Sorry for jumping into the discussion without having read the earlier posts.
Ong Yong Peng wrote thus at 05:44 PM 23-08-07:
>nissattanijjiivata = selfless/soulless.
Seem to me that it's more literally rendered as
being-less, lifeless
Anyway, as a response to what Nina said as well, I suppose we can rightly say those dhammas are not beings, but to say they are lifeless simply don't make sense. To me, they can be pretty lively, though not mine. :-)
I know anatta is often translated as soulless, but considering how soulful people really are, I'd like to question the validity of explaining it that way. Can anyone provide any sutta references on soullessness?
I wonder if I'm unsuited to this group, since I've become more of a truth-seeker, while this is more of a Theravadin group. Let me stick around a while longer.
kb