Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 1

67 Responses to “Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 1”

1. damchö on March 13th, 2013 2:21 am
   

   Jake – I don’t know how the deeper problems can get reformed from within. That’s been one of the ongoing topics of conversation here from the beginning of course: whether they can, and if so how.

   This reminds me that I think a short book might well be compiled from this site – not for publication, just for convenience as a resource. Divided into a number of main topics, with each topic containing a selection of what has been written here, organized into a roughly continuous flow of ideas. (Not a quick and easy project though!)

   I’ve connected with a lot of what has been said. Like James and others I see a fundamental problem in the theocratic nature of Shambhala, the conflation of the personal student-teacher relationship with the collective. Vajrayana with, well, Shambhala. Likewise, there are the unhealthy power dynamics: James again has written about situations in which people have been harmed because a senior teacher was simply unaccountable to anyone. (Or because those (s)he was accountable to either didn’t see or didn’t care.)

   For me it is at these fundamental levels that repairs would need to be made. Others here have different perspectives – some critical of the Sakyong. I simply don’t have any knowledge of that side of things. But the way power and obedience and scapegoating work: this I have seen, this I know.

   And that’s what it was which reflecting on scowling_owl’s post catalyzed: I remembered just how *scared* I am by certain things. Many years on I still have nightmares of them. The mix is just too volatile: largely authoritarian rule; kingship (hereditary no less); loyalty oaths at several levels; the prominence/supremacy of the Kasung; ambitious goals for membership and reach; a messianic vision; the pulling free of certain constraints of lineage; and above all, again, the quite dangerous conflation of personal samaya relationship with secular-social harmony.

   It’s not that I necessarily believe anyone actively wishes harm of any kind. It’s that harmful things simply develop – always, I would say – in communities which cultivate not true individuals but rather true believers.
2. scowling_owl on March 13th, 2013 2:28 am
   

   I concur with Jake on this. I have my own profound uncertainties about Shambhala but I have never experienced *any* of these things. If anything, as I said, most of my own critical concerns about the organization fall at the opposite end of the spectrum – that the centers I have been affiliated with are sometimes feel too middling or disorganized. I’m sure the author of the piece meant well but his recount had no resonance for me. It felt more like he was universalizing a fundamental mistrust of esoteric traditions.
3. Rita Ashworth on March 13th, 2013 3:18 am
   

   Dear All,

   I dont think SI can reform now that the Sakyong principle has been conflated into a ‘semi-political’ one….you would have to usurp this way of thinking about things and I dont see how SI can do that now-it is totally plugged in to this way of seeing the world in this manner.
   This is perhaps why many have left to more traditional Buddhist teachers and why like myself I am exploring more western thought on the processes of meditation and Buddhism itself which I find a fascinating exploration at the present time.
   Of course too the original way the shambhala teachings were taught applied to the rest of humanity too and this has now gone and I dont think you are in this present time going to reach people on a large scale by asking them to become Buddhists to access meditation.
   Yes the world has moved on and SI begins to resemble more and more the Church systems now in place – and this simply wont do in our present age….its an old-fashioned way of looking at society….much stuck in the past….we are in revolutionary times now…we have to touch base with science, psychology, philosophy, art, politics as it is done now – these disciplines and others maybe only now the way Buddhism/meditation can survive in our present cultures….yes we are turning on the cusp of the dharma now as to it remaining a present force in society itself worldwide.

   Well best from the UK,
   Rita Ashworth
4. Ash on March 13th, 2013 1:01 pm
   

   There seems to be an accepted inference that if there is a cult going on, then ‘Shambhala’ is doing it to various ‘victims’, whereas if you deconstruct ‘Shambhala’ of course what you really have is a large number of individuals interacting with each other, aka, in CTR’s lively lingo: ‘a mutual conspiracy’, which is another definition of both samsara and enlightened society (!).

   Dictionary. com has this regarding the origin of the world cult: ‘1610–20; < Latin cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equivalent to cul-, variant stem of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action.' Interesting how habitation (dwelling), tilling (digging into the earth) and worship share the same etymological root.

