[Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

I want to thank Mike Austin for challenging the list on our tendency to 
talk politics (also economics, sociology, etc.) when we're really 
supposed to be discussing "Buddhism." But I also want to propose that 
for us householders, these things *are* Buddhism (this idea is nothing 
new; Curt, for instance, pretty much just expressed it). Speaking now 
only for myself, the two areas where I do my hardest and most valuable 
practice are the martial and the marital (thank you for bringing that 
up, Dan).

Mike, you quoted the Kathavatthu Sutta,

> It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone 
> forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged 
> in such topics of conversation.

I fear the historical Buddha is not my final authority on anything, but 
here I think he's right. Those having gone forth ought to avoid such 
conversations. It's their job, after all, to avoid such things in word 
and deed, even in thought. But that is not *our* job. *Our* job is to 
get such things *right*, in word, deed, and even thought. Getting it 
right in word and deed is shila, the first element of the training; 
getting it right in thought is a bridge to samadhi and prajna, the 
other two elements. In that sense, there is nothing off-topic on 
buddha-l.

I'm with you, though, Mike, in the following. Responding to Curt--see, 
told you my ideas are nothing new--you wrote "I just don't see the 
strategy behind such debates on this forum." I agree such strategy 
often seems lacking. We must make some effort to frame the 
conversation, especially when it wanders superficially far afield, in 
Buddhist tropes or tie it to the dharma more narrowly defined. That's 
simply skillful means. Otherwise we are coming dangerously close to 
(mere) narcissistic prattle, rather than sowing seeds of mental change. 
Dan is correct that we *are* attempting the latter, right?

Franz