see
fabians.org.uk

really interesting quotes from Suzanne about what Trungpa said about Shambhala………anybody have more quotes out there………..this would expand the discussion…………plus that quote from James about what the Regent said is valuable too………..still waiting to hear what satdharma thinks about the new direction that SI has taken………..more discussion please…………..plus perhaps more people who were involved with the actual beginnings of Shambhala in the states

best

Rita Ashworth

Two things come to mind:

1. Buddhism doesn’t ‘own’ enlightenment or sanity or wakefulness. No tradition owns enlightenment. And if a tradition tries to own enlightenment, that carries the danger of arrogance and imperialism, which would not be enlightened. The times we are living through do not favor that approach – that’s over. Cutting edge science is finding evidence of consciousness throughout the universe. (Google New Cosmology) If we live in a conscious universe, and are just beginning to comprehend what that means, we still have a lot to learn.

2. The ‘enlightened society’ in the mythical Shambhala was based on the conversation, exchange and collaboration of many sacred traditions (or traditions of sacredness) that came together on the Silk Route. There was trade in ideas and in goods and cultural practices. True, Buddhism was prominent, but it was open to other sacred traditions.

As Trungpa Rinpoche told me, “We need more Shambhalians. They don’t have to become Buddhists.” I believe his vision of Shambhala was expansive and appealed to the fundamental spiritual potential in all human beings, which is universal, not confined to Buddhism. I also think that Shambhala was intended to mend and transcend divisions, not create them by making Shambhala the exclusive property of Buddhism. Shambhala was his answer to or cure for the insanity of the world in this Dark Age.

Isn’t there evidence that Shambhala, the myth of Shambhala predates Buddhism? I thought it grew out of Bön? or maybe even something else. One sangha member used to post essays about his research into its origins and claimed to have found roots in ancient Persia as well. Or if we refer to Fabrice Midal’s interview on Chronicles, he claims to have found what he consider Shambhala principles existing in a number of different cultures throughout the ages. We are not alone…

And isn’t that actually the point?

The enlightened aspects of society have been recognized and understood in various cultures and traditions in many ways. If enlightened society is understood within Shambhala International as an exclusively Buddhist vajrayana manifestation, what does that say about all other religions, all other expressions of enlightened mind, all the wisdom and inspiration that does not have a trail of documentation leading to our Buddhist heritage? What about nurturing and expanding upon innate wisdom in the existing culture we find ourselves in, rather than usurping local culture with Tibetan manifestations? Isn’t that one of the hallmarks of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings and wisdom?

If that’s how Shambhala society is to be formed, with a central core vajrayana government, then we aren’t really talking about ‘society’ as such, but rather a Buddhist school.

Shambhala = vajrayana? Well perhaps, but vajrayana is a description of a very specific and esoteric practice, the goal of which is… what exactly? Besides the ambiguousness of that – many practices, many goals, many skillful means, and different ways the ‘view’ is understood – there are vajrayana like practices in other traditions as well, a couple I know of without extensive research. Are we talking about a state sponsored religion?

As the Vajra Regent often asserted, the Shambhala teachings are seen by some as a way to lure people into Buddhism… or not if they want to stay at more mundane levels? Where’s that at? Again the stance of a school of Buddhism, with higher and more esoteric practices one can aspire to, rather than that of a society whose countless and multifaceted aspirations can never be narrowed down in that way.

I doubt that approach jibes with Trungpa Rinpoche’s vision, I certainly never heard him say anything like that. About the Tantric mandala of a teacher, sure OK; about society, tradition, culture as a whole? not to my recollection.

As some people have brought up, he was clearly supportive of other religions, when they were paths that helped attain the one point at which all dharmas agree at. Thomas Merton, Suzuki Roshi, Little Joe (?) among people who he saw as awake but who did not arrive there via the Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist path, (or now the Shambhala vajrayana Buddhist path?). As far as I’m concerned, such people had ought to be accepted as full fledged members of an enlightened society, even if they would not be considered direct students of a specific teacher, or adherents to a particular spiritual discipline, no? One would have to have some extensive evidence to convince me Trungpa Rinpoche would not agree.

And I’m not even going to discuss all the little people who are not adherents to the state sponsored spiritual path. Please refer to Bhutan to see what that would mean. (Google “Bhutan” and “ethnic cleansing”.)

