Venerable Bhikkhu Kumaara, dear Yong Peng, Dmytro and friends,

Op 24-aug-2007, om 6:18 heeft Kumaara Bhikkhu het volgende geschreven:

> Ong Yong Peng wrote thus at 05:44 PM 23-08-07:
> >nissattanijjiivata = selfless/soulless.

-------
This term we can find in the Commentary. It has the same meaning as
anattaa. See The Atthasaalinii 38 about the meaning of dhamma, which
I quoted in my article.
First I would like to go into the term jiiva. Dmytro wrote: <Jiiva'
here is an Indian term that doesn't have an exact English counterpart.
'Life-principle' or 'soul' are far off the mark.>

I checked PED for this with the references. In the milinda panhaa 86:
"There is no such thing as a soul in beings.". Jiivo is used here.
Samyutta Nikaaya, IV, 391, Avyaakata, Moggallana: 'Ki.m nu kho bho
moggallannan, ta.m jiiva.m ta.m sariiranti'. Ven. Bodhi translates
jiiva.m here as soul.
--------

>
> Bhikkhu K: 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?

--------
N: See the above reference to Milinda panhaa: there is no soul in
beings. The five khandhas are anattaa as we read in the suttas. The
term nissattanijjiivata does not seem to me a 'quick fix'. It gives
an extra emphasis on the fact that the five khandhas we are inclined
to take for self are not a living being. Feeling for instance is only
a cetasika that arises and falls away immediately. It cannot be my
feeling, it has no owner and it arises because of the appropriate
conditions.
A living being is a concept, not a paramattha dhamma. What we take
for a living being or person are citta, cetasika and rupa, which are
classified as five khandhas. They arise and fall away.
When we speak of lively or lifeless we are in the world of concepts
or conventional realities. This is not wrong, but in order to
understand the truth of anatta we should know the difference between
concepts and realities. Otherwise we may wonder whether mental
phenomena are like dead matter without any life. That is not the
meaning of nissattanijjiivata as used in the contexts mentioned above.
Milinda Panhaa 413: which uses the terms of the Visuddhimagga 595:
naamaruupa.m su~n~na.m nijjiiva.m niriihaka.m: mental phenomena and
physical phenomena are empty, soulless and without impulse.
Thus, naama, the naamakkhandhas, are soulless and this means:
although naama is mental, it experiences an object, it is not a soul,
a person. It does not last.

Nina.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]