by the way also
                                      with /dukkha /being translated as 'suffering'. But that would be a new
                                      topic, I guess.

                                      Anton Bjerke




                                      Nina van Gorkom skrev:
                                      >
                                      > Dear DC,
                                      > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
                                      > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
                                      > Nina.
                                      > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
                                      >
                                      > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
                                      > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Магуба
                                      Dear friends, I think that every age and culture develops its own languages or symbolic systems for mapping and describing the observed flux of phenomena.
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 16, 2010
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear friends,

                                        I think that every age and culture develops its own languages or symbolic systems for mapping and describing the observed flux of phenomena. Modern science is one of them which is probably the most appropriate to the present-day mentality. The Dhamma teachings as an invariant truth should possibly be expressed in many different ways i.e. in many different languages or systems of symbols. In this context some of the concepts developed in the new scientific paradigm during the last century (for a simple presentation I would recommend you to watch documentary film "The Secret Life of Chaos") can be very useful providing convenient metaphors for modern people to understand some of the basic Buddhist tenets. For instance I like to think about kamma as an feedback mechanism in the self-organizing system of the flux of psycho-somatic phenomena (naama-ruupa) which constitute our experience. Here "self-organization" means without any governing principle such as
                                        soul, god etc. which, I think, is a neat illustration of anatta.

                                        Metta,
                                        Ardavarz

                                        --- On Sun, 5/16/10, Peter Tomlinson <gnanayasa@...> wrote:

                                        From: Peter Tomlinson <gnanayasa@...>
                                        Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta
                                        To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 6:37 AM







                                         









                                        Dear Ong Yong Peng,

                                        Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn't it true that He often refused to respond to questions about whether ther was a god, whether the sould was eternal or non eternal etc.  I mention Culamalunkyaputta Sutta here.  And wouldn't we see in the simile of the poisoned arrow the trap of conflating science with Dhamma?  Lord Buddha isn't concerned with those issues of the origins of the Universe, brain science whether there is or is ot "self".  



                                        What I say here isn't a bad attitude towards science or any "modern" point of view.  Simply they are incapable of solving the problem of existence which only Buddha Dhamma approaches wisely and effectively if one wishes to end samsara.

                                        Science has no such interest or indeed wisdom and viriya to achieve.



                                        Lord Buddha is the little brown fat guy in funny robes.  And believe me I think Ajahn Chah and others would fulfill that picture nicely.  



                                        ________________________________

                                        From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>

                                        To: Pali@yahoogroups.com

                                        Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 8:23:11 PM

                                        Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta



                                         

                                        Dear Peter,



                                        I do not want to speculate your background, but I guess it is some Abrahamic religious background, given your name. I would say fanatic ideologies exist in both political and religious realms in too many forms. But, Buddhism does not fall into such category.



                                        The Buddha acknowledged other religions and philosophies. The Buddha also mentioned that what he taught his disciples was only a very minute portion of what he knew.



                                        Western Buddhists should not perpetrate such ill attitude and intolerance mentality towards Science. The Dalai Lama who is openly holding dialogs with scientists should be your example.



                                        Also, I do not really know the "fat brown guy in a funny outfit" you mention. I believe there is a limit to idolising the Buddha. He would probably laugh if he sees how much people overdo it.



                                        metta,

                                        Yong Peng.



                                        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:



                                        I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past.  It is not,  Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Ong Yong Peng
                                        Dear Peter, thank you. Allow me to put forward my views too. 1. The Buddha lived in the Iron Age, when the most advanced technology was probably iron horse
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 17, 2010
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Peter,

                                          thank you. Allow me to put forward my views too.

                                          1. The Buddha lived in the Iron Age, when the most advanced technology was probably iron horse chariots. I wouldn't even bother with Science too if we are still living in the Iron Age. In such primitive age, man may had mastered basic tool-making skills, understanding of the natural phenomenon was elementary at best, and often mixed up with myths and legends, which we wouldn't even call Science.

                                          2. Many of the questions the Buddha refused to answer, I am sure scientists today would be skeptical about them too. When they are not, scientists approached these questions rationally, rather than philosophically. Science today is in every facet of our modern life, from keeping our drinking water is safe, to ensuring that planes do not fall from the sky.

                                          3. Understanding Science, I believe, would help a meditator better understand and comprehend life experiences and natural phenomenon.

