<\/p>\n
This isn’t quite <\/p>\n The theme of the We do not make This distinction In the The Hindu The toleration ideal (if Pluralism is The Hindu This is not to With this Isa Gucciardi<\/a> gave a very clear and delightfully good humored presentation on why Buddhism was a good Gucciardi did What she said Interestingly, In other words, I thought this The contrast
\nthe write-up I anticipated doing because I left my notes somewhere or
\nother. <\/span>A drag, but maybe a
\nblessing in disguise. <\/span>Now I have
\nto search my memory about what impressed me most. <\/span>And a great deal impressed me. <\/span>I’ll pick one issue here, and I hope my memory of two presentations is accurate.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n2011 Pantheacon was “Walking The Talk.” Pagan spirituality has one huge
\ndifference from its monotheistic oppressors. <\/span>It also distinguished us from Buddhism, which so far as I
\nknow has no record of oppressing other traditions, but has a long record of
\nseeking converts from within them.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmonopolistic spiritual claims, ever.
\n<\/span>At Pantheacon Pagans of every sort, Wiccans of all sorts and Druids and
\nHeathens and African Diasporics and Reconstructionists of every sort meet in
\nharmony. To my knowledge no one has ever argued their path is the best for
\nanyone but themselves. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nbetween Pagans and other traditions was striking when I visited two panels, one
\nwhere NeoPagans and Hindus discussed the advantages of uniting against
\nmonotheist aggression and the other by a woman Buddhist called, I believe, “The
\nFuture of Buddhism in the West.”
\n<\/span>By many criteria Hindus are Pagans, but with differences from those traditions
\nnot rooted in the Indian subcontinent. <\/p>\n
\nNeoPagan\/Hindu panel Hindus Mihir Meghani<\/a> and Easan Katir and NeoPagans Thorn
\nCoyle and Selena Fox explored the many important points of spiritual
\ncommonality, and what each community might gain by a closer association. <\/span>While members of both groups
\nlikely had criticisms about aspects of the others’ religion, not a word was
\nuttered. <\/span>Instead points of
\nagreement and mutual respect were emphasized. <\/span><\/p>\n
\npanelists advocated replacing the term religious “toleration” with religious
\n“pluralism.” <\/span>I had come to the
\nsame conclusion myself, no longer speak as an advocate of toleration as a good
\nin itself, and was very happy to hear the same insight affirmed from a Hindu
\nperspective.<\/p>\n
\nthat word even fits) has Christian roots, but they are not
\nBiblical. <\/span>Unfortunately. <\/span>After different kinds of Christians
\ntired of their mutual slaughter during the Thirty Years War, they began
\nexploring toleration as a political rather than a spiritual principle. <\/span>Since no one was strong enough to kill
\neveryone on the other side, Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans decided it was
\nbetter to live together peacefully.
\n<\/span>Other kinds of Christians, such as Quakers, and Anabaptists were not
\ntolerated. They were weak. <\/span>For all too many
\nChristians, toleration is grudging, and when they think they have the power,
\nthey seek to deny it, as we see today. <\/span>Such toleration is grudging, mean-spirited, and spiritually
\narrogant: I am better, but I will tolerate you.<\/p>\n
\nquite different. <\/span>The divine speaks
\nto us in many ways and no single path can do it justice. <\/span>We have our way, but others have
\ntheirs. <\/span>We should honor the
\ndiversity of ways which, taken as a whole, do more justice to the human
\nrelationship to the Sacred than any single way. <\/span>The sacredness of Diwali<\/a> is different from the sacredness of Yule.
\n<\/span>Both are good ways of honoring the Sacred at around the same time of
\nyear. Neither can be reduced to the other. And the world is richer when both
\nare celebrated by those to whom their traditions speak most powerfully.<\/p>\n
\npanelists emphasized that endorsing religious pluralism should be a criterion
\nfor genuine spirituality. <\/span>I
\nagree. <\/span>We should adamantly reject
\ntoleration as anything more than the best we can get from potentially violent
\npeople. Any religious path making monopolistic claims, or merely “tolerating”
\nothers is to that degree not a spiritual path, but an exercise in spiritual
\nbigotry, arrogance and ignorance.
\n<\/span>It shrinks the Sacred into the crabbed confines of its followers’ minds
\nand hearts. <\/span>And we know that when
\nreligious people become obsessed with the errors they see in others’ religions,
\ntheir hearts grow very cold, their minds very closed, and their arrogance and
\npride stinks to the heavens.<\/p>\n
\nsay that religions such as Christianity and Islam are spiritually lacking in value.
\nTo my mind that is clearly not true, and very wise spiritual teachings exist
\nand spiritual lives lived within their frameworks. <\/span>But their spiritual value rests in their developing
\nspiritual wisdom within their own communities, and not in attacking others. <\/span>If they must seek converts, setting a
\ngood example is the best way to do so.<\/p>\n
\nobservation I turn to the Buddhism workshop.<\/p>\n
\nreligion for anyone. <\/span>It was not
\nreally on “The Future of Buddhism in the West,” as it had been billed. A<\/span> more accurate title would have
\nbeen “Why Buddhism is good for you.”<\/p>\n
\nnot criticize Pagans of any stripe, but made it clear she believed anyone would be
\nbetter off if they were Buddhists.
\n<\/span>When I asked her a question about Buddhism and women, and referred to writings by Rita Gross<\/a>, <\/span> <\/span>a Buddhist feminist, who favorably described some words by
\nStarhawk, she admitted she knew nothing about these issues. <\/span>She then went on to tell about some important
\ncases where Buddhism honored women and the feminine. <\/p>\n
\nwas true, but incomplete.
\n<\/span>Missing was any discussion of the far longer and more dominant
\ndenigration of women by institutionalized Buddhism. <\/span>She did not mention that senior nuns are usually (always?) required to bow to
\nbeginning monks, or that many Buddhist teachers argue one can attain liberation
\nonly in a male body. <\/span>If a woman is
\na good Buddhist she will be reborn as a man.<\/p>\n
\nRita Gross has argued that the West has had an enormous impact on Buddhism
\nbecause it changed the practical role of women in the Sangha (Buddhist
\ncommunity). Over 50% of dharma teachers in the US are women in sharp contrast to Asia, Buddhist writer <\/span>David Chadwick<\/a> has told me. <\/span>So my question was
\nhardly antagonistic, but sought to address her talk’s title.<\/p>\n
\nwe did not get a presentation on the future of Buddhism in the West, we
\nreceived a cherry picked and one-sided picture of that religion, to make it
\nmore attractive to Pagans to adopt.<\/p>\n
\npresentation was inappropriate at a Pagan conference where many Pagans had made
\nproposals that were rejected. <\/span>I
\nthink Pagans should get preferred billing at Pagan conferences, and if other
\nreligions want to be represented there, they should be on panels with<\/i> Pagans.
\n<\/span>This is particularly true if the presentation is a sales pitch. <\/span>(Gucciardi gave a second presentation
\non “Bringing the Wisdom of the Earth to the Future” which I was told was very
\ngood, and not a sales pitch. I wish I had heard it as she had made an interesting insight in her talk, describing the Earth as a Bodhisattva) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nbetween the Buddhist presentation and the Pagan-Hindu panel, as well as a later
\nHindu presentation “Are Hindus Pagans and are Pagans Hindus?” was striking. The
\none ignored Paganism and advocated Buddhism, the other was a joint discussion,
\nand the Hindu-only panel that followed also discussed similarities and other
\nissues between our two communities.
\n<\/span>They engaged Paganism whereas Gucciardi did not. <\/span>She ignored it.<\/p>\n