[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Franz Metcalf]

Dear Richard,

I've said things similar to this, before, but they do bear repeating, I think. You wrote,

> For most of my life I, like you [Dan], have studied the literature in which these schools criticized each other and scorned one another, but I am coming more and more to regard the disputes as nothing more than logomachy. Focusing on the trivial differences seems like a major distraction from the important message that all the schools are teaching in common.

This may be true from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. But it is hardly the case for religion as practiced. Dan--if I may be allowed to speak for one who has no need of it--was pointing to the danger of failing to engage violent tendencies of religions as practiced. There, differences are far from "trivial."

You go on to say,

> Religion on the ground has never interested me very much. It's too much like the rest of life—a study of pointless and counterproductive conflicts. It makes me sad.

I hear you, and this explains the earlier quote. I say don't trouble yourself with engaging such religion, if you don't plan to do anything about it. That would just trap you in unskillful mindsets. You can leave that to me and my ilk.

Cheers,

Franz