Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 1

29 Responses to “Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 1”

1. Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 2 : Radio Free Shambhala on October 25th, 2008 4:43 pm
   [...] This is a continuation of Navigating the Labyrinth, Part 1. [...]
2. Tsondru Namkha on October 25th, 2008 5:29 pm
   

   This is awesome work, sister! What mind-boggling detail. You have uncovered a rabbit warren that seems built to confuse invaders!
3. Christine Chandler on October 26th, 2008 3:28 pm
   

   I had been reading a book review of “The Irony of American History” by Reinhold Nieburhr , pre-eminent protestant theologian, political theorist and social reformist and so much of his thinking rings true regarding his view on nations and groups, religious or otherwise, and how this relates to the compassionate expression of individuals that I thought it would be helpful to quote it here.

   I have taken the liberty to substitute “religious group” for “nation” because it may even more apply to the former, particularly shedding light on the situation Shambhala International finds itself in today:

   “Patriotism transmutes individual unselfishness into national ( or group) egoism. (In this case Shambhala nation). Loyalty to the nation (”or religious group”) is a high form of altruism when compared with lesser loyalties and more parochial interests. It therefore becomes the vehicle of all the altruistic impulses and expresses itself, on occasion, with such fervour that the critical attitude of the individual toward the nation (” religious group” ) and its enterprises is almost completely destroyed. The unqualified character of this devotion is the very basis of nation (or the “religious group’s” power) and of the freedom to use this power without moral restraint. Thus the unselfishness of individuals makes for the selfishness of the nation ( or group).” Rienhold Niebuhr

   According to this view then the “generous instincts” of self-sacrifice, whether of time, and labour, or of money, from the individual toward a collective object is a “psychological jump” that contributes a new and unnecessary evil. It is the seduction and lure of gregariousness, of belonging, the social self’s ego as it were, that believes in a team victory (i.e. ” Shambhala bringing peace to the world”) rather than what an individual person can achieve through love and individual compassion itself, compassion which arises spontaneously to meet each situation. Anything else is based on nothing but a collective fantasy.

   It is also adolescent to still believe in this fantasy, based on this social self’s “need to belong” and allows oneself to continue to avoid the lonely path that the dharmic journey must become if any liberation is to occur in this lifetime.

   To follow a group that still believes in this adolescent fantasy is even more delusional.

   I seem to remember that the Shambhala vision was based on a critical mass of individuals realizing individual, self-liberation and thus “creating” Shambhala world or “pure vision” spontaneously, without effort, which then radiates “out”. It surely does not happen, as the current scene reflects, out of a theistic fervour that is out to proselytise and “save the world.”

   The world doesn’t need saving, you can’t fix “samsara” by believing in a separate world “out there” to fix. One practices on the path by turning inward and discovering that outside and inside are no different . Pure appearance starts from within until the phenomenal world and its expressions transmutes naturally into “enlightened’ world. There is nothing to do, in fact thinking there is anything to do merely further obstructs Shambhala vision from arising and one is engaged only in the confused reflections of the primordial mirror not the mirror itself.

   The current interpretation of Shambhala is so far from what CTR meant and the current leadership so off point that it would be a comedy if it weren’t so sad.

   In itself, it may be making samsara a little better for its subjects,and very comfortable for its monarch, but it is not about liberation.
4. Nyima Wimberly on October 27th, 2008 12:35 pm
   

   I’m surprised by the thinly veiled attack propaganda this, and almost everything on this site, amounts to. How sad. Now, you don’t study the teachings, and instead fill your mind with paranoid garbage like this? I especially love Suzanne Townsend (using another name here) and other cronies that appear to cheer on the attack. It’s like an online Sarah Palin rally!

   As far as Suzanne’s comments:
   “This is awesome work, sister! What mind-boggling detail. You have uncovered a rabbit warren that seems built to confuse invaders!”

   Point 1: “Mind boggling detail.” Really? Interviews and recaps of the information that is publicly available either online or from Shambhala and the various other organization being attacked?
   Point 2: “You have uncovered a rabbit warren that seems built to confuse invaders!” Really? The obvious conclusion is that Shambhala International, the Kalapa Group and Kalapa are financial entities designed specifically to hide, reroute and generally plunder money from the sangha? Yeah. That’s the most likely possibility, isn’t it?

