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

Re: Hello, i'm new to this group and would like to ask a few questions.

Expand Messages
  • samathasavaka
    ... Thanks man ! :) ... difference is ... generally be ... in a Jain ... few of ... the soul, ... Um... From what i gather from the translations i ve read
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 10, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Pali@y..., Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> wrote:

      >
      > Welcome to the list.
      >

      Thanks man ! :)


      > In fact both usages are found in Buddhist texts. The only
      difference is
      > that when it is used in Buddhist texts to mean soul it will
      generally be
      > part of some passage in which soul theories are rejected, whereas
      in a Jain
      > text the soul's existence will be asserted. (By the way, although a
      few of
      > the older Jain texts use aya -- a Prakrit cognate of attaa -- for
      the soul,
      > the vast majority always use jiiva).
      >


      Um... From what i gather from the translations i've read (which are
      plenty) i've never seen the denial of a soul. I've only seen the
      denial to the claim that the soul's abode is within the khandas.
      Would you have an example from the Suttas were Buddha says there's no
      soul at all? that there's nothing which reaches the other shore?
      Thanks in advance.


      > As for the use of attaa for the reflexive pronoun, this is not
      limited to
      > Pali Buddhist texts. You will find exactly the same usage in texts
      written
      > in other Indian Sanskritic and Prakritic dialects, no matter
      whether their
      > authors are Buddhist, Hindu or Jain.
      >
      > Even in a Hindu text that does propound a soul theory, if the text
      in
      > question has a lot of narrative content (e.g. the Bhagavad Gita,
      > Ramayana, Avadhut Gita and suchlike), you will find that the
      Sanskrit
      > "aatman" more often functions as a reflexive pronoun than as a word
      for the
      > soul.
      >
      > Example:
      >
      > Siitaa-devii praaptaprasavavedanam AATMAANAM atidu.hkhasa.mvegaad
      > Gan.gaa-pravaahe nik.siptavatii
      >
      > "Queen Sita, when the pangs of childbirth were upon her, in the
      extremity
      > of her suffering, threw *herself* into the Ganges."


      Thanks, point taken.



      > I wouldn't put it like that. The word attaa/aatman must have had
      some
      > generally accepted denotations, else it would have been impossible
      for
      > Buddhists, brahmins and Jains to talk to each other on the subject.
      On the
      > other hand each sectarian group had its own take on what precisely
      the soul
      > was, or on whether such a thing existed.


      Yeah, thanks for bringing this up, which helps my theory, which is
      that Buddha's view on the soul were different from those who preached
      that the soul was to be found in the khandas, imho, the Buddha is not
      preaching that there's no soul at all. It'd be strange if that were
      the case, why do i think this? Because then, what would realize
      illumination? what is reborn? what suffers? what is liberated from
      suffering?



      > In English when I say 'spirit' I might well be referring to gin,
      whiskey,
      > vodka and suchlike. Strangely, when Germans say 'Geist' (spirit)
      they never
      > mean anything of the sort. How come German is different?
      >
      > What exactly are you asking here? How come Pali isn't the same as
      Spanish?
      >
      > And are you seriously suggesting that in Spanish each word has only
      one
      > meaning? I find it hard to believe the language could be that
      impoverished.
      > In the case of espiritu does it not also mean espectro, ánimo, alma,
      > respiración.... ?
      >
      > The point to note is that Pali, Sanskrit and related languages
      didn't have
      > any words that corresponded exactly to reflexives such as 'myself',
      > 'himself', 'oneself' etc. So in order to convey the idea of
      reflexivity (of
      > an action falling back upon the agent) some other method had to be
      > employed. One was to use the indeclinable particle saya.m ('by
      oneself').
      > The other, much more common way, was to use attaa.
      >


      I'm suggesting that when i use the word Espiritu within a certain
      context, in this case a philosophical context, i know the meaning of
      the word. For example, to use the example of the english word Spirit,
      i'd like to point out that to say Spirit by itself can be interpreted
      in the several meanings it has (same in spanish, you are right). But
      if i say: "I'm gonna go down the bar and drink spirits" Then i'd know
      that you ain't talking about a Soul/Essence.
      Within the Buddhist texts, however, the context is philosophically
      and religiously inclined to say the least. Thus, the reason why i
      asked the question.