                                          4. Depiction of the Buddha varies among different Buddhist cultures and communities.

                                          5. The venerable Ajahn Chah was well-respected by the Thais, and had a large global following. Most of his followers know that Ajahn Chah was born in 1918 to a poor rural family in northern Thailand. Many respected the venerable for his austerity practices, not for lack of knowledge in Science. I think it isn't appropriate to bring him into the picture.

                                          metta,
                                          Yong Peng.


                                          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:

                                          > Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn't it true that He often refused to respond to questions about whether ther was a god, whether the sould was eternal or non eternal etc.  I mention Culamalunkyaputta Sutta here.  And wouldn't we see in the simile of the poisoned arrow the trap of conflating science with Dhamma?  Lord Buddha isn't concerned with those issues of the origins of the Universe, brain science whether there is or is ot "self".  
                                          >
                                          > What I say here isn't a bad attitude towards science or any "modern" point of view.  Simply they are incapable of solving the problem of existence which only Buddha Dhamma approaches wisely and effectively if one wishes to end samsara.
                                          > Science has no such interest or indeed wisdom and viriya to achieve.
                                          >
                                          > Lord Buddha is the little brown fat guy in funny robes.  And believe me I think Ajahn Chah and others would fulfill that picture nicely.
                                        • Peter Tomlinson
                                          Dear Ong Yong Peng, If you took my comments about Luang Por to be disrespect of what may be taken as a lack of knowledge about science that is unfortunate
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 17, 2010
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Ong Yong Peng,
                                            If you took my comments about Luang Por to be disrespect of what may be taken as a "lack of knowledge about science" that is unfortunate and wrong.  He is regarded by many as having been Arahat.   I cannot know this as I have no attainment other than to take what Lord Buddha stated in Suttas as characteristics of Arahat. 
                                            Speculation is not wise in Dhamma practice and is indeed abjured by Lord Buddha as unneeded and unfruitful. 

                                            I have no further wish to argue the rightness of my views as all views saving sammaditthi are useless - science notwithstanding.
                                            Only sammaditthi can lead to nibbana.   We can spin endlessly in samsara and debate science, Western versus Eastern points of view etc.  All of that is unhelpful in overcoming suffering and the development of the four immeasurables and ultimate liberation.

                                            I wish you great and speedy progress on the path of blissful liberation and hope I haven't caused uneccasary emotional follies.
                                            If so I heartily and completely apologize and beg your forgiveness.  Obviously I need to return to bhavana, mindfulness and metta practice and never mind argument.

                                            I am certain your intentions are only to clarify the Dhamma for yourself and others on the Path, and what can be amiss with that?

                                            Let's all hope for great progress in Dhamma for us all.

                                            with Metta
                                            Peter Tomlinson




                                            ________________________________
                                            From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>
                                            To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 5:12:22 AM
                                            Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta

                                             
                                            Dear Peter,

                                            thank you. Allow me to put forward my views too.

                                            1. The Buddha lived in the Iron Age, when the most advanced technology was probably iron horse chariots. I wouldn't even bother with Science too if we are still living in the Iron Age. In such primitive age, man may had mastered basic tool-making skills, understanding of the natural phenomenon was elementary at best, and often mixed up with myths and legends, which we wouldn't even call Science.

                                            2. Many of the questions the Buddha refused to answer, I am sure scientists today would be skeptical about them too. When they are not, scientists approached these questions rationally, rather than philosophically. Science today is in every facet of our modern life, from keeping our drinking water is safe, to ensuring that planes do not fall from the sky.

                                            3. Understanding Science, I believe, would help a meditator better understand and comprehend life experiences and natural phenomenon.

                                            4. Depiction of the Buddha varies among different Buddhist cultures and communities.

                                            5. The venerable Ajahn Chah was well-respected by the Thais, and had a large global following. Most of his followers know that Ajahn Chah was born in 1918 to a poor rural family in northern Thailand. Many respected the venerable for his austerity practices, not for lack of knowledge in Science. I think it isn't appropriate to bring him into the picture.

                                            metta,
                                            Yong Peng.