   The word 'Sakyong' is protector of Sa which is usually translated as 'earth' but it also is the same, I believe, as the Sanskrit 'Bhumi' as in Bhumipalibhavana, aka Sakyong in Tibetan. Now, they are not the 10 Earths, and here Sa is translated often as 'level'. I think of it as a 'Reality', as in there are various levels, or spheres of perceived reality. And perhaps this is what we are really dealing with when dealing with Society. Different societies have different realities. For example we can compare the Viennese aristocratic salon culture of the 1780's – shortly before Europe started to destroy itself and geniuses like Mozart and Beethoven devoured Bach manuscripts in order to better understand the nature of Reality, since to them music was a language of profound depth and subtlety, not merely something to enhance mood or an aphrodisiac as it is today – to, say, the culture of slaveships at the same time cramming terrified slaves into the holds of leaking wooden vessels over to the White Man's New World. Or today's Facebook culture. These are all different Realities, or Sa's, or Cultures – or mandalas for that matter although that term has fun in many different playgrounds. (As, I am suggesting, does the word ‘sa’). For anyone living with an animal friend, when we spend time together much of what is going on is basically comparing two very different body-mind realities, or Sa’s, or cultures.

   A cult is, I think, a Society of more than one person, usually unified around some sort of belief, usually of a religious nature but not necessarily so.

   There are enlightened cults and samsaric one, rising and setting sun cults. So although usually it is used in a negative sense, nowadays, I think this is a mistake because it makes it hard to go deeper into what problems there may be in any given cult under examination. ( I loved Bubba Free John’s expression: ‘cult of the couple’. It makes instant sense. )

   Vajrayana is a cult par excellence. It is a particular society, or culture, wherein the stated goal is to undermine the usual Reality perceived and perpetuated by no ends of types of ego, nearly all of which come out of and contribute to conventional society, aka 'conventional views of reality.

   In any case, a cult creates a type of reality, or Sa, and our vajrayana one is there to help an (ideally) intelligent person break through various chains of ignorance and delusion which are hard to perceive without being confronted by the guru/master. How else can the stories of Naropa jumping to his death merely at the verbal command of Tilopa make any sense? Clearly this is a cult and to deny it is a waste of time and intelligence.

   But is it a good cult or not? That is the question. Not whether or not it is a cult. And further, what is particularly good or particularly bad/not good? And ultimately answering this is as personal as each individual’s path, because one person’s bad cult can be another person’s good cult because ultimately we each get out of a society/mandala/cult what we are putting in, both ego projection and enlightened view. There is no central Being or One-Mind that is imposing itself on another. That is the myth of Ego right there!

   Perhaps Mr. Conte is relating some very good feedbacks, but perhaps also he got to a point where he realised he didn’t want to go further and at the same time, he, like many of us, found himself being booted out on his arse, which is a direct manifestation of rock meeting bone on the ‘Culture/Earth’ of Reality!

   Which is, after all, a jolly good thing!
5. Ash on March 13th, 2013 1:28 pm
   

   On reviewing:

   Well, the case of Vajrayana is relatively simple. We are, though, supposedly discussing the Shambhala community, which is not only Vajrayana and indeed is supposedly ‘secular’ (whatever that means).

   Now: should an ideal Shambhala Society be a good cult or not? If not, what unifies it. I have always felt that DDM gave a seminal talk on this at the ’81 Kalapa Assembly where he clearly posited the role of Sakyong as the key, core binding factor of the entire social structure. I find it hard not to regard this too, therefore, as a cult par excellence.

   And all such things only work when you give your body, mind and soul entirely to them. This is true in no end of human endeavours – farming, wifing, husbanding, parenting, businessing, revolutioning, warring, peacing and so on, not to mention Mozarting or Beethoving. Complete dedication, or discipline, or devotion to that path is required.

   That being the case, I don’t think there is any way for any authentic path of any sort to be anything less than somewhat extreme.

   That, to me, is the essence of vajrayana. It is not essentially different from hinayana, but rather it begins with the premise that there is no fundamental safe harbour in the storm of Reality, so I think the tantric notion of nirvana, or peace, is more akin to death in battle than punting down the River Oxon in May, when the worst that can happen is that, whilst you flirt and wave to the pretty maiden on the shore, you forget to pull the pole out properly and end up dangling without punt, slowly sinking, whilst aforesaid maiden turns to her companions in a fit of grateful giggling!

   More seriously, though, if the binding factor of Shambhala Society is the Monarch, or rather devotion/loyalty to the Monarch, then it is structurally almost, if not actually, identical to a Vajrayana mandala, which is similarly built, by definition, on the edifice of a guru-disciple razor blade shuffle. The description might be different, and maybe some of the moves and costumes, but other than that, it is pretty much the same.

   That being the case, I fail to see how it can honestly be described as ‘secular’. There, I think, is where things get wobbly. The description given in Level I does not honestly prepare a student for raising and lowering of flags by Kasungs 24 months later at a flag-raising ceremony at Warrior’s Assembly. And if that is ‘secular’, then what meaning does that word have?

