Thanks Sumano,

I really appreciate your point.
But here instead of searching for instructions on the meditative experiences
I was trying to understand better the word itself "atta" in a way that I
could really translate it into my own language. We could say again: Try to
see by yourself through practice and then you would be able to translate it
the best way. Even I would think that it is possible that i can see or not,
or if I see something could be that I am seeing something else then what I
am looking for. And so, would misinterpret the meaning and translated it
wrongly.

Thanks again! Your message remeber me of the real intention of the Buddha's
words!
tenphel

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Paul <paulocuana@...> wrote:

>
>
> Dear tenphel,
>
> I think a lot of what the Buddha taught only makes sense in practice.
> So on a group discussion site like this we are always pointing toward
> experience without the benefit of a shared meditative experience.
>
> So for me, I watch my mind and I can see a "self" but it is a self that I
> create. If I pay attention long enough this "self" that I create will fade
> away. It aries and ceases.
>
> For me, the essence of the Buddha's message is ehipassiko, ie, come see for
> yourself. So I would suggest you sit and watch your citta(mind) and then you
> will know for sure whether or not you have a self. And then it won't matter
> what the texts or anyone else has to say because you will know it like you
> know the taste of honey.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Sumano
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <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]