                                            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:

                                            > Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn't it true that He often refused to respond to questions about whether ther was a god, whether the sould was eternal or non eternal etc.  I mention Culamalunkyaputta Sutta here.  And wouldn't we see in the simile of the poisoned arrow the trap of conflating science with Dhamma?  Lord Buddha isn't concerned with those issues of the origins of the Universe, brain science whether there is or is ot "self".  
                                            >
                                            > What I say here isn't a bad attitude towards science or any "modern" point of view.  Simply they are incapable of solving the problem of existence which only Buddha Dhamma approaches wisely and effectively if one wishes to end samsara.
                                            > Science has no such interest or indeed wisdom and viriya to achieve.
                                            >
                                            > Lord Buddha is the little brown fat guy in funny robes.  And believe me I think Ajahn Chah and others would fulfill that picture nicely.




                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Richard Blumberg
                                            I ve been following this thread with enormous interest; this is quite a remarkably well-informed and thoughtful group, and I ve learned from every post. Thank
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 17, 2010
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I've been following this thread with enormous interest; this is quite a
                                              remarkably well-informed and thoughtful group, and I've learned from every
                                              post. Thank you all. Here are a few observations, which I hope will help
                                              keep people thinking skillfully about a most important idea.

                                              First, we have been talking much more about 'atta' than about 'anatta'. In
                                              my rendering of the Anattalakkhana Sutta, (
                                              http://dharmastudy.org/suttas-2/anattalakkhana-sutta/), which I use in the
                                              course I teach at our local university's continuing ed program, I use the
                                              term "not-self" to translate 'anatta', and I provide the following note to
                                              the passage in the sutta in which the Buddha tells the five 'bhikkhus' that
                                              material form is 'anatta':

                                              "The term 'not-self' really has no precise and idiomatic translation in
                                              English. It�s not that the Buddha is saying that form is not what we mean
                                              when we talk about self, as we might, for example, point to a duck and say
                                              'that's not a chicken'. Rather, he�s making a positive statement about form,
                                              saying that it falls into the category of those things that are 'anatta' �
                                              'not-self'. Defining something as 'not-self' limits the meaning of 'self' in
                                              a profound way. I can say that my house is not my self; that�s true from
                                              both a Buddhist point of view and a Western point of view. But that�s a
                                              trivial truth; no one really would claim otherwise. When I say that
                                              form/body is 'not-self', though, I�m making a claim that radically denies
                                              what many people believe, either unthinkingly or dogmatically, and I�m
                                              radically limiting the possible scope of any practical notion of 'self'."

                                              I think that part of the problem in thinking about 'atta' is that the term
                                              points in two directions, which muddles our dualistically inclined minds. In
                                              the one direction, it points toward a technical term in a doctrinal
                                              tradition which the Buddha's thinking stood in explicitly radical opposition
                                              to. The term 'atman' in the Brahminical teachings referred to a real entity
                                              which is the foundation of our sense of Self and which was eternal and
                                              "real" in a way that our transitory bodies were not (in some passages, the
                                              'atman' is actually described as a tiny homunculus). In the Upanishadic
                                              extension of Brahminism, 'atman' was in fact identical with 'brahman', the
                                              monadic eternal Truth, and the goal of spiritual practice was to realize
                                              (i.e. both to profoundly understand and to reify) that unity and so attain
                                              'moksha' or "release". In this sense, the term 'atta' is equivalent to the
                                              theistic idea of "soul", and the Buddha is saying, with relation to that
                                              point of view, that nothing has the kind of essential nature attributed to
                                              soul and that, therefore, there is no soul, or no Self. That's the direction
                                              toward which, I think, Nagarjuna was looking when he developed his
                                              understanding of emptiness.

                                              That first understanding of 'anatta', as Noa Ronkin points out, is based on
                                              an ontology that's focused on processes rather than on substances and their
                                              attributes. The Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is all about experience -
                                              the process of experiencing. I'm not talking subjectivity or idealism here;
                                              it's not like there are objective phenomena that we can only know through
                                              subjective experience. Experience is real, and "real world" events - the
                                              interactions of the physical 'dhammas'- are among the conditions from which
                                              experience emerges. It's that understanding of conditioned emergence of
                                              experienced phenomena ('paticcasamuppada', frequently translated as
                                              "dependent arising") that I think, in some important but non-mystical way,
                                              prefigures the current scientific understanding of "self-organization" that
                                              ardavarz and others were introducing to the discussion.