   (This whole cult issue is a deep topic which goes way beyond the current Shambhala community dynamic.)

   But this is also why I think Shambhala is a little bit suspect. Can the Sakyong get away with joining the likes of lesbian activist councillors, not to mention quasi-terrorist ex-federales in Chicago, and still be presenting anything fundamentally radical, radically substantive, fundamentally revolutionary, aka on some level: extreme? (Well, since it could be argued that his companions in that event are extreme vs mainstream, let us hope that he is no less so than they!)

   I wish him the best. But one of the main things about a cult is that, as with any mandala, you have a fairly well defined fringe which protects/defines the centre, the core, the essential character or Reality, or Culture, or Cult. Which means you cannot include everyone all the time doing anything they want. That is a Times Square approach, and even there we have rules.

   So Shambhala too is a cult. Let us hope, for the sake of those still working hard to perpetuate it, that it is a good one!
6. John Tischer on March 13th, 2013 2:47 pm
   

   “So Shambhala too is a cult. Let us hope, for the sake of those still working hard to perpetuate it, that it is a good one!”

   Well, if you’re going to say this, nothing you said before matters to me.
7. damchö on March 13th, 2013 3:14 pm
   

   Hi Ash,

   If I understand you rightly, you are partly advocating for the terms “good cult”/”bad cult” to replace “cult”/”healthy spiritual community.” I understand your point, but am not sure I can agree. Words not only have root meanings in the past; they have current usages. (This is an issue not dissimilar to the idea of “original intent” à la Scalia.) The word “cult” today, like it or not, is used almost entirely to mean negative things. And in part this comes out of a broader understanding of collective manipulation and mania which the 20th century has given us in innumerably terrifying forms. So: no bad thing.

   Now, does this mean we lose the ability to speak of “the cult of the couple” and so on? I don’t see how – especially not if something negative is being meant by that, as I assume it is. (I agree, by the way: a fine phrase.) It only becomes relevant when – as you discuss – we are trying to delineate certain characteristics (eg of vajrayana) in a positive or even just value-neutral way.

   And yes, communities of vajrayana practitioners can certainly be seen to encompass several of Marcus Conte’s listed features, but still: trying to reclaim the word “cult” for positive use doesn’t seem necessary to me – or more to the point, possible. Apart from anything else, the word has now acquired even a legal connotation: being deemed a cult or not can mean the difference between being allowed to exist or not.
8. damchö on March 13th, 2013 3:21 pm
   

   One other point you make that I’d like to contribute to is this: “one person’s bad cult can be another person’s good cult because ultimately we each get out of a society/mandala/cult what we are putting in, both ego projection and enlightened view. There is no central Being or One-Mind that is imposing itself on another. That is the myth of Ego right there!”

   Well, unless I’m misunderstanding you, I think something crucial is being left out here. And this is the fact that communities can generate harm, even an awful lot of it, when certain dynamics are allowed to take over. Leaving this out makes the above too close to nihilism for me: ie, it doesn’t much matter what kind of community we create because no one’s ultimately creating it.

   A few years back Khandro Rinpoche herself expressed the concern that senior teachers might be seriously harming others (I quoted it not long ago):

   “I can kill many, many times. Because you’re working with minds. You’re working with life. There is no actual cutting up of a person and the consciousness of the person leaving the body. But on the other hand, if you think about it from a Buddhist philosophical, teaching perspective of cause and effect, and the impact of words … you can actually, sort of, always mess with people’s lives. So easy to do. Such an immense responsibility…

   “The goodness of the person can be influenced by that, the weakness of the person can be influenced by that. Discouragement can come from that, encouragement can come from that. Positivity can come from that, negativity can come from that. Schism and aversions and sadness and suffering, and a person never being able to overcome all the negativities.

   “You can do that. You can influence that. You can influence a lot of goodness and we always hope that that is what is happening, but the impact of negativity that can occur is something that these days I’m beginning to really think [about], that really occurs to me more often.”
9. Ash on March 13th, 2013 3:53 pm
   

   Well said D.

   OK: first, I think my point about the word usage of cult is that we could do much better than simply slap a rather generic negative label on something and confuse that with having made any sort of penetrating, and therefore, illuminating point. In what particular is this cult aspect bad?

