Re: Soul {Re: [Pali] Re: Meaning of Dhamma}

Hello,

> 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 would propose 'impersonal'. That would make sense. The dhammas don't
belong to 'satta' or 'jiiva', they are not 'satta' or 'jiiva', 'satta'
or 'jiiva' is not these dhammas.

'Jiiva' here is an Indian term that doesn't have an exact English counterpart.
'Life-principle' or 'soul' are far off the mark.

There's a topic on the subject of anatta:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=45114

Metta, Dmytro