      > As noted above, it is not a strange characteristic of Pali, but a
      shared
      > feature of Aryan languages in the Indic group. It is very rare that
      > sectarian concerns determine the everyday conventions of usage in
      any
      > language.


      Right, maybe not sectarian concerns, but certainly the context where
      words are put will determine their meaning, would not you agree?


      >
      > Firstly because this is linguistically correct. Secondly because
      both of
      > the above translators subscribe to the mainstream Buddhist
      interpretation
      > of anattaa, and not to any of the heterodox variants (e.g. those of
      the
      > Puggalavadin schools in bygone days, or of Rhys Davids, George
      Grimm and
      > Ven. Thanissaro in more recent times).
      >


      So, in fact, there are different interpretations and methods when it
      comes down to translating a Buddhist pali text which are dependent
      upon which sectarian understanding you subscribe to ?
      It seems that there are several linguistically correct ways to
      translated the Suttas, but, the meaning they give are sometimes even
      contradictory ! What a puzzle !.




      > But whoever made such a claim? Though "himelf, oneself, herself,
      etc" are
      > probably the most common meanings of attaa in narrative passages,
      they
      > don't by any means exhaust the range of applications this word has
      in Pali.
      >


      Yeah, i was just making sure that within the Buddhist context the
      meaning of the word Attan is not dependent upon interpretations,
      rather, dependent upon what is it what is the "preacher" trying to
      convey. Thanks.



      > >What use would there be to say that the 5 skandhas are Anatta if
      > >there was no Attan at all?
      >
      > Because worldlings don't know that there's no attaa at all and this
      > non-knowing leads them into suffering.
      >


      Well, this answer you give me is not really related to pali, but to
      your interpretation of why is Anatta used to express that the five
      aggregates are empty.
      My question begs the answer to the philosophically analysed, because
      if the usage of the word Anatta to convey the message that the 5
      khandas are not the Attan, is taken for granted, then, we'll leave
      too much space for interpretations which may at times conclude things
      from things not being said. For example, when it is stated that The 5
      khandas are Anatta. Can we really and honestly and without fooling
      ourselves arrive at the conclusion that there is no Attan (as in
      Animus) at all? not even beyond the khandas?
      Thanks in advance.



      > Best wishes,
      >
      > Robert


      Thanks for your helpful reply. Hope to hear from you.

      Good Day. :)

      Samatha Savaka.
    • ypong001
      Dear Samatha, Robert, Andy, Piya and friends, as I am away from home, I am quite short of useful references, this is what I have got from the Web. #1.
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Samatha, Robert, Andy, Piya and friends,

        as I am away from home, I am quite short of useful references, this
        is what I have got from the Web.

        #1. Britannica: Soul

        Immaterial aspect or essence of a person, conjoined with the body
        during life and separable at death. The concept of a soul is found in
        nearly all cultures and religions, though the interpretations of its
        nature vary considerably. The ancient Egyptians conceived of a dual
        soul, one surviving death but remaining near the body, while the
        other proceeded to the realm of the dead. The early Hebrews did not
        consider the soul as distinct from the body, but later Jewish writers
        perceived the two as separate. Christian theology adopted the Greek
        concept of an immortal soul, adding the notion that God created the
        soul and infused it into the body at conception. In Hinduism, each
        soul, or atman, was created at the beginning of time and imprisoned
        in an earthly body; at death, the soul passes to a new body according
        to the laws of karma. Buddhism negates the idea of a soul, asserting
        that any sense of an individual self is illusory.

        :-) What I understand is that the concept of an unchanging permanent
        soul was already in existence during Buddha's time. It is a prevalent
        teaching of the Vedic/Brahmanic religious teachings. The Buddha
        belongs to the Sramana (philosophical) era when there was a great
        evolutionary leap in ideas. During this era, there are many
        philosophers proposing new ideas for a paradigm change. This
        phenomenon is also observed during almost the same period in China
        and Greece. So, if you like, the Buddha and his followers belongs to
        a bigger and wider group of people generally called the Sramana
        movement. And, yes, you may have guessed so - the founder of Jainism,
        can be said (academically) to belong to this new movement too. The
        general characteristics of the Sramana movement is it opposed many
        things that are considered norms in the Vedic fold. However, mere
        opposition would be carry the movement to any great length. Indeed,
        each of the groups proposed new ideas to replace the Vedic/Brahmanic
        philosophy. Although the main idea is to replace the Vedic
        philosophical system in its entirety, it is possible that some groups
        retain certain concepts of Brahmanism. One example, which I think is
        now very clear, is Jainism's retaining the idea of 'soul' from
        Brahmanism. It is of course NOT true to say that Buddhism has nothing
        in common at all with Brahmanism. Buddhism has the concept of
        karma/kamma, this term has a similar "baseline" meaning as its usage
        in Brahmanism. It means action in both religion. But if we were to
        further study the doctrine of kamma in both religions, we will notice
        that there is a great difference.