   I still find it hard to believe that there is this hateful contingent of sad, bitter students who are so driven to twist anything Shambhala into an evil act. Can you see yourselves becoming zealots? Mark, Suzanne, Edward, Bill and so on: Can you engage your loss of heart in a constructive way?
5. Andrew Speraw on October 27th, 2008 12:43 pm
   

   Why does it have to be either the Sakyong is “up to no good” or people who question are “up to no good”? Why do we undervalue the process of debate? Is there really something to be afraid of or something that we need to protect against? Is it really necessary to bring things to that painful point?

   In an enlightened society there is a place for both questioning and devotion. We need to learn how to open our hearts to those who both agree and disagree with our views. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche did not promote blind faith and I think you need to respect the process of questioning that some people are going through. They may or may not become students of the Sakyong and that is OK. Trying to silence those who hold different views will only result in further division.

   There is nothing to gain through warfare, yet there is much to realize through uplifted debate.

   Yours in the dharma,
6. anne ashworth on October 27th, 2008 1:06 pm
   

   Congrats on the article – it is very detailed. I printed one off to read it more closely. This is the first time I have heard of the Path of the Patron and the Compassionate Businessman and I check the SI website quite regularly. Are you(Barbara) planning to submit this article and its findings to RIchard Reoch for an explanation as to future transparency in financial matters? I think it would be useful if you did.
   Really I think your comments expand into the institutional way that Shambhala is governed – the Vidyadhara wanted a National Assembly not a Shambhala Congress -where people could vote for their own representatives (see his comments on his will on the Chronicle Project website). The Sakyong believes that the National Assembly and the Shambhala Congress are one and the same thing but I think there needs to be more discussion on this. Ken Green also gave a talk on the CP website regarding the governing of Vajradhatu in the early days which is useful to listen to – I think I would like to hear someone of his standing commenting on the recent institutional changes in SI.
   Recently I got an email from John Perks, the former personal attendant of the Vidyadhara, where I asked his opinions on the present changes in SI – one interesting point he made was that Vidyadhara would often refuse donations from people. -perhaps he thought he would be co-opted by these donationees with their own agendas fof getting involved in the sangha. Perks also commented on the phrase that Vidyadhara used to show what business we were in – he called it the ‘people business’ -surely the welfare of people is the priority for this sangha at the present time.
   Lastly if I got one of these offers to attend these path of patrons events I would tear it up but I probably wont get one because I am not rich (HO-HUM!) But really I would advise people not to attend until the financial arrangements in Shambhala are more transparent. Also I am not sure if we need such patron figures -the Vidyadhara wanted the organisation to grow organically – not with huge bursts of income that solve your monetary problems in a flash. To tell you the truth when I saw that Gregg Campbell had given such as large donation on the SI website I thought there would be trouble ahead regarding financial matters………did someone ‘court’ him to give the money or was it an act of pure generosity – could be wheels within wheels -one just doesn’t know.

   Hope to hear more peoples opinions on the labyrinth.

   Best

   Rita Ashworth
7. Tsondru Namkha on October 27th, 2008 1:07 pm
   

   Hi Nyima,
   Yes, my refuge name is Tsondru Namkha. I thought it was appropriate to use on this site.
   As a tech writer I have a glimmer of how many hours Barbara must have worked to get as far as she did. But you tell me, do YOU understand that Rubic’s Cube of a flow diagram? If so please tell us why it is so complex and intertwined? Is it negative to ask these questions? Is it so bad to be negative in any case? Is this a rabbit warren or not? If not, why not? Please, Nyima, tell us. And by the way what is your “real” name? David Wimberley? or John, his son? or Nyima…? Don’t worry, I still like you enough to pick you up hitch-hiking.
8. Jim on October 27th, 2008 1:53 pm
   

   As a relatively new Shambhala student with no particular loyalty to the Sakyong yet, I must say that these types of exchanges make me want to run away as fast as I can from the Shambhala mandala.

   It has never been suggestions of wrongdoing or criticism of Shambhala or the Sakyong that turns me off so completely, for all paths, traditions, and organizations are always surrounded by accusations, rumors, and even slander- be they true or not.

   What repels me, however, is that whenever *anything* that even remotely looks like dissent comes up, there seems to be a gang of “loyal” and “Good Shambhalians” who come out of the woodwork to emotionally and *zealously* defend Shambhala and the Sakyong.