   That said, I still feel strongly that even if you don’t want to characterise the guru-disciple mandala as a cult par excellence (or an enlightened form of cult), given it’s flip-side of the negative cult quality, what do you call the enlightened version? I think it’s splitting hairs to come up with a different word because you still have to get into the particulars. Which are what is interesting anyway.

   Now you are also right about how groups, and leaders within groups, can cause significant harm. But for harm to occur this has to be experienced by an individual who for whatever reason cannot transmute any experience into ‘the path’, but rather transmutes it into further samsara. One can blame the leader, or other society members for this, but ultimately we are all responsible for our own experience, which is where Taking Refuge starts and the entire journey ends. So blaming the teacher or the group overmuch is, as I said before, bowing down to the god of a centralised controller, aka God or Big Brother. This is the perceptual structure of Ego right there (a permanent, centralised Self).

   (To be slightly abhidharmic/logical about it, there really is no such thing as a ‘sangha’ or ‘community’, which is really more of a concept than an entity. Yes, there is a discernible cultural mandala, but that has no ultimate form, shape or essence, it is purely mental/emotional, i.e. sambhogakaya level type thing, not an existens per se. So you can’t really blame a ‘Community’ for doing anything even though it makes sense. Picking up a ‘community’ of grains of sand lying on the beach we find always that those individual grains just flow away through our fingers and we have picked up nothing at all, really.)

   At least with authentic Buddhadharma – and Shambhala warriorship – essentially we are dealing with conscious, and hopefully also conscientious, adults. By definition adults are basically free and responsible. You cannot co-erce anyone into taking Refuge, though you can force them to repeat formulaic incantations. You cannot force them to take Bodhisattva Vows. Nor can you force them to request to enter a tantric relationship with a master/mistress, nor force them to request to become oath-holding Shambhalians. They are responsible adults entering into a commitment voluntarily, just like someone studying to become a great musician or whatever. It’s no different fundamentally. If the teacher is damaging many people, then those people are also responsible for allowing themselves to buy into whatever bullshit behaviour is harming them. Ultimately, the whole notion of a ‘victim’ in a cult is similar to that of unresponsible child in a dysfunctional family. If people function as children in an adult world, to a certain extent they/we deserve what we get.

   I don’t think Naropa would have whined to the government, or on a forum, or have tried to take Tilopa to Court for violating his personal dignity and threatening loss of life. He jumped over the cliff on the command of the Master. He chose to. That is why it is heroic. And also very ‘cultic’.
10. damchö on March 13th, 2013 5:29 pm
    

    Ash – yes, we all must take responsibility as best we can. But that statement, if left on its own, can end up rather vacuous and dysfunctional. Once again, I think it is partly a question of how we view the relationship of relative and absolute (see Khandro Rinpoche’s remarks on this too).

    You set up an atomized picture of community (“grains of sand flow[ing] away through our fingers”) – ie, nothing one can hold responsible. But the trouble is that there *is* something there! There are leaders who are fully capable of *mis*leading. There are minions justifying good old-fashioned harm with the good old-fashioned excuse of “obedience” (devotion/loyalty/what have you). There is a collective intelligence and energy – in short, mind – contributing its own causes and conditions. Holding those in charge responsible for misdeeds need hardly require “bowing down to the god of a centralised controller.” It might also, of course, be a manifestation of wisdom.
11. damchö on March 13th, 2013 5:33 pm
    

    I also strongly disagree that the act of taking refuge or bodhisattva vows effectively has committed one to the same path as the tantrika. Although you haven’t said this precisely, I believe it is an unmistakeable conclusion of reading your posts. For instance, you use Naropa as your example, but of course this is substituting an exception for the rule. How many hinayanists or mahayanists (or for that matter vajrayanists) are close to Naropa in discipline and devotion? So why use *his* path of all those “84,000” to make your case? Furthermore, only a Tilopa can treat a Naropa that way, and I’m afraid – as best as I am able with my highly impure vision – I don’t see any Tilopas in Shambhala today.

    You say: “If the teacher is damaging many people, then those people are also responsible for allowing themselves to buy into whatever bullshit behaviour is harming them… If people function as children in an adult world, to a certain extent they/we deserve what we get.” Well, no. It’s not that simple, not at all. Such a view could be used to justify harm in virtually every arena.

    Now, I know that’s the last thing you would wish to do. We’re only disagreeing about causes and conditions here. So, to give merely one concrete example:

    Shambhala does not advertise itself as a vajrayana community, requiring all to be vajrayanists. It claims to represent a universal, indeed only vestigially “religious” path to personal and societal realization – while indeed, these days, *also* claiming to do so within buddhism, somehow…

    The net result is a bait and switch, in which people are seduced into their first Shambhala level with all their favorite Dalai Lama images and words (eg, “my religion is kindness”) in mind, combined with the assurance that the path they are embarking upon is a secular one, requiring no giving up of their birth religion or what have you.

