Dear all,

If atta has the same uses as atman in Sanskrit then it
means both soul and self (oneself, myself, yourself
etc...). Then the right translation in this context
might be : "he is himself already ruined"

Yours
With Metta

Jacques

--- rett <rett@...> wrote:

> >Dear Pali friends,
> >
> >In Anguttara Nikaya vol. 1 (PTS), p. 161: "...
> pubb'eve kho pan' assa
> >attaa khato ca hoti upahato ca." (He own soul/self
> is already ruined,
> >completely ruined)
> >
> >The meaning of this sentence is not clear. How can
> the person actually
> >ruin his own soul, if the Buddha teaches there is
> not-self in a person
> >but only a result of action?
>
> It's probably ordinary speech instead of
> philosophically rigorous speech. The Buddha often
> uses words like 'I' 'me' 'self' and so on in their
> conventional senses, despite denying their ultimate
> reality. He also makes this distinction explicit, so
> it's not just something I'm reading back into the
> texts.
>
> best regards,
>
> /Rett
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com