   From the outside it reminds me more of a cult than even an organized religion, for many organized religions are accountable to their membership and to the public. Granted, many religions are steeped in secrecy and stress blindly following the leadership at threat of excommunication, but is that what Shambhala should be, is that what the venerable CTR would have wanted?

   It seems that “Enlightened Society” can only be built just as any free and democratic society must be built. We must expect the same things from Shambhala as we expect from the governments of the countries we live in. One must only look at the fear and insanity present in the United States to see where a lack of accountability and a lack of tackling the real problems gets us. These internal Shambhala arguments and what they bring out in sangha members reminds me of when protesters are equated with terrorists, the “if you’re not with us your for the terrorists” mentality. It seems as if there are those would shut down any and all questioning within Shambhala. There seems to be much taboo and unspoken skeletons in the closets.

   It makes me wonder why the Sakyong remains silent about all the internal strife. Why doesn’t he come out and weigh in on everything. Has he? Or is so concerned with his business interests that he won’t acknowledge the real internal problems publicly for fear of hurting said business. In the few years I’ve been around, I must honestly say it seems as if he has some blind spots.

   To be fair though, the article does seem to insinuate wrongdoing, but when people remain silent and don’t address concerns, the concerns and only become more grave- why not make an effort to address them? Shambhala and the Sakyong are not like private citizens, and they do not deserve the same level of privacy. They need to explain themselves in order to clear up any confusion and dissent.

   If the Sakyong needs a band of overzealous fanatics to defend him and is too out of touch to address these things himself, I question him. I only wish he would answer.

   Please comment and direct me to such interviews and writings that apply, and I apologize in advance for my ignorance. But as a new Sangha member I believe that it is alright for me to express these things, and if not then I want no more part of it.
9. Travis May on October 27th, 2008 1:55 pm
   

   I agree with your interpretation Nyima. I thought the tone of the entire piece was extremely odd. It seemed to have this underlying insinuation that the Sakyong’s motives are unclear, and that he may be up to no good, i.e., some selfish power trip to control all of the money. As Buddhists, we embrace skepticism, but I feel this piece is not much more than an unwarranted personal attack on the Sakyong. We should hold the mandala accountable to their professed intentions of transparency, and we will.

   And Christine, the Shambhala vision was never about reaching a critical mass of individuals reaching self-liberation. That would obviously take billions of years at our current rate, in the West, especially. Enlightened society is something that we can have right now; it is based on people working with each other from the basis of the principles of basic goodness/Buddha nature, loving-kindness, etc., and the more cogent world-view of separating ourselves from the un-reality of the samsaric ego and all of its trappings. The spreading of the Shambhala vision is simply making people aware that this is possible, and this is who we really and already are. Your hinayana view of turning inward and working on your own liberation for the benefit of society is fine, but while the world crumbles around us, and our very existence is threatened, as Shambhalians we are turning outward, to relate with and to be engaged fully with the world, AS our path, as was the vision of the great Vidyadhara.
10. Tsondru Namkha on October 27th, 2008 2:06 pm
    

    The negativity and the overzealous response are one of the obstacles facing our attempts at communication for sure. However it is understandable because the suspicion and negativity threatens the family feeling, and some even say those of us who say negative things are breaking samaya. The differences between loyalty and devotion become confused and confusing and seemingly especially threatening to devoted students of the Sakyong. It seems to me that this is another ill effect of combining church and state (Buddhism and Shambhala). I just wish we were not so afraid of arguments. Maybe we could have regulated debates to bring these issues to the table without so much emotional investment.
11. Chris Chandler on October 27th, 2008 3:45 pm
    

    Dear Travis May:

    Actually the view I expressed was the Dzogchen view, which I believe The Shambhala vision of the vidyadhara always was. It was the highest view. Basic Goodness was simply Dzogpa Chenpo or the Great Perfection, meaning we are already primordially good and if we can relax into this basic space of awareness, and realize the emptiness, clarity and spontaneous compassion of this intrinsic awareness, where nothing need be done, and there is nothing to fix or modify, then our vision would manifest as pure. Because of our interconnectedness as beings of light, the world be seen as “enlightened. That is what I believe he meant by “enlightened society”. When as critical number of people , who are really practicing this view stabilize their realization, then there is an opportunity for a “leap” into a society of enlightened beings who will naturally manifest the compassion that is always there, and need not be cultivated, out of this place of great perfection that is our birthright.

