[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Gad Horowitz]

what's up?  have not received anything from the list for days...





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard P. Hayes" <rhayes at unm.edu>
To: "BUDDHA_L Buddhist Discussion Forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] liturgical languages


> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 10:20 +0100, Mike Austin wrote:
>
> > By doing plumbing, a plumber may be known as a plumber. Plumbing doesn't
> > exist in isolation.
>
> And now perhaps you can explain what this observation has to do with the
> axiom under discussion, which is "There are no enlightened people, there
> are just enlightened actions.
>
> > All I say is that positing enlightened actions is tantamount to positing
> > enlightened minds.
>
> Not at all. Actions are observable. Minds do not exist except as
> abstractions. Where we probably agree completely is that enlightenment
> also does not exist except as an abstraction. Actions are just actions.
> End of story. But when one approves of an action, one may call it
> enlightened. But the approval is not part of the action at all. It is a
> value judgement superimposed on the action.
>
> > >I can't remember where I read that there is no enlightened person--only
> > >enlightened actions.  Could this be part of the way to a saner
Buddhism?
> >
> > I.e. actions exist, but the doers of action do not exist. That, to my
> > mind, is lopsided.
>
> Thank you for reporting in on what you think. I wish I had some idea why
> you think it, but apparently your rationale is something you'd rather
> keep to yourself.
>
> -- 
> Richard Hayes
> Department of Philosophy
> University of New Mexico
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l