Dear Tenphel



On a bit more of a practical note:



In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampadaa
Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.



Hindu/Brahmin philosophy tries to merge [or obliterate] these, thinking that
the distinction is the cause of suffering, but that was not accepted or
taught by the Buddha. The ending of the distinction occurs in the first
formless state of meditation [aruupa-jhaana] and the Buddha made very clear
that the formless states were not necessary for enlightenment.



Kind Regards







<http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect =
Intelligence




Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
Buddhist Monk

Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
Wang Noi
Ayuthaya
Thailand


<http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa


mobile:

+66850941669





<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&
invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info

<http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want
a signature like this?



--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com> , Gabriel Jaeger
<lotsawanet@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Dhamma Friends,
>
> I was wondering if in the pali texts we find also nairatmya as a

synonimous

> of annatta.
> Interesting is that as far as I know nairatmya would mean the "absence of
> self" or "selflessness".
> I was thinking how this two words were been used in the texts, if would be
> some major difference etc.
>
> I ask that because I have the feeling that the Buddha didn't conclude that
> there was no "self at all"...I think this would be one of the extremes of
> "existence" and "no-existence". He would just negate the conception of

self

> existent at his time, so annatta.
>
> Is that right?
>
> Warm regards,
> tenphel
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear DC,
> > Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
> > the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
> > Nina.
> > Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >
> > > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
> > > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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