    All of the terminology of Shambhala Level I, was basically Dzogchen. The Vidyadhara simply tried to put it in a language that we , as Westerners could relate to.

    As long as we are focused on something “out there to fix” we remain further and further away from relaxing into our basic goodness, and we will continue to struggle and be distracted by the reflections of the mirror. We will be further and further from enlighteded view and simply be forever caught up in the wheel of samsara as we have been doing for lifetime after lifetime.
12. Chris Chandler on October 27th, 2008 4:00 pm
    

    Further, as one of the aspects of the nature of mind, clarity, it does not mean we are stupid, and it does not mean that we put our heads in the stand, or don’t speak out. That might be the most compassionate thing to do. . The current scene to me, is far more hinayana. Even tonglen, as it is practiced, seems to me more about practicing tonglen, so “I” will feel better. In other words, the whole thrust is ‘ If you want to be happy, think of others”, The emphasis is still on “me” being happy, so I think of others. That is a distortion of the real meaning of tonglen. And can lead to people ignoring what needs to be done in the present moment as situations appear and need compassionate action that arises spontaneously to meet the situation.

    One of the missing pieces that never made it to the West when Buddhism was transported here, was the whole practice of vigorous debate as practiced in the Shedras. More and more I find this missing part of the Buddhist path a real obstacle. If you have ever witnessed one of these debates, they are animated, passionate and even wrathful. We have no vehicle for this in the West. The internet is a very sorry substitute and probably a comple waste of time because 95 % of communication in nonverbal and so misunderstandings always arise.
13. Michael Sullivan on October 27th, 2008 4:08 pm
    

    Seems like a one-to-one correspondence between kadag and Basic Goodness. For a long time I have felt that the Shambhala teachings were some sort of stealth dzogchen hybrid with Bonpo influences especially in the symbology.
14. Toby on October 27th, 2008 4:36 pm
    

    Ninety-nine percent of the time when someone says they have a problem with how something is working, I invite them to join the process of making it work well. If you like to investigate the rabbit warrens of modern finance, I imagine that these days there are a lot of venues, not just in Shambhala, where people could use some help. Please do! There are very few people doing this.

    Also,

    I am not particularly sure that the substitution of “religious group” for “nation” is appropriate with Niebuhr’s text… It seems it might undermine the basis of it, a critique of modern society which has few spiritual values. There are plenty of Niebuhr texts where he describes the difficulties of managing a religious group. Use those!

    I am not particularly sure that the teachings of Shambhala Level One are just plain old Dzogchen… But I am not particularly sure that anyone, really, can make a sentence with Dzogchen and actually safely say that one knows what Dzogchen is. It sounds easy in the book, or after the talk, but…Golden Fish, Cut the Cat!

    Particularly the idea that individual liberation is the basis of Shambhala vision is wrong, just plain wrong. Either dig out your Seminary Transcripts and review, or, if you haven’t got them, get them, because having opinions about the view of VCTR without them if inappropriate. Boring.

    But, fire away! I think it’s fine to have these chats!
15. Toby on October 27th, 2008 4:56 pm
    

    On second thought, best thought! I should say “soso tharpa” or individual liberation could be thought of as the *basis* in the “Don’t forget the Hinayana” kind of way. But that would be basis with a linear progression. Which would result in notions like certain teachings being ‘highest” and such charades.
16. Travis May on October 27th, 2008 6:45 pm
    

    Christine,

    I definitely agree about the correlations between Shambhala and Dzogchen, although I don’t think the way you expressed it originally sounded much like Dzogchen. For one thing, again, Dzogchen, which is vajrayana and therefore Mahayana, doesn’t have self liberation as a goal. Well, I think I already summed up what I think enlightened society means in my last post.

    One big problem I see in the West, having started with a Dzogchen group before coming to Shambhala, was that without a foundation in Hinayana and Mahayana, starting at the top with Dzogchen, is not really going to accomplish much. No one did that in Tibet; there was always the foundation of the Hinayana and Mahayana first. That’s one of the best things about our path, I think, is how you have to undergo much training before you can even become a vajrayana student. If we could ‘relax into this basic space of awareness’, etc., and stay there, yes, we’d be all set. But, we can’t! That’s why we have so much emphasis, from CTR, on meditation, study, conduct, starting from the ground-up at the same time as practicing with the attitude that we’re already at the top. To me that’s the real union of Nyingma and Kagyu (where they won’t even let you in the door until you do your 100000 prostrations).