        #2. PTS Dictionary: Attan

        The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in
        the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a
        small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in
        the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it
        returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the
        body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its
        own. For numerous other details see Rh. D. Theory of Soul in the
        Upanishads J R A S 1899. Bt. India 251--255. Buddhism repudiated all
        such theories, thus differing from other religions. Sixteen such
        theories about the soul D I.31. Seven other theories D I.34. Three
        others D I.186/7. A "soul" according to general belief was some thing
        permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow S IV.54 = Kvu 67; Vin
        I.14; M I.138.

        :-) The dictionary describe the word attan as soul in Vedic animistic
        theories. Buddhism is definitely far from being an animistic
        religion. I do not know how Jainism describe soul. By referring to
        #1, we know that each religion has an almost different interpretation
        of such an entity. But Buddha denies its existence, and it is
        noteworthy to know that he wasn't the only one who denies it. There
        are several Sramana groups that deny the existence of a soul. Of
        course, each has its own reasoning. Buddha was a well-learned person,
        both from his childhood education and his 6-year pre-enlightenment
        learning. If we look under #2, the Buddha mentioned 16 theories in
        total in regard to soul in just the Digha Nikaya alone. His chief
        objective was to point out the futility of such views.

        :-) The idea of not having a soul seems very peculiar. Maybe not from
        a secular viewpoint, but definitely from a religious standpoint. All
        religions, with the exception of perhaps only Buddhism, talk about
        soul or spirit. It is therefore not surprising that throughout
        history, even long after the Buddha, buddhists and non-buddhists
        alike are trying to grasp the possibility of salvation without a
        soul. (Just as people would wonder how they could speaking to each
        other without a face-to-face meeting.) Many buddhist philosophers has
        carried the concept of "soullessness" to creatively new levels.
        Especially in the Mahayana schools, there are several convincing
        reasoning for this topic.

        :-) Soullessness, impermanence and suffering are three interlinked
        concepts in Buddhism. Impermanence refers to the transient nature of
        life, it is this transient nature of life that the Buddha have
        clearly understood, while others either indulge in pleasures that are
        not lasting or are ignorant of the underlying facts of existence:
        soullessness, impermanece and suffering.

        With this, I wish you peace.

        metta,

        Yong Peng.
      • robertkirkpatrick.rm
        Dear Samatha Savaka (and Robert Eddison),-- In ... were ... Dear Friend, Just in case Robert Eddison is busy this quotation from The Visuddhimagga might help:
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 11, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Samatha Savaka (and Robert Eddison),-- In
          Pali@y..., "samathasavaka" <samathasavaka@y...> wrote:
          --- , imho, the Buddha is not
          > preaching that there's no soul at all. It'd be strange if that
          were
          > the case, why do i think this? Because then, what would realize
          > illumination? what is reborn? what suffers? what is liberated from
          > suffering?
          >
          >
          >
          > +++++++++++++++++++++++=
          Dear Friend,
          Just in case Robert Eddison is busy this quotation from The
          Visuddhimagga might help:
          567 VRI Su~n~natekavidhaadiihiiti-ettha su~n~nato taava paramatthena
          hi sabbaaneva saccaani vedakakaarakanibbutagamakaabhaavato
          su~n~naaniiti veditabbaani. Teneta.m vuccati–
          "Dukkhameva hi, na koci dukkhito;
          kaarako na, kiriyaava vijjati;
          atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa;
          maggamatthi, gamako na vijjatii"ti.
          (thanks to Andy Shaws brilliant Pali trans 2.o)

          Translation from nanamoli xvi 90
          ...As to void, single fold and so on: firstly, as to void: in the
          ultimate sense all the truths should be understood as void because
          of the absence of any experiencer, any doer, anyone who is
          extinguished and any goer. hence this is said:

