[Buddha-l] (no subject)

[Stefan Detrez]

Yes, working selves. As already mentioned it takes a self to lose it. It
consider it as a 'disposable' self. My observation of anatta as a concept is
not entirely clear. At times anatta is specifically aiming at brahmanist
notion of an endurable self, whereas at other times I get the impression
that the self is understood as the person's personality. Those two concepts
are incompatible. I don't know if the Pali canon, with which I am a bit
familiar, talks about a 'no self' with regard to the Brahmanical
understanding of the self, or a person's personality or both. Or maybe
neither. Selflessness doens't seem to be a prominent feature in Buddhist
psychology based adaptions.

2010/11/26 Catalina <c_castell at yahoo.com>

> Hi Stefan!
>
> I would keep it simple: working self? I don't' think such a thing exist...I
> guess is not my "level" anyway to make such a difference. We have selfs and
> we work from that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Catalina
>
> --- On Fri, 11/26/10, Stefan Detrez <stefan.detrez at gmail.com> wrote:
> "...I know Linehan from her work with BPD. You give references to Buddhist
> based
> therapies and I am very grateful, but I feel that my question with regard
> to
> a 'working self' is still unanswered.."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>



-- 
'In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion
more seriously than the practioners' - Sir Jonathan Miller.