    Then they are led, rather rapidly for most people, through a process that somehow culminates in theocracy, loyalty oaths, endless requests for money, and eventually – many will discover – “bullshit behaviour,” or worse. We need to look at the causes and conditions there quite carefully, and not simply deconstruct everything on the leadership/societal/institutional side while leaving “self” intact to pick up all the pieces.
12. Rita Ashworth on March 13th, 2013 5:50 pm
    

    Ash….you have descended …..just wondering what mountain you have been on!?!

    Cults…could be in US…people get pushy and overcrush….but I dont think the English would have the energy to be in a cult rather I think they would just want to be in the social scene and dance around things, particularly in London which is full of all that stuff…..zzzzzzzz……
    Shambhala…..zzzzzzzzz….so boring now….so overcrushing…its amazing how many of CTRs students are with other Buddhist lamas now….caught sight of Sam Bercholz at the Vajrayana Foundation….worth a visit….saw a vid of him there……well best from the UK rita
13. Ash on March 13th, 2013 6:51 pm
    

    I too disagree with V being an inevitable result of taking refuge which is why I wrote them out separately and why perhaps you concluded that inference.

    Now the reason I use Naropa etc. is because that relationship was the first one, the founding one, in the lineage under discussion. So it is not irrelevant. Furthermore, it is often used as a classic example of a guru-disciple relationship which itself – and this is the important point, not the narrative dramatic highlights involving cliff-jumping etc. – is the basis of the tantric path. Put another way: without that relationship there is no vajrayana. At least not in our lineage. And I believe any real tantric lineage. Read Asvaghosa’s beautiful homage to the guru written in about 100 AD I think (back of Mahamudra book by HHK published decades ago). That is why I refer to that relationship. And also because in the context of this cult discussion: if that foundational relationship is cultish – as I believe it is – then the entire V path is cultish. (Again, though, I don’t think that is necessarily bad, just that people shouldn’t have childish or over-simplistic notions of the subject matter….)

    So then: forget about V, what about Shambhala which is supposedly something else, something not religious and therefore presumably not cultish? This is where I think things have become very tricky. Two points: first again I VERY much agree with you about the disconnect between the so-called public, open, secular path described in earlier levels with what it soons morphs into, namely a closed, secret society. Indeed, this is the single main reason I have not been an active member for almost 15 years now. I just disagree with that model. I cannot represent it or participate. I don’t want my children involved in it. It doesn’t seem right. And even if it is right, it isn’t being done right. It stinks!

    Second, as I mentioned, it is my impression that DDM defined the essence of Shambhala society in 1981 as being built on the essentially devotional relationship between Sakyong and subjects. Now, you might not agree with this characterization, but from my pov, this means that fundamentally Shambhala Society is a tantric one, or if not, then the level of devotion and commitment – albeit let us say of a warrior-culture similar to that of being a member of Genghis Khan’s Society for example, or being a loyal Brit circa 1943 etc. – that commitment and surrender of self to the cause is so close to being cultish as to demand a very detailed, or as I put it, ‘particular’ type of analysis in order to get into what is going on, to parse from otherwise rather generic, and thus overly vague terms like ‘cult’, some more specific detail as to what is right and what is wrong therein.

    And again, we basically differ on our view of community here. I don’t buy the Big Brother model as being appropriate either for Refugees, or for Shambhalians. But we have it seemingly.

    I don’t, for example, regard the Guru role as being that of Big Brother. The student still is responsible for his marriage, paying his bills, serving out prison sentences, paying taxes, serving as a conscript. The guru has no control or role of control in all that stuff, and no self-respecting student would expect that of a guru anyway. That is a misunderstanding of the adult, and rather specialised, commitment they have made. Nor is that a good understanding of Sakyong either, who should not micro-manage the creativity of the population, nor even much of its self-organisation at the local and regional level, nor even its culture, its rituals – let alone micro-managing an individual’s life journey.

    So, if you would like me to agree that there is far too much cultism involved in the current manifestation, then I agree, however all I am really suggesting is that the issue is more subtle than is usually considered or discussed because the fundamental models of the Vajrayana community (which is relevant to this community) and Shambhala are cults, though I think of that as a neutral, even ideally positive, term and you don’t. In which case I would have to use another word, but I don’t have one. In any case, the way it is now is definitely far too cultish in the negative sense for my cup of tea, which is why I have had to leave.