          For there is suffering, but none who suffers;
          Doing exists although there is no doer;
          Extinction is but no extinguished person;
          Although there is a path there is no goer'""

          BTw Robert, amazing reply to the previous letter.
          best wishes
          robert
        • ypong001
          Dear Samatha and friends, ... with ... death ... The definition DOES come from the authoritative Britannica. I put it as the first quote merely to illustrate
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Samatha and friends,

            --- In Pali@y..., "samathasavaka" <samathasavaka@y...> wrote:
            > Hello Yong Peng, i'd like to note that this definition you give us
            > along with the comentary is a bit strange, because not only in
            > Hinduism the idea of 'something' (to not call it Soul for those
            with
            > aversion to the word) does in fact goes to a new body after the
            death
            > of the current one. We have in the Suttas hundreds of tales were
            > Gotama Buddha recalls his past lives for example.

            The definition DOES come from the authoritative Britannica. I put it
            as the first quote merely to illustrate that different religions take
            a different stand to soul theory. In fact, we can say that it is for
            the convenience of academic study that we generalise them as 'soul's.
            But from an individualistic perspective, the Egyptian dual soul is
            different from the Christian better refined soul. The concept of a
            soul is nonetheless, on a theological basis, to support and reinforce
            concepts such as creation and soforth.

            > I see that the main difference between Vedic religion and the one
            > Gotama Buddha preached was essentially with regards to the way to
            > attain the fruit the religion preached, which include rituals,
            prayer
            > and other methods. Gotama's Buddha revolution, in my view, was to
            > properly understand what was being said in the Vedas and
            Upanishads,
            > thereby ending with the confusion that prevailed regarding wether
            or
            > not the religion was effective.

            Do you mean that Buddhism and Brahmanism/Hinduism share the same
            religious goal? From both a theological and buddhist viewpoint, you
            are wrong. From a theological viewpoint, Hinduism is basically a
            polytheism while Buddhism is atheism. They are both fundamentally
            different in their views and goals. The claim you have made is what
            had actually caused Buddhism to disappear in India. So beware. From a
            buddhist viewpoint, the Buddha was no revolutionary, he is a
            discoverer and share with the Indian people of his time his
            discoveries. He had to communicate with them in the proper context,
            he had to speak in their language. Many of the suttas have to be read
            in this light. Furthermore, some of the older English translations
            can be quite "crude" in the use of words, but they do reveal the
            audience characteristic the Buddha was addressing.

            I would not say that Buddha hated or disliked any Brahmanic theories.
            That's not the way Buddhism works, definitely not "passionistic".
            Rather, he was revealing the fact that such theories are unnecessary
            and even obstructive to understand the true nature of life and
            attaining enlightenment. You are not wrong to say that the Buddha did
            point out faults of the Vedic belief. If you read the Tipitaka, there
            are many areas where the Buddha dismisses concepts of different
            belief systems, not just Vedic but Sramanic too. These are generally
            classified as 'wrong views'. And I see there is no reason why the
            Buddha, as a compassionate person on one hand and a philosopher on
            another, would not contrast his religion with others.

            > I have never come across a passage in the Suttas/Sutras that denies
            > the existence of a soul, like i said in another post, i've only
            seen
            > Buddha denying the khandas to be the soul, or denying dharmas
            > (phenomena, things) to be the soul.

            Neither have I, I guessed the main contents of the Tipitaka is not to
            promote a soul or deny a soul, but on the four noble truths and noble
            eightfold path. Fortunately, the authors of the Tipitaka did not get
            the priority wrong. :-) However, I am pretty sure that there are many
            passages where the Buddha directly or indirectly dismiss the soul
            theory. I hope that other members on list can give us some relevant
            quotations.

            > I bring this up in regards the Animistic comments, for if the
            khandas
            > are animated (live) due to their own grace, why are they said to be
            > empty and without substance?

            Animism has nothing to do with animation. The word animistic means
            the belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit
            natural objects and phenomena. For example, the belief of tree
            spirits and so forth. It is a category consisting of many primitive
            religions.

            > Salvation in Buddhism, imho, is reaching the other shore, where we
            > realize freedom from dukkha. What realizes this freedom though?