    On the relative level there is something in the relative out there that needs to be fixed: the confused mind that causes the suffering of every person and the sorry state of the world. If the Buddha, and CTR, and every other great teacher didn’t think there was anything that needed to be fixed, then why bother to teach and try to help others? The fact that there is no difference or real distinction between “in here” and “out there” is precisely why emptiness is inextricably linked with compassion, and precisely why the Shambhala terma was revealed, through CTR, at this time in history. It’s also precisely why tonglen is such a powerful practice. Not because it greedily makes “me” feel better, but because by putting others first, the reference point of “I” lessens, and you are then closer to your true nature. “You” are happier in direct relation to how little of “you” is there to be happy. Hence the joke, the thing about enlightenment is once you reach it, you’re not there anymore to enjoy it.
17. Michael Sullivan on October 27th, 2008 7:28 pm
    

    I’m guessing that when Christine referred to “self-liberation” upthread she was referring to the mode of practice in Dzogchen rather than liberation for oneself . hence the dash.
18. Chris Chandler on October 27th, 2008 7:31 pm
    

    Dzogchen is not vajrayana. It has been overlaid with vajrayana when it came through Tibet. I don’t know what Dzogchen group you were studying with, nor am I disputing that most of us need a foundation in the Vajrayana. But that is always the rub: people think Dzogchen is something far away and impossible. And so it is, when you continue to have that belief.

    You need the pointing out from a qualified Dzogchen master, say in the Tulku Urgyen lineage, and you need the diligence to practice undistracted non-meditation for many years before any real stabilization occurs. But if you don’t have a proclivity and you think you have to always be “doing something” or modifying something, than the vajrayana has many things to do. I know. I’ve done two ngondos. And I am very grateful for those practices when you really had to do 100,000 prostrations. Not just decide yourself when you had done enough.

    I went through all the Shambhala levels through to Kalapa assembly and in 1994, at my Kalapa assembly with pre-Mipham, Sakyong , he was very very clear about there being nothing to do to create Shambhala society. This was before the reinvention into a lama with robes, and the books, and the marketing to reach millions out there. And the accomodations of the teachings to make it easier and more accessible.

    Most importantly, you need a living Dzogchen master that you can actually meet with to talk about your practice, to discern between rigpa, and rigpa nyams. All of this is out here and available, in fact a large proportion of ex-Shambhalians have been and are studying now with Dzogchen teachers, or Dzogchen-Mahamudra teachers. So thats the sad secret that is really going on.

    CTR laughed and joked about all the panic mongering that was going on in the 1970’s about the same issues. I refer you to taped interview that was done at Bhumi Pali Bhavan by a Vermont public television host, who was asking him basically the same questions that people are upset about now (because samsara is always the same) i.e. danger to the environment , peace, financial issues (gas prices were then soaring too.) and how we should be doing something about it. He told him to basically RELAX in his sweet voice and that everything would be fine, not to worry. See if you can find it . It was titled the “Art of War.” I wish that we could show that little documentary at every Shambhala center. It was very very revealing about how far we have come from that point of view.

    Anyway, I am not going to convince you. I am just putting this out here because maybe somebody else might get curious about all this and start using their own discriminating wisdom about things and not just continue to accept the rules laid down around them.

    By the way, a kasung slogan, of CTR;s , “If you can maintain a sense of humor, and a distrust of the rules laid down around you, then success will surely follow”.

    Bravo Barbara, maybe you should post the Lid andFlowers” talk of CTR on this site, and about how he said we should be like “town criers” if there were things that appeared corrupt in our mandala.

    Chris.

    “Liberation comes from within. as long as we are pointing outward, maras will arise until the moment of enlightenment.”
    Dzogchen master
19. Toby on October 28th, 2008 12:14 am
    

    When Citi set up its $80 billion worth of SIVs, it thought that they would stay off its balance sheet. This summer, though, financial markets lost interest in financing CDOs so the holders of the liquidity-put CDOs began to return them to Citi — the $25 billion of them represent more than half of Citi’s $55 billion of subprime-related securities. The super-senior status — meaning that they got first claim on cash flows — of the put-laden CDOs did not protect their value because the ratings agencies decided to downgrade them, creating a panic to exercise the put and sell the CDOs back to Citi, thus locking in huge losses for the bank
20. Alan Anderson on October 28th, 2008 12:35 am
    

    Hello,
    It’s so obvious that behind the surface of reasoned investigation (by most major contributors on this site—not this article, specifically), there’s this 500 lb. gorilla in the radiofreeshambhala room saying, “The Sakyong is doing the wrong thing, and let me show you why I and my supporters are so right about this.” This attitude doesn’t engender trust and curiousity, because it naturally edits out many contrary details to support the bias.