“Vajrayana gone political”? Far be it from me to disagree with Trungpa Rinpoche, but that needs a lot of unpacking. The main problem with such an apparently simple statement is that the distinction between a Buddhist individual or group of individuals getting involved in politics, as contrasted with an attempt to make the political system itself a form of Buddhism is not made clear, and along with that the problems of making a political structure religious is completely glossed over.

I saw a program in BBC just a couple of nights ago. On this program, a regular show, they set forth a proposition; in this case it was “Is Islam a threat to the West”, and then a panel, half for half against, discuss it, after which the audience votes whether to accept the proposition or not. It has no political power, just a debate and a way to measure the success of the ideas being debated.

Interestingly, it wasn’t ‘anti-Muslims’ pitted against ‘devoted Muslims’, both sides of the debate came from Muslim perspectives. One side thought there should be no separation between Islam and politics (Against), and the other saying that Islam was a religion, but not a political system (For).

It’s too involved to say what each was saying and supporting, but the (Against) team struggled to make their position sound moderate, and accused the (For) team of denying the representation of Islam in the political structure. The (For) team tried again and again to make clear that the problem was not that individuals who are Muslim were involved in politics, they said we each bring our sensibilities and who we are to the process and that may be a good thing, the problem was the attempt to make the political process itself a manifestation of Islam, to Islami-size the political structure.

That’s something that needs a lot more attention and discussion, before a statement like “Shambhala is vajrayana gone politics” can be properly understood. It can’t be said to support one’s own position or refute others, without some extensive examination about what precisely is meant, what is vajrayana practice’s aim, what is the political structure’s role, what kinds of responsibilities belong to individuals, and which belong to religion, which to politics, etc., free of our own particular agenda.

The bigger picture doesn’t create the details, it’s the other way around.

Re vajrayana Buddhism – the diamond like indestructible vehicle……..diamond-like could refer to a lot of religious experiences that people have had without Buddhist concepts/history……..thinking of Islam in this context……..which is also a religion that has a political basis re the concept of the Ummah – or pan-Arabism.

aka politics Trungpa said divergent things about democracy at times for example he said the Boulder City Council worked quite well but the main body politic in Washington was chaotic…………(there is a chapter on this in the Great Eastern Sun) ……….I am hoping someone can interview Karl Springer soon about how the Vidyadhara saw the exercise of politics in the world………often thought it would be useful if there could be an open debate maybe in Halifax just about new forms of political existence aka the debates held in GB at the Fabian Society…………….people could crunch out the concepts about ruling society in a friendly way.

Know the discussion of politics/religion is one some people would prefer not to have – they prefer the emphasis to be on meditation and ones own relations with the world through this medium………but as you said (Ashoka) if ‘Shambhala is vajrayana gone Politics’ I think it should be explored……would love to hear the full quote from Trungpa re this idea on Shambhala.

Well think this is all

Best

Rita

Well, this can just go on and on indefinitely. I’m glad you said it goes beyond your understanding, at least….as we could all argue ad infinitum about the possibility of having a big view that accommodates whatever is happening here, or whether this is a really tragic situation..

I am happy that at least, so many people are being exposed to some sort of genuine practice and study.. (at least I think that is still happening, with all due respect).. and that if new comers choose, they can still access the Vidyadhara’s teachings. YET the point that He wanted to reach out to the entire WORLD and provide people with a sane and sacred way to view their culture and society is really so very important…as many have said so many times here. A very sad thing to lose that urgent part of His legacy..

I don’t think much will really come of this entire web site articles and discussions other than an opportunity to speak ones mind, to discuss any related issues, share ideas, and to hopefully create alternative situations where people can meet in person to carry on the “old ways.” However, all of these are invaluable.

But I do stand by the fact that at its heart, the Shambhala teachings are a manifestation of Buddhism. There is in fact a quote by the Vidyadhara where he says that Shambhala is “Vajrayana gone politics.” So, while I think that the principles themselves are fully applicable to anyone who wishes to study and manifest the path of warriorship, without needing to get caught up in any path they don’t feel comfortable with, if one wishes to delve further into the teachings (and that opportunity is there!), they will realize that they are inseparable from the philosophy and practice of Vajrayana Buddhism. But again, I was pointing out that the idea that there is such a thing as a label “Vajrayana Buddhist” (or even “shambhalian”) is actually antithetical to both paths. There is just the study of mind and sanity, and the path to compassion and honesty. Practice is the skillful means to access something in us that is unconditioned by labels or concepts.