    PS I also think that if Shambhala is a cult (in positive sense) then calling it ‘secular’ is meangless. I would love to argue this out with DDM but…
14. Ash on March 13th, 2013 7:08 pm
    

    Rita, not in the mountains, down on the ground. Indeed, am looking into digging down to make ‘underground greenhouses’, and earth-bermed houses, and also might soon be helping someone put together an ‘estate’ here with working organic farm, guest facilities, small businesses, all off-grid etc. But that could all be talk. Meanwhile, will be digging down at home to learn how to make underground greenhouse mainly because I want to grow my own vegetables (finally) but also because I find the science behind using below-surface ground as thermal mass fascinating. So no mountain, just regular brick oven baking and very humble lifestyle – though the property in question is next to a Juniper Mountain, come to think of it, so maybe you are right, there is a mountain in the picture!
15. damchö on March 13th, 2013 10:06 pm
    

    Ah … I feel I get it much better now (sound of coin thunking into brain slot). Thanks for the further clarification.

    Actually, I’ve always understood the notion of Shambhala society as fundamentally tantric, but in the looser sense of that term – as arising out of tantric view. Institutions and culture founded upon and informed by nondual, one taste understanding. Thus also an inherent sacredness/ordinary magic permeates the way organizations are run, education realized, art experienced, and so on. I just always understood – no doubt imperfectly – that VCTR really intended such a possibility outside of religious affiliation as it is commonly understood. And your description of the “essentially devotional relationship between Sakyong and subjects” forming the “essence” of said society does indeed feel like religion to me. But as you say, simply a divergence in perspective, aired before.

    But yes, I do see your point now: in the terms within which you view Shambhala society, I could understand how the term “cult” might be applied, and not – again from that standpoint – negatively.

    Always very good to discuss words and what we mean when we use them. Especially as an antidote to the usual practices of our culture, which has been running in the opposite direction for a long time now of course… But that is another tale!

    Cheers – d
16. Rita Ashworth on March 14th, 2013 2:48 am
    

    Dear Damcho, Ash et al,

    Perhaps we should have a government health warning re Shambhala now –it maybe a good/bad cult(?!) but its certainly a Buddhist Elect and ‘Special Being’ system and will cost you at todays prices about $20,000 -$30,000 buckeroos depending on your income grade….that might suffice to cover the whole thing!? Worth a shot then we would all know where we are with the Org outsiders and insiders……zzzzzzzzz……
    Re the Conte episode as it were –not sure if NY can chuck him out on their own –if they did do that- yes even under President Reoch’s admin things would have to go through due process right up to his door….so one awaits more on what actually happened. If I was the President I would get on to it now, but it would involve debating with Mr Conte which might be a good thing and quite a farce piece and I do like farce-Ash do you remember Brian Rix?
    Re shambhala from the Ash angle – all I would say is matter of his own opinion as to what the Vid actually said – we have of course Mark Szaps. take of Open Dojo on the whole thing too so yous take your choice now I believe.
    Meanwhile of course the ranks of former CTR students fill the shrinerooms of Ponlops, Khandros, Dzongsars, and Karmapas organisations….yes there has been some flight from SI.
    I also too have gone not yet to a Buddhist lama because am a bit more wary of that whole scene now and of course too after all the debacles of CTR land…..ah so….. so still in exploration mode. I am guessing somewhat in the end that things are going more the Mark Szap. way simply because of what I am experiencing re people and situations now. Indeed Batchelor and the whole phenomenon of him seems to point this way, as does the mindfulness movement. In addition there is now growing up a Secular Buddhist Movement which is an online presence at the moment but which seems to be gathering interest and eventually might form itself into some kind of physical organisation that can present the dharma to westerners without the brocade tripperoos.
    Yes one does look with fascination at what is happening worldwide re dharma-I wonder where it is all going to end up now as a spent force in the west or meandering into something completely different a la Python.
    Yes Ash so u are going underground-not sure about all that…. I am going overground -Buddhists are spilling out of my ears now….its interesting doing this convention….yes no-one knows the secrets of the black magic box.

    Well best from the UK

    Rita Ashworth
17. Mark Szpakowski on March 19th, 2013 6:35 pm
    

    So sorry, this door is closed – end of thread.

    Apologies to those of you who find your comments missing, I had to remove the last few days of comments.