    Everyone can support their own opinions, pro and con by quoting the Vidyadhara (or others), so why be hopeful and/or righteous because we read or hear something that supports our opinions?

    I am pleased to have been informed by Ms. Blouin’s article, but, in truth, its integrity suffers for expressing not even an iota of appreciation for what the Sakyong has done with SI—which is too bad, because along with the negative side that some people experience, there is so much beauty. And if one doesn’t see it, it’s just sad. So the question for me is, can I trust that this article is a product of awareness/insight, or is it just the sound of another axe grinding? I think there is quite a bit of both, here. Ms. Blouin opines, ‘The “Lineage of Sakyongs”? But there isn’t one.’ Ms. Blouin sounds quite definite on this point. But why is that? She could very well be terribly wrong about this, but she is clearly without hesitation in declaring that this is so.

    This, strangely, is at the core of so much divisiveness that occurs on this site. If you don’t agree that the “Lineage of Sakyongs” indeed exists to hold and nurture the Dorje Dradul’s precious terma, then you have no reason to rejoice in today’s situation in Shambhala–or allow it to mitigate your opinion, at all. And that’s a choice, not a conclusion.

    Despite my obvious pro-Sakyongs point of view, I’m glad your site exists for the questions it raises, but to tell you the truth, the attitude it’s expressing reminds me far too much of the literature I receive daily from the RNC that attempts to prove that Obama is a terrorist. Honestly.

    Grinding that axe can be awfully painful.

    Good luck to all of us.

    Alan Anderson
21. Kristine McCutcheon on October 28th, 2008 10:28 am
    

    To Jim,

    Thank you for your fresh mind and open observations. If you would like to read more on the current Sakyong’s ideas of the view of how to run and organization and a society please follow this link.

    http://www.shambhala.org/int/webdocs/SocietyOrganization.html

    I have found that rereading this letter to be very helpful in ways I haven’t been able to figure out yet.

    Reading this document encourages me to welcome the steps that individuals like Barbara and others take.
    That we are responsible to look into things and responsible to each other.
    It also encourages me to work with my own patience, lack of, compassion, lack of – and to watch my actions – are they divisive or helpful, always a hard line and one we will never ‘get right’.

    Sometimes I think of this document in relation to the shambhala code of conduct. (which is also not often talked about – and I don’t have a link to. Maybe someone on this site could – that would be a good article to read)

    Alan, thank you for the gorilla!
    Christine, thanks for a good hit of where you are, love.

    kristine m
22. Deryk Wenaus on October 28th, 2008 1:53 pm
    

    Thank you for writing the article. I appreciate the investigative work that went into it. The article highlights the confusing arrangement of the sakyong’s finances. Yes it is confusing, and I think it could be made more simple.

    However, I found that in the article, there was a subtle judgement. It seemed that the underlying belief of the author was that shambhala and the sakyong are not to be trusted, and here is why. It might be better to just stick to the facts and let others decide for themselves what is trust worthy and what is not.

    I have my own issues around the sakyong and the shambhala mandala, and while I recognize that partly they are my own issues, and partly they are valid issues that need to be addressed, I also see that if I want to address them I need to do so directly and with respect.

    It might be better to interview people with a fresh mind, and be open to being wrong. perhaps there are ulterior motives at play, but perhaps not.

    Keep going, keep digging, but please do so with maybe a little more respect and openness.
23. Andrew Speraw on October 28th, 2008 11:55 pm
    

    So now we’ve explored both agree and disagree. What about both agree and disagree or neither agree nor disagree?

    Or is there something even beyond those four possibilities?