Anyway, Shambhala Buddhism was not forced into birth by anyone but the Vidyadhara himself. The debate on whether it makes sense to centralize the Vajrayana path of our sangha into one that acknowledges the ground of Werma and the Rigdens as fundamental to our unique identity is a bit above my realm of understanding, but for what it’s worth it makes sense to me.

Religious Feminism and the Future of the Planet: A Buddhist-Christian Conversation by Rita M. Gross and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Paperback – 17 May 2001)

……..think we need to keep up the dialogue with other religions……..aka what Trungpa did in the US………..dont think SI is engaging enough with intellectuals in the west too well……….think we need to step back from the sanskrit/tibetan terms we have learned and see the world from the newcomers eyes again………..think this way because of the economics of the time are making people re-examine their ‘feelings/philosophy’ on life.

………..SI to pre-occupied with making money and staving off financial downturns see the SI website and not engaging with peoples new turn of mind about life in general…………..it requires I think wholesale re-examination of vision of society……….aka the grand philosophies of Marx and maybe even little philosophies of the co-operative movement from my neck of the woods -Manchester, UK………..otherwise Seasons greetings for the New Year -may it be a good one!

best

Rita Ashworth

I was a Shambhala Training student from 1994-1999. I did the programs through Warrior Assembly — most of the levels many times — and did a lot of coordinating.

Shambhala Training was enormously important to me. However, it was accessible only because it was explicitly *not* Buddhism. I had serious reservations about Buddhist doctrine and practice. Those did not apply to Shambhala Training. That meant that the vast and glorious path of meditation was open to me, without having to swallow dogma or identity.

I am dismayed that that opportunity may no longer be available.

This seems relevant particularly in light of a discussion in the most recent issue of _Buddhadharma_ about why people under 40 are less interested in Buddhism. It was said — and I agree — that younger people are more suspicious of -isms and systems generally. Shambhala Training was presented as something you can do, not something you belong to or become. That may make it attractive to many people for whom “becoming a Buddhist” is out of the question.

When I started doing Shambhala levels in 1994, it seemed a dying tradition. I felt that I had to rush through them, because the whole thing might collapse before I finished. It was a relief that instead it strengthened through the 1990s — at least in the SF Bay Area, where I was.

Ironically, I left Shambhala for a Tibetan Buddhist tradition — just the thing I had been resisting for many years. I found one that has many of the same characteristics that made Shambhala Training work for me.

That was before the changes in the Shambhala program began. So I have been watching the changes, and the responses to them, from a distance only, but with concern. Before the launch of this web site, it seemed that the situation was stalemated and hopeless.

I am not able to contribute in any way, unfortunately, but I am gladdened that new possibilities may open up. It may not yet be clear what is the way forward, but it is wonderful that there is a serious and productive discussion about the need for one.

Ki ki so so!

David Chapman

Thank you for so clearly making so many pertinent points in language that resonates – at least with me. I think your use of the words ‘franchise,’ ‘shadow,’ and ‘crutch’ are accurate.

There is just one thorny little issue that your question, “Why continue to cling to this need for an official version?” brings up. That thorny little issue is that SMR claims to be holding and carrying on CTR’s lineage. It was, after all, what many of us expected him to do, based on CTR’s will. The fact that SMR has departed from that mandate, as far as many of CTR’s students are concerned, has become an issue of confusion and contention for many of SMR’s students as well as many CTR students, whether they knew CTR when he was alive or not.

This is a source of ‘cognitive dissonance,’ which is probably the reason that various students of SMR feel the need to defend him until they’re blue in the face. But it isn’t up to SMR’s students to legitimize what is, putting it as mildly as I can at the moment, a pretense. On the other hand, for SMR to admit that he has dropped his father’s ball and is instead carrying somebody else’s ball (his father-in-laws?) would probably be, at the very least, highly embarrassing.

Therefore, I don’t think it is a simple matter of SMR’s students “let[ting] go of this death grip on the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche and stand[ing] on the powerful feet of the Sakyong’s own understanding.” Those students will probably continue to express their cognitive dissonance by interjecting arguments into the dialogue on this site. Like Padmasambhava with his Bhutanese cook, we may just have to use their comments as an opportunity to practice compassion.

Suzanne