Nina,

You mentioned "without a soul or self". I suppose you are referring to "anatta".

But is 'atta' ever used in the suttas to mean "soul"?
E.g. attakaama. 'Love of soul'?
More meaningful to say 'love of self' or 'self-love', isn't it?

It seems better to reserve 'soul' (as in spirit of a being) for 'jiiva'.
E.g.: añña.m jiiva.m... añña.m sariira.m (one is the soul... the other is the body) D I.157

But of course, we Buddhist still consider the soul to be just a stream of consciousness (viññaanasota), that is still anicca, dukkha, anatta.

kb

Nina van Gorkom wrote thus at 04:49 PM 22-08-07:

>Dear Mike S,
>Thank you for your observations. I am glad you find the list useful.
>It is interesting to see many different points of view. It is
>motivated not by a person but by different cittas that are
>conditioned by accumulated inclinations, surroundings, people one
>associates with etc. Whatever appears is just dhamma, it is without a
>soul or self. I find it helpful to keep this in mind.
>Nina.