                                              'Paticcasamuppada' is also a bridge to the other direction in which 'atta'
                                              points - the sense of an identity that, while it may not be eternal,
                                              persists from moment to moment despite impermanent and constantly changing
                                              conditions. Again, 'anatta' in this sense may prefigure modern science: in
                                              this case, the Uncertainty Principle. The most common statement of the
                                              Uncertainty Principle is that we can't know simultaneously know both the
                                              location and the velocity of quantum level objects, such as photons. A
                                              necessary correlate of that principle is that there's no individual photon
                                              (call it "Jim" or "Agnes") that's recognizably distinct from other photons,
                                              i.e. that has self-identity. It may be significant here that in defining the
                                              three basic 'dhamma' seals, the Buddha used a different term for the third
                                              seal than for the first two. It's 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' and 'sabbe
                                              sankhara anicca' ("all contingent things are 'dukkha'", "all contingent
                                              things are impermanent"), but 'sabbe dhammata anatta' ("all things whatever
                                              are not-self"). (I may have the Pali a little bolloxed; I don't have my
                                              notes here.) I don't think it's wrong to see quantum objects as 'dhammas' in
                                              this sense, but I also don't think that it requires that we conceive the
                                              Buddha as a being who "knew" the world in the same way that, say, Stephen
                                              Hawking does.

                                              So, with the term 'anatta', the Buddha is saying that there is no essential
                                              "Self" (or "soul"), and that it is not possible, from any given experience
                                              or sequence of experiences, to identify a "self" which in any way embodies
                                              or owns or is embodied in or owned by that experience or sequence of
                                              experiences; another way of saying that is that while the "self" we
                                              experience at any moment emerges from precedent conditions, it is not
                                              possible, even if it were possible to know all current conditions, to
                                              predict what "self" that particular body or cognizing being will experience
                                              next moment. The Buddha, I believe, rejected determinism; that rejection is
                                              what allows us to behave intentionally, to behave skillfully, to influence
                                              the experience that becomes the next moment, the next day, perhaps the next
                                              life.

                                              This certainly doesn't resolve any question, but it may help us see more
                                              clearly why it's good to be done with "I-making, my-making, the conceit of
                                              self".

                                              With regard,

                                              Richard


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Piya Tan
                                              Dear Richard, You re right, most scholars today prefer not-self as the most useful translation of anatta. Ven Thanissaro has written an article on this: see
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 20, 2010
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Richard,

                                                You're right, most scholars today prefer "not-self" as the most useful
                                                translation of anatta. Ven Thanissaro has written an article on this: see
                                                his website "Access to Insight."

                                                With metta,

                                                Piya

                                                On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Richard Blumberg <richard@...> wrote:

