Hello everyone, i'm new to this mailing list, i don't know Pali or
Sanskrit or Chinese, even though i have a few friends who do.
i was inclined to join this e-group because of some inquiries i have
regarding translations from the Nikayas.
Also, english is not native languange, spanish is, so excuse me if my
grammar is not proper.
Here are the questions i'd like to ask:
1. if a Jain can use Attan to mean Soul, how come a Buddhist can only
use Attan as himself, herself, oneself, etc... ?
2. When the nikayas were recorded using Pali, was there an agreement
on the cognitive level of the times which dictated that if you were
Buddhist and said the word Attan that that meant something else
besides Soul and that if you were a Jain Attan was indeed Soul?
3. In spanish, when i say Espiritu (Spiritus, Spirit), the word's
meaning remains the same regardless of wether or not i believe in a
Espiritu. How come in Pali is different?
4. Is there any possibility that such strange characteristics of the
Pali languague regarding the word Attan arise due to sectarian
interpretations and that are not instrinstical problems of the
languague itself?
5. How come many Pali translators, like Bodhi, or Nyanatiloka, use
Anatta as if to describe what the Attan is not? What use would there
be to state what the Attan is not if all the word Attan meant was:
himelf, oneself, herself, etc... within the Buddhist context?
What use would there be to say that the 5 skandhas are Anatta if
there was no Attan at all?