    “Fox News. We report, you decide.”
24. Michael Sullivan on October 29th, 2008 12:25 pm
    

    My guess is that any underlying “judgement” is driven not by subtle or overt malice towards the organization or the Sakyong, but rather by concerns regarding the transmissions, terma and teaching legacy of CTR. If the finances end up a tangled mess, that certainly could impact things. Especially in an age where sadhanas can be viewed (and controlled) as intellectual property and relics (stupa… ) can be treated as assets.
25. Barbara Blouin on October 29th, 2008 4:20 pm
    

    Thank you, Michael Sullivan, You hit the nail on the head, or should I say: the dorje on the mind? Your comment goes, for me, to the heart of what this article is about. Although I have some small concerns about the new financial structures (the Foundation and Kalapa Group) they are small potatoes compared with my fears about Kalapa, which is still pretty mysterious because we don’t know enough. Where is “Kalapa” headed?And what will the impact be on the Druk Sakyong’s copyrights (which he gave to Lady Diana), the terma texts, and his teaching legacy altogether? Will these texts be kept intact? Will they be revised or “edited”? Will access to them be restricted to those who are loyal to the Sakyong? In that case, how will loyalty be determined? All of these questions are purely based on my own conjecture, but I think they are nonetheless worth asking.
26. Ginny Lipson on October 29th, 2008 7:31 pm
    

    Barbara,

    Omigod.

    Following all of this discussion, I never thought of that. You are so right! It is a very serious concern. It is one thing, to have Shambhala Buddhism be so different from what the older students experienced of the “old ways” of teaching and forms, etc as we were so auspiciously fortunate to have received from Trungpa Rinpoche. It is another thing to have to worry about anything that might endanger Trungpa Rinpoche’s actual written heritage.

    I really appreciate your diligent research and gathering of important information, the flow chart, and the need to understand how the finances are managed, etc. Re: Kalapa, perhaps this is a harmless and in fact benign or even helpful institution, but having experienced the major changes taken place so far, one is bound to want to be assured that certain things will be kept safe.

    I find this forum to be so very helpful to people like myself, and presumably, to others of various points of view, trying to understand what is happening, to discuss the issue, and to UNDERSTAND the issues.

    ( I personally have been struggling to formulate and adopt a large view… trying to work with both worlds: mainly 1) bemoaning and being concerned about preserving Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy, however that may be possible…it is so precious and profound. Also, interestingly, I am further provoked to intensify my practice and appreciation of Trungpa Rinpoche as my root guru. and to further understand his endlessly profound teachings.

    And 2) As to what is happening now, I am learning to see it as something to accept from the outside, at least… as there are so many really good people involved… people that I do love and trust, many older students who are finding this as a milieu where they can continue to teach Dharma and Shambhala teachings. (and who also seem to appreciate what the Sakyong is doing.) I also appreciate the devotion that I have seen in so many of the Sakyong’s students which seems so strong and beautiful. )

    So, Thank you Barbara, and all those who contribute to this forum!!!!!!

    ginny
27. Marguerite Stanciu on November 4th, 2008 11:10 am
    

    Dear Chris

    It is good to hear from you again. I think you have re-surfaced with even more brilliance.

    This is a painful subject. I lived in Nova Scotia for many years. I remember the subtle shifts. I remember when our beloved Sawang headed off to Asia in 1986. I remember when he took the mantle of leadership in 1990 through the ceremony at Karme Choling. I saw how utterly reluctant he was to take on the “job”. And I also saw, in Nova Scotia, in 1991, that he didn’t seem particularily interested in relating to the place. By 1994 he was being quiety addressed as Rinpoche by his servants. Where did that come from? By 1995, it was a done deal. All of a sudden he was Mipham. And he clearly was most interested in relating to his path.

    From there the schism began. Sometimes, I would like people to remember that here would be no Sakyong or Mandala without the Vidyadhara.

    I wish that the newer students would respect the elders of this church. But rather, we have gone down the insane road of spiritual materialism.
28. Chris Chandler on November 4th, 2008 5:33 pm
    

    Dear Marguerite:

    I am sure people do not remember now, and maybe it has been edited out but the real solid schism began with the 1999 seminary, When the Sakyong actually was teaching students , his new students, that “we, the older students “didn’t get it”, “didn’t help the Vidyadhara”, and basically was disrespectfulregarding the Vidyadhara students at that seminarY.

    I remember getting my copy of the transcripts of that seminary because the St. J. Vt. Center was holding a class on them, and the brand , new back from seminary Sakyong students were quite delighted about telling us old dogs THAT FACT. I remember watching the dominoes fall, when those of us, who had confidence in the view, and in ourselves, refused to buy that particular trip, and some other older students, like sheep, went right along with that disparagement. One old Kasung actually got up at that 99 seminary class, and said, “you know” he’s right and I didn’t get TGS” either. It was heart-sickening. I am sure others remember.