            Well, certainly not a soul. Btw, just a short question. What is
            needed to gain enlightenment? You may like to meditate on this. :-)

            Yours sincerely,

            Yong Peng.
          • Lee Dillion
            ... Hi SS: Courtesy of Tang Huyen over on usenet, responding to the claim that the ... The Buddha says: There are four stations for consciousness. What are
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              samathasavaka wrote:

              > I have never come across a passage in the Suttas/Sutras that denies
              > the existence of a soul, like i said in another post, i've only seen
              > Buddha denying the khandas to be the soul, or denying dharmas
              > (phenomena, things) to be the soul.

              Hi SS:

              Courtesy of Tang Huyen over on usenet, responding to the claim that the
              soul can be found beyond the aggregates:

              -------

              "The Buddha says: "There are four stations for consciousness. What are
              the four? Approaching form, consciousness, standing, stands,
              takes-as-its-object form, with form as platform, delights in it, waters
              it and grows it; approaching feeling, consciousness, standing, stands,
              takes-as-its-object feeling, with feeling as platform, with notion,
              compositions as platform, delights in them, waters them, and grows them.
              Monks! In them consciousness comes, goes, dies, gets born and grows. If
              one was to declare consciousness' coming, going, dying, getting born,
              and growing apart from them, that would only be speech (Skt.
              vag-vastu-matram), and if asked one would be unable to answer, it would
              increase one's stupidity (Skt. sammoham apadyeta), for it would be
              beyond one's sense-field (Skt. avisayatvat). When passion with regard to
              the modality of form is done away with, the contact occasioned by mind
              getting entangled with form is cut, and when the contact occasioned by
              mind getting entangled with form is cut, the taking-as-object ends, when
              the taking-as-object ends, consciousness has no place to stand on, and
              will no longer grow. When passion with regard to the modalities of
              feeling, notion, and compositions is done away with, the contact
              occasioned by mind getting entangled with them is cut, and when the
              contact occasioned by mind getting entangled with them is cut, the
              taking-as-object ends, when the taking-as-object ends, consciousness has
              no place to stand on, and, unestablished (apatitthita), will no longer
              grow. As it no longer grows, it no longer composes (na abhisankharoti),
              when it no longer composes, it is stable (thita), when it is stable, it
              knows that it has enough (thitatta santusito), when it knows that it has
              enough, it is liberated (santusitatta [vimutto]), when it is liberated,
              with regard to the world it has nothing to grasp ([vimuttam] na kiñci
              loke upadiyati, Skt. na kiñcil loka upadatte), not grasping he is
              unperturbed, unperturbed, internally he fully blows out (aparitassam
              paccattaññeva parinibbayati, Skt. aparitasya atmaiva parinirvati). Birth
              is ended, the chaste life has been lived, what has to be done is done,
              one knows for oneself that there is no further becoming. I say that that
              consciousness will not go east, west, south, north, the zenith or nadir,
              the intermediaries, or any other direction (nanyatra), in the present
              things it is shadowless (nischaya), blown-out (parinirvvati or
              parinirvrta), cooled, become pure (brahmi-bhuta)." SA, 39, 9a, 64, 17a,
              SN, III, 54-55 (22, 54), 58 (22, 55), Vyakhya, 271-272, 668.

              The important part, which survives in the Chinese _Conjoined Agama_
              (Samyukta-Agama) and in Sanskrit fragments, says very clearly that
              anything outside of the six sense-spheres (or the five aggregates) is
              "only a thing of speech (Skt. vag-vastu-matram)", or more completely:

              "If one was to declare consciousness' coming, going, dying, getting
              born, and growing apart from them [the four stations for consciousness,
              which are the four aggregates outside of consciousness], that would only
              be speech (Skt. vag-vastu-matram), and if asked one would be unable to
              answer, it would increase one's stupidity (Skt. sammoham apadyeta), for
              it would be beyond one's sense-field (Skt. avisayatvat)."

              Again, if you do not take that to be explicit enough about the "all",
              the Buddha makes the famous declaration:

              "All (sarva), that is the twelve places (dvadasayatanani), from the eye
              and forms to the mind and objects-of-mind, that is how the Tathagata
              makes known the all (sarvam ca prajñapayati) and the concept of the all
              (sarva-prajñaptim ceti). If any recluse and brahman was to declare:
              'this is not the all, I shall revoke it and declare another all,' that
              would only be speech (vag-vastu-matram), and if asked one would be
              unable to answer, it would increase one's stupidity (sammoham apadyeta),
              for it would be beyond his sense-field (a-visayatvat)." SA, 319, 91a,
              Zitate, 507, SN, IV, 15 (35, 23), Maha-vibhasa, T, 27, 1545, 378b-c."

