Dear friends in the Dhamma,
Regarding the 'anattaa' whether sb is understood or not, we don't need
to be care about that. No one can understand the concept of 'anatta'
unless he/she becomes an ariyan. Because, what is said 'anattaa' is
the 'Nibbaana' which is not be understood mere by intellectual thinking
and phiosophical investigations, as Mrs David attempted to do in one of
her works.
As one of our dhamma friend has pointed out that 'anattaa' is absolutely
unique to the Buddhadhamma. Based on individual understanding some
other misinterprets the Buddha's teachings. It is right to say that
whatever way or however way the concept of 'anattaa' is inerpreted, it
is totally unique to the Buddha's teachings as before him no one else
had proclaimed so. And besides Buddhadhamma that concept does not
exist in any other traditions, or religiuos systems.
your's in the dhamma,
dipankaro

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <pali.smith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sumano, Chanida and Ruwan,
>
> let me remind everyone that such discussion can easily go
> out-of-topic. The concept of 'anatta' is very profound and is unique
> to Buddhadhamma. Not everyone can fully comprehend it, especially if
a
> person has previously acquired some presuppositions. However, it is
> fine (in fact, more than fine) for someone not to fully understand
> 'anatta'. It takes time, and is not a pure matter of faith.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, paulocuana wrote:
>
> Mrs. Rys-Davids rejection of "anatta" is usually attributed to the
> loss of her young child.
> Apparently, she couldn't accept that there was no "soul" or something
> that continued on.
>
> > I am just wondering whether she had done any writing describing
why
> > she came to that conclusion.
>