                                                > I've been following this thread with enormous interest; this is quite a
                                                > remarkably well-informed and thoughtful group, and I've learned from every
                                                > post. Thank you all. Here are a few observations, which I hope will help
                                                > keep people thinking skillfully about a most important idea.
                                                >
                                                > First, we have been talking much more about 'atta' than about 'anatta'. In
                                                > my rendering of the Anattalakkhana Sutta, (
                                                > http://dharmastudy.org/suttas-2/anattalakkhana-sutta/), which I use in the
                                                > course I teach at our local university's continuing ed program, I use the
                                                > term "not-self" to translate 'anatta', and I provide the following note to
                                                > the passage in the sutta in which the Buddha tells the five 'bhikkhus' that
                                                > material form is 'anatta':
                                                >
                                                > "The term 'not-self' really has no precise and idiomatic translation in
                                                > English. It�s not that the Buddha is saying that form is not what we mean
                                                > when we talk about self, as we might, for example, point to a duck and say
                                                > 'that's not a chicken'. Rather, he�s making a positive statement about
                                                > form,
                                                > saying that it falls into the category of those things that are 'anatta' �
                                                > 'not-self'. Defining something as 'not-self' limits the meaning of 'self'
                                                > in
                                                > a profound way. I can say that my house is not my self; that�s true from
                                                > both a Buddhist point of view and a Western point of view. But that�s a
                                                > trivial truth; no one really would claim otherwise. When I say that
                                                > form/body is 'not-self', though, I�m making a claim that radically denies
                                                > what many people believe, either unthinkingly or dogmatically, and I�m
                                                > radically limiting the possible scope of any practical notion of 'self'."
                                                >
                                                > I think that part of the problem in thinking about 'atta' is that the term
                                                > points in two directions, which muddles our dualistically inclined minds.
                                                > In
                                                > the one direction, it points toward a technical term in a doctrinal
                                                > tradition which the Buddha's thinking stood in explicitly radical
                                                > opposition
                                                > to. The term 'atman' in the Brahminical teachings referred to a real entity
                                                > which is the foundation of our sense of Self and which was eternal and
                                                > "real" in a way that our transitory bodies were not (in some passages, the
                                                > 'atman' is actually described as a tiny homunculus). In the Upanishadic
                                                > extension of Brahminism, 'atman' was in fact identical with 'brahman', the
                                                > monadic eternal Truth, and the goal of spiritual practice was to realize
                                                > (i.e. both to profoundly understand and to reify) that unity and so attain
                                                > 'moksha' or "release". In this sense, the term 'atta' is equivalent to the
                                                > theistic idea of "soul", and the Buddha is saying, with relation to that
                                                > point of view, that nothing has the kind of essential nature attributed to
                                                > soul and that, therefore, there is no soul, or no Self. That's the
                                                > direction
                                                > toward which, I think, Nagarjuna was looking when he developed his
                                                > understanding of emptiness.
                                                >
                                                > That first understanding of 'anatta', as Noa Ronkin points out, is based on
                                                > an ontology that's focused on processes rather than on substances and their
                                                > attributes. The Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is all about experience
                                                > -
                                                > the process of experiencing. I'm not talking subjectivity or idealism here;
                                                > it's not like there are objective phenomena that we can only know through
                                                > subjective experience. Experience is real, and "real world" events - the
                                                > interactions of the physical 'dhammas'- are among the conditions from which
                                                > experience emerges. It's that understanding of conditioned emergence of
                                                > experienced phenomena ('paticcasamuppada', frequently translated as
                                                > "dependent arising") that I think, in some important but non-mystical way,
                                                > prefigures the current scientific understanding of "self-organization" that
                                                > ardavarz and others were introducing to the discussion.
                                                >
                                                > 'Paticcasamuppada' is also a bridge to the other direction in which 'atta'
                                                > points - the sense of an identity that, while it may not be eternal,
                                                > persists from moment to moment despite impermanent and constantly changing
                                                > conditions. Again, 'anatta' in this sense may prefigure modern science: in
                                                > this case, the Uncertainty Principle. The most common statement of the
                                                > Uncertainty Principle is that we can't know simultaneously know both the
                                                > location and the velocity of quantum level objects, such as photons. A
                                                > necessary correlate of that principle is that there's no individual photon
                                                > (call it "Jim" or "Agnes") that's recognizably distinct from other photons,
                                                > i.e. that has self-identity. It may be significant here that in defining
                                                > the
                                                > three basic 'dhamma' seals, the Buddha used a different term for the third
                                                > seal than for the first two. It's 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' and 'sabbe
                                                > sankhara anicca' ("all contingent things are 'dukkha'", "all contingent
                                                > things are impermanent"), but 'sabbe dhammata anatta' ("all things whatever
                                                > are not-self"). (I may have the Pali a little bolloxed; I don't have my
                                                > notes here.) I don't think it's wrong to see quantum objects as 'dhammas'
                                                > in
                                                > this sense, but I also don't think that it requires that we conceive the
                                                > Buddha as a being who "knew" the world in the same way that, say, Stephen
                                                > Hawking does.
                                                >
                                                > So, with the term 'anatta', the Buddha is saying that there is no essential
                                                > "Self" (or "soul"), and that it is not possible, from any given experience
                                                > or sequence of experiences, to identify a "self" which in any way embodies
                                                > or owns or is embodied in or owned by that experience or sequence of
                                                > experiences; another way of saying that is that while the "self" we
                                                > experience at any moment emerges from precedent conditions, it is not
                                                > possible, even if it were possible to know all current conditions, to
                                                > predict what "self" that particular body or cognizing being will experience
                                                > next moment. The Buddha, I believe, rejected determinism; that rejection is
                                                > what allows us to behave intentionally, to behave skillfully, to influence
                                                > the experience that becomes the next moment, the next day, perhaps the next
                                                > life.
                                                >
                                                > This certainly doesn't resolve any question, but it may help us see more
                                                > clearly why it's good to be done with "I-making, my-making, the conceit of
                                                > self".
                                                >
                                                > With regard,
                                                >
                                                > Richard
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                > Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                                                > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                                                > [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                                                > [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                                                > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
                                                > only.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >


                                                --
                                                The Minding Centre
                                                Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
                                                Singapore 650644
                                                hpl: 8211 0879
                                                Meditation courses & therapy: http://themindingcentre.org
                                                Sutta translation: https://dharmafarer.org


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Gabriel Jaeger
                                                Thanks very much Piya! Ven. Thanissaro explains precisely why we should translate anatta as not-self instead of no self or selfless The whole point is in
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 21, 2010
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Thanks very much Piya!

