[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard writes:
>Focusing on the trivial differences seems like a major distraction from the 
>important message that all the schools are teaching in common. If one 
>approached the practice of Buddhism with an attitude that Buddhism is 
>different from and superior to, say Yoga or Vedˆgnta, then one's Buddhist 
>practice would be compromised, perhaps even undermined. One would not be 
>heeding the Buddha's observation in Sutta Nipˆgta that the wise call the 
>attitude, that one's own view is the highest and all else is a waste, a 
>fetter. The point seems to be that one cannot be liberated if one is still 
>going around claiming one's own perspective to be superior to that of 
>others.
--

You left out the second part, which is that once ego is out of the way, 
astute analysis of what is the case, including what is right and wrong about 
someone's views (Buddha believed some views were "pernicious"), and then 
correcting those views in others, is required. The events that were being 
discussed are hardly "trivial," though -- failing to refute them, you've 
chosen to trivialize them. Seems you have adopted a "superior" attitude, one 
that is "different from and superior to" one that takes history and facts 
seriously. Is the difference trivial?

By ignoring the second part, one would be consigned to the absurd hell of 
accepting any nonsense, no matter how pernicious and dangerous, from any 
source, as if it were sound. That's not Buddhism.

So you've successfully changed the subject from the actual history and 
facts.

Dan