On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Tenphel,
>
> "nairaatmya" is a Sanskrit not a Pali word. Its reflex in Pali would be
> neratta or neratya or neracca which I have never seen. The earliest recorded
> use of "nairaatmya" is I believe the Lalitavistara sutra, which is about 1st
> century A. D., whereas the Pali writings are much older.
> You are correct that the Buddha distrusted all opposites and his assertion
> of anatta must be viewed in the context of the Aryan Vedanta writings of the
> fifth century B. C. and earlier (e. g. the earliest Upanishads), which
> asserted the existence of a universal Ātman, which the Buddha denied. He
> accepted the existence of a self for practical purposes, according to
> worldly convention, but any assertion of existence or non-existence
> (including the existence of the atta or anatta) contradicts the Middle Way
> which goes beyond all opposites,
>
> Warm regards, Bryan
>
> See, for example, the nine ma~n~nitaani in the Dhaatuvibhaga Sutta (MN III
> 246) for some statements of the Buddha re the concept of the self. For
> conventional use of "I" see, SN I 15, Arahantasuttaṃ.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gabriel Jaeger <lotsawanet@... <lotsawanet%40gmail.com>>
> To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 6:23:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta
>
>
> 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@... nl>
> 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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]