                                                  Ven. Thanissaro explains precisely why we should translate anatta as
                                                  "not-self" instead of "no self" or "selfless"
                                                  The whole point is in his essay!

                                                  Thanks very much again,
                                                  tenphel

                                                  On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Piya Tan <dharmafarer@...> wrote:

                                                  > Dear Richard,
                                                  >
                                                  > You're right, most scholars today prefer "not-self" as the most useful
                                                  > translation of anatta. Ven Thanissaro has written an article on this: see
                                                  > his website "Access to Insight."
                                                  >
                                                  > With metta,
                                                  >
                                                  > Piya
                                                  >
                                                  > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Richard Blumberg <richard@...>
                                                  > wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > I've been following this thread with enormous interest; this is quite a
                                                  > > remarkably well-informed and thoughtful group, and I've learned from
                                                  > every
                                                  > > post. Thank you all. Here are a few observations, which I hope will help
                                                  > > keep people thinking skillfully about a most important idea.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > First, we have been talking much more about 'atta' than about 'anatta'.
                                                  > In
                                                  > > my rendering of the Anattalakkhana Sutta, (
                                                  > > http://dharmastudy.org/suttas-2/anattalakkhana-sutta/), which I use in
                                                  > the
                                                  > > course I teach at our local university's continuing ed program, I use the
                                                  > > term "not-self" to translate 'anatta', and I provide the following note
                                                  > to
                                                  > > the passage in the sutta in which the Buddha tells the five 'bhikkhus'
                                                  > that
                                                  > > material form is 'anatta':
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "The term 'not-self' really has no precise and idiomatic translation in
                                                  > > English. It�s not that the Buddha is saying that form is not what we mean
                                                  > > when we talk about self, as we might, for example, point to a duck and
                                                  > say
                                                  > > 'that's not a chicken'. Rather, he�s making a positive statement about
                                                  > > form,
                                                  > > saying that it falls into the category of those things that are 'anatta'
                                                  > �
                                                  > > 'not-self'. Defining something as 'not-self' limits the meaning of 'self'
                                                  > > in
                                                  > > a profound way. I can say that my house is not my self; that�s true from
                                                  > > both a Buddhist point of view and a Western point of view. But that�s a
                                                  > > trivial truth; no one really would claim otherwise. When I say that
                                                  > > form/body is 'not-self', though, I�m making a claim that radically denies
                                                  > > what many people believe, either unthinkingly or dogmatically, and I�m
                                                  > > radically limiting the possible scope of any practical notion of 'self'."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I think that part of the problem in thinking about 'atta' is that the
                                                  > term
                                                  > > points in two directions, which muddles our dualistically inclined minds.
                                                  > > In
                                                  > > the one direction, it points toward a technical term in a doctrinal
                                                  > > tradition which the Buddha's thinking stood in explicitly radical
                                                  > > opposition
                                                  > > to. The term 'atman' in the Brahminical teachings referred to a real
                                                  > entity
                                                  > > which is the foundation of our sense of Self and which was eternal and
                                                  > > "real" in a way that our transitory bodies were not (in some passages,
                                                  > the
                                                  > > 'atman' is actually described as a tiny homunculus). In the Upanishadic
                                                  > > extension of Brahminism, 'atman' was in fact identical with 'brahman',
                                                  > the
                                                  > > monadic eternal Truth, and the goal of spiritual practice was to realize
                                                  > > (i.e. both to profoundly understand and to reify) that unity and so
                                                  > attain
                                                  > > 'moksha' or "release". In this sense, the term 'atta' is equivalent to
                                                  > the
                                                  > > theistic idea of "soul", and the Buddha is saying, with relation to that
                                                  > > point of view, that nothing has the kind of essential nature attributed
                                                  > to
                                                  > > soul and that, therefore, there is no soul, or no Self. That's the
                                                  > > direction
                                                  > > toward which, I think, Nagarjuna was looking when he developed his
                                                  > > understanding of emptiness.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > That first understanding of 'anatta', as Noa Ronkin points out, is based
                                                  > on
                                                  > > an ontology that's focused on processes rather than on substances and
                                                  > their
                                                  > > attributes. The Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is all about
                                                  > experience
                                                  > > -
                                                  > > the process of experiencing. I'm not talking subjectivity or idealism
                                                  > here;
                                                  > > it's not like there are objective phenomena that we can only know through
                                                  > > subjective experience. Experience is real, and "real world" events - the
