[Buddha-l] RE: Moment of individuation

[Alex Powell]

Peter and others, 
I am most sincerely sorry! Distilled, my rather muddled point of view is that either one views acceptance (awareness?) as evidence of Being or one don't (whether on a list, on the bus, in the courtroom, UK, Alpha C). The consequence of not, I muddle, is even if one were one day to be confronted with irrefutable evidence of Being (shock/horror), one couldn't accept it validly because there could be no cause/effect relation between Being and acceptance from one's position. By implication I just thought this was a decisive way of talking about universal frameworks via Shantideva (no being accepts suffering), as this is a Buddhist list and Shantideva is seminal. 
Sorry.
The moderator decides.  
Alex Powell, UK, Awareness is compassion.

"Peter D. Junger" <junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
Alex Powell writes:

: Richard, I say there is one "framework" that must be accepted as "absolute", 
: as reality and must be universally accepted either explicitly or implicitly a
: s the RIGHT way; 
: "All Beings (everywhere and forever) want happiness and do not want suffering
: ". 
: (Paul Williams finds this one difficult). (What are Beings? Beings are things
: that accept, have intention. What is happiness? Happiness, following the abo
: ve quote from Shantideva, must concern an accepting, the intentional and thei
: r intent).
: If this is not universally accepted in some way then 1) it follows that what 
: we are/must accept is not addressed, period (though different we must share a
: similarity otherwise no pain etc). 2) the merest possibility of accepting si
: milarity/difference is not addressed, period (so no privileged, external posi
: tion). It would follow that convention is pointless because if it is not poss
: ible to address Being in the RIGHT way in the world, all acceptance whether e
: xplicit or implicit is literally blocked (because of this straightforward equ
: ation of Being with acceptance).
: Thanks for reading Alex Powell, UK, Awareness is compassion.

I don't think that I am capable of following this argument, unless
it merely amounts to an assertion of propositions that I would
probably disagree with were I capable of understanding them.

In any event they seem to be pretty far removed from the subject 
matter of Buddha-L and I suggest that further discussion along
these lines be conducted off-list. 

Ciao & Gassho,
Peter
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu 
_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l




Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050420/84388eb7/attachment.html