    It was so shocking I remember , to read those words in the transcripts, because my experience had always been respecting those older students who had gone before me, and looking up to them, .

    Right after this the changes started, and of course the “new students” were primed to see us as obsolete, what did we know? We didn’t get it, that Sakyong had told them so.. So any protestations about keeping the lineage and transmissions intact, keeping the practice mandala intact, etc. was met with ” you need to get with the new, bigger and better program.”

    It’s now all been rewritten over the years, about how we have been casting aspersions on the Sakyong, how stuck we are, how unappreciative, i.e. the revisionist history.

    I would like to add that there would be no Sakyong or Mandala without the Vidyadhara AND his students.

    Chris
29. Bob Chandler on March 9th, 2009 2:06 pm
    

    I am more than curious to know why another seeming “elephant in the room” is being ignored, Something that the Denver Post and the Boulder papers and other blogs and ezine sites thought was big news:

    This, from the Denver Post:

    A”gile Group, a Boulder wealth-management firm, has frozen client accounts since last fall and warned investors, including former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo and KOA talk-show host Mike Rosen, to expect heavy losses.

    The firm, managed more than $1 billion in mutual funds, hedge funds and private accounts.

    “What investors were told is that they are not apt to get any money back until 2010,” said Charles Brega, an attorney with Fairfield and Woods who is preparing to sue the firm.

    Brega’s clients, mostly elderly investors who had $3 million with the firm’s mutual funds, were told they could expect a recovery of 5 percent to 10 percent at most.

    Agile has failed to provide a detailed explanation about why the money was lost, Brega said. …Clients were told the firm had placed money with Bernard Madoff, accused of swindling investors out of $50 billion in the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, and Tom Petters, a Minneapolis businessman indicted on 20 counts of fraud that could cost investors up to $3.5 billion.

    “Another potential victim of Agile’s collapse is Shambhala International, which is listed as an under-5-percent owner in the Agile Group, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission”

    “90 percent of client funds gone”
    By Aldo Svaldi
    The Denver Post
    Posted: 02/03/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

    Now, besides thet obvious concern that this fund was promoting itself as safe, and diversified, but seems to have invested most of the clients” monies in not one, but two Ponzi schemes, and besides thet fact that association of this firm with Shambhala International and the Sakyong, (after all, the head of Agile Group was teaching on “Wealth and Livelihood” within the mandala), gave it a false imprimatur that all was well because it was “blessed” by Shambhala and Buddhist connections, what I don’t understand is how Shambhala International, who was seemingly so financially challenged since, at least 2003, and had mortgaged Marpa house and Karme Dzong not once ,but twice for the build-out at SMC, has millions to invest and lose in Agile Group.

    This must have been monies invested from donations, big and small. On its face, nothing wrong with this, i.e. investing the money to make it grow, but to invest millions, while not paying your debt-load that was growing and growing, I just don’t get it.

    I am still curious about who Shambhala International is. Is it a Corporation, with francise centers and trademark brand names throughout the country, ( a recent lawsuit was taken by Shambhala International regarding its trademark and may be still pending) primarly and separately now incorporate to protect and fund the Sakyong, family, household and staff, taking a portion of all the struggling centers meager profits from programs and letting the debt-load of Karme Choling and SMC increase and increase. ( See Bill Karelis report in Elephant Journal, August 2008,) Relying on big donors in the past to keep bailing out these centers, while probably millions over the years were invested and then lost in Agile Group?

    An under 5% owner of a billion dollar fund, having to register with the SEC, means it was a lot of money.

    Why is there not one word about this, when the Denver Post , the Boulder Camera, and even the Elephant Journal online, and other websites, thought it was very big news regarding Shambhala International?

    To me this is an ongoing and important chapter in the “Navigating the Labyrinth” which concerns the financial structure and doings of Shambhala International and entities.

    Much of this money lost was probably individual donations, big and small. And there should be a reckoning and an accounting and transparency. I always thought that the desperate appeals and fund-raising gambits over the years was to eliminate the debt-load. Not to be funnelled into a hedge fund to make Shambhala International rich.

    How much was lost?

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!