                                                  > > interactions of the physical 'dhammas'- are among the conditions from
                                                  > which
                                                  > > experience emerges. It's that understanding of conditioned emergence of
                                                  > > experienced phenomena ('paticcasamuppada', frequently translated as
                                                  > > "dependent arising") that I think, in some important but non-mystical
                                                  > way,
                                                  > > prefigures the current scientific understanding of "self-organization"
                                                  > that
                                                  > > ardavarz and others were introducing to the discussion.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > 'Paticcasamuppada' is also a bridge to the other direction in which
                                                  > 'atta'
                                                  > > points - the sense of an identity that, while it may not be eternal,
                                                  > > persists from moment to moment despite impermanent and constantly
                                                  > changing
                                                  > > conditions. Again, 'anatta' in this sense may prefigure modern science:
                                                  > in
                                                  > > this case, the Uncertainty Principle. The most common statement of the
                                                  > > Uncertainty Principle is that we can't know simultaneously know both the
                                                  > > location and the velocity of quantum level objects, such as photons. A
                                                  > > necessary correlate of that principle is that there's no individual
                                                  > photon
                                                  > > (call it "Jim" or "Agnes") that's recognizably distinct from other
                                                  > photons,
                                                  > > i.e. that has self-identity. It may be significant here that in defining
                                                  > > the
                                                  > > three basic 'dhamma' seals, the Buddha used a different term for the
                                                  > third
                                                  > > seal than for the first two. It's 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' and 'sabbe
                                                  > > sankhara anicca' ("all contingent things are 'dukkha'", "all contingent
                                                  > > things are impermanent"), but 'sabbe dhammata anatta' ("all things
                                                  > whatever
                                                  > > are not-self"). (I may have the Pali a little bolloxed; I don't have my
                                                  > > notes here.) I don't think it's wrong to see quantum objects as 'dhammas'
                                                  > > in
                                                  > > this sense, but I also don't think that it requires that we conceive the
                                                  > > Buddha as a being who "knew" the world in the same way that, say, Stephen
                                                  > > Hawking does.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > So, with the term 'anatta', the Buddha is saying that there is no
                                                  > essential
                                                  > > "Self" (or "soul"), and that it is not possible, from any given
                                                  > experience
                                                  > > or sequence of experiences, to identify a "self" which in any way
                                                  > embodies
                                                  > > or owns or is embodied in or owned by that experience or sequence of
                                                  > > experiences; another way of saying that is that while the "self" we
                                                  > > experience at any moment emerges from precedent conditions, it is not
                                                  > > possible, even if it were possible to know all current conditions, to
                                                  > > predict what "self" that particular body or cognizing being will
                                                  > experience
                                                  > > next moment. The Buddha, I believe, rejected determinism; that rejection
                                                  > is
                                                  > > what allows us to behave intentionally, to behave skillfully, to
                                                  > influence
                                                  > > the experience that becomes the next moment, the next day, perhaps the
                                                  > next
                                                  > > life.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > This certainly doesn't resolve any question, but it may help us see more
                                                  > > clearly why it's good to be done with "I-making, my-making, the conceit
                                                  > of
                                                  > > self".
                                                  > >
                                                  > > With regard,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Richard
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ------------------------------------
                                                  > >
                                                  > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                  > > Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                                                  > > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                                                  > > [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                                                  > > [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                                                  > > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
                                                  > web
                                                  > > only.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > --
                                                  > The Minding Centre
                                                  > Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
                                                  > Singapore 650644
                                                  > hpl: 8211 0879
                                                  > Meditation courses & therapy: http://themindingcentre.org
                                                  > Sutta translation: https://dharmafarer.org
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ------------------------------------
                                                  >
                                                  > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                  > Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                                                  > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                                                  > [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                                                  > [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                                                  > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
                                                  > only.Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.