At 12:13 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote:

>Bruce, if you understand, as I suspect that you do, that the Buddha used
>the word "atta" only in the conventional sense, why do you need to win
>non-Buddhists over to your point of view?

Bhante,

Thanks for your response.

It is not "non"-Buddhists, it is the Dark Zen people who are presenting
their case on Beliefnet. So, it is worth some effort to counter what they
say on a public forum. No one is obviously buying their position, but very
possibly they can do some damage.

When this list first started, some of the these people (Ken Wheeler, who
calls himself a monk and a doctor of Buddhology and who is part of this
atman-wallah movement) posted here. He was here briefly a very disruptive
force. Not by virtue of what he said, but how he said. While BeliefNet has
reigned in the bad behavior, these characters (who have been moving across
the Web like locusts, recently kicked off the Mahayana leaning E-Sangha)
continue spreading their ideas, which again, with care are worth countering.

It is for that reason that I ask for assistance. I can get through most
prose passages in the suttas, but verse is just bit harder to work with for
me, so I was hoping that someone might walk me through this particular
line.. I would want to make sure that what I presented was as accurate as
possible.

>The harder you try, the more they will cling.

I am not worried about try to convince the atman-wallahs. The issue here is
the other participants. on this forum. So, again would if some be kind
enough to walk me through this passage:

Jaatakapaali 1441: attaa ca me so sara.na.m gati ca, dipo ca le.no ca
paraaya.no ca; asantuleyyo mama so dhanena, paa.nena me saadiso esa kattaa.

Thanks,

Bruce