              -------

              So you can continue to claim all over the internet that the soul is
              beyond the aggregates, but, as noted by the Buddha, such a claim "would
              only be speech (vag-vastu-matram), and if asked one would be unable to
              answer, it would increase one's stupidity (sammoham apadyeta)." The
              commentary to this sutta reads "Tassa vacavatthur ev assa. Spk: It would
              be just mere utterance. But if one passes over the twelve sense bases,
              one cannot point out any real phenomenon."

              ----
              Lee Dillion
            • Bruce Burrill
              An excellent book to study concerning these issues would be Steven Collins SELFLESS PERSONS. It is a very careful, considered look at the Pali text.
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                An excellent book to study concerning these issues would be Steven Collins'
                SELFLESS PERSONS. It is a very careful, considered look at the Pali text.
              • robertkirkpatrick.rm
                Dear Samatha Savaka, Thanks for your reply. I gave no personal interpretation: the quote came from Buddhaghosa and is simply a succint summary of reality
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Samatha Savaka,
                  Thanks for your reply. I gave no personal interpretation: the quote
                  came from Buddhaghosa and is simply a succint summary of reality
                  according to the Theravada. As it happens, I believe it is the
                  correct view.
                  I don't know the 'Awakening of Faith Shastra', but your comments
                  about an 'unchanging essense... [that] we have never been apart
                  from' is contrary to the texts of the Theravada.
                  best wishes
                  robert
                  >
                  > Robert, thanks for your reply, but, the interpretation which you
                  > seem to imply through the quote you posted seems a bit odd, why?
                  > first, it proposes that effects manifest without a cause. Second,
                  it
                  > assumes that the passage means there's no Essence, when it can
                  also
                  > be interpreted in this way: That since all there has always been
                  is
                  > an unchanging, deathless essence, and since we have never been
                  apart
                  > from it, then, there's no going or comming. An interpretation
                  which
                  > is possible due to the comentaries and other Suttas/Sutras which
                  > tells us this, like the Awakening of Faith Shastra.
                  >
                  > Good Day :)
                  >
                  > Samatha Savaka. In Pali@y..., "samathasavaka" <samathasavaka@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > --- In Pali@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" <robertkirkpatrick@r...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Dear Samatha Savaka (and Robert Eddison),-- In
                  > > Pali@y..., "samathasavaka" <samathasavaka@y...> wrote:
                  > > --- , imho, the Buddha is not
                  > > > preaching that there's no soul at all. It'd be strange if that
                  > > were
                  > > > the case, why do i think this? Because then, what would
                  realize
                  > > > illumination? what is reborn? what suffers? what is liberated
                  > from
                  > > > suffering?
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++=
                  > > Dear Friend,
                  > > Just in case Robert Eddison is busy this quotation from The
                  > > Visuddhimagga might help:
                  > > 567 VRI Su~n~natekavidhaadiihiiti-ettha su~n~nato taava
                  > paramatthena
                  > > hi sabbaaneva saccaani vedakakaarakanibbutagamakaabhaavato
                  > > su~n~naaniiti veditabbaani. Teneta.m vuccati–
                  > > "Dukkhameva hi, na koci dukkhito;
                  > > kaarako na, kiriyaava vijjati;
                  > > atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa;
                  > > maggamatthi, gamako na vijjatii"ti.
                  > > (thanks to Andy Shaws brilliant Pali trans 2.o)
                  > >
                  > > Translation from nanamoli xvi 90
                  > > ...As to void, single fold and so on: firstly, as to void: in
                  the
                  > > ultimate sense all the truths should be understood as void
                  because
                  > > of the absence of any experiencer, any doer, anyone who is
                  > > extinguished and any goer. hence this is said:
                  > >
                  > > For there is suffering, but none who suffers;
                  > > Doing exists although there is no doer;
                  > > Extinction is but no extinguished person;
                  > > Although there is a path there is no goer'""
                  > >
                  > > BTw Robert, amazing reply to the previous letter.
                  > > best wishes
                  > > robert
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.