Ong Yong Peng wrote thus at 08:30 PM 24-08-07:

>Dear Kumaara Bhikkhu,
>
>bhante, I always thought that you, as a Theravada Buddhist monk,
>should be more Theravadin than any of us.

Actually, I was very Theravadin. You could even say an obsessively loyal one. :-) I even found it my obligation to defend the validity of Jataka tales! That has changed quite a deal though.

Anyway, I rather just be a Buddhist monk, preferably as true as possible to the Buddha's instructions.

>As for your question on the use of 'soul', I like to know too. In
>Chinese, the word for 'soul' is 'hun' (Pinyin), and it is hardly used
>in Chinese Buddhist literature.

Since I rarely refer to them, I'll have to take your word for it. :-)

>My view is anatta refers to the sentient/non-material dimension(s), as
>long as an entity exists within the samsaric confines, that very
>existence is based on the mechanics of paticca samuppada.

Uh huh. And their (well, so to speak, "their") khandhas—material or otherwise—are still anicca, dukkha, anatta.

What I'm trying to suggest is that we should be careful about overstretching what the Buddha meant by anatta, whether or not we derive those "overstretched ideas" from the later texts (such as MilindaPañha) or not. Based on my reading and understanding of the suttas, the enlightened ones don't seem to agree with saying if there's a soul or not. As such, tagging the idea of having no soul to anatta may not be in line with the Dhamma preached by the Buddha.

I must admit though that I've not been very through with the suttas yet. So, I may be wrong and am very willing to be corrected.

kb