[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Mike Austin]

In message <000601c55363$9f18d680$7dee6480 at chass>, Gad Horowitz 
<horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca> writes

>I can't remember where I read that there is no enlightened person--only
>enlightened actions.

I need a plumber for my central heating. Do I look up 'plumbing actions' 
in the Yellow Pages?

If one posits actions, one may consistently posit a doer of actions. The 
purpose of such a statement must really be seen in context. For example, 
a friend of mine often says that we are just processes, not entities. It 
may be something he read. We are no more processes than entities.  It is 
the description of us as processes  that dispels the myth of substantial 
self. The purpose is not to create another myth in its place.


>Could this be part of the way to a saner Buddhism?

I doubt if lopsided thinking paves the way